Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.34 GENERAL PLAN EIR IIIIIIII IIII III IIIII IIIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII III IIII 'NEW FILE' 02 13 Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1977 Agenda Item No . 15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan Background At the January 24 , 1977 City Council Study Session, the City Council asked that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be referred to the Planning Commission and Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Planning Commission received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February 10, 1977 study session . At its February 14 , 1977 meeting, the City Council received a memo from Councilman Ryckoff regarding the "Environmental Analysis" (copy attached) , which was previously trans- mitted to the Planning Commission. At the March 3, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the "Environmental Analysis" and the memo from Councilman Ryckoff and indicated that they would report to the City Council after reviewing the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee ' s comments . The Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February, 1977 meeting. The Committee ' s comments are attached. Discussion As previously indicated, the "Environmental Analysis" was prepared at the direction of the City Council to serve as a general assessment of the overall impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan. There is no legal requirement for formal certif tcation of the "Environmental Analysis" since each element of the Newport Beach General Plan, which was adopted after the "Friends of Mammoth Decision" , was accompanied by an individual E . I . R. which was certified when each element was adopted . In fact, since the General Plan has been officially adopted, formal certification of this report would be inappropriate as there is no accompanying project action at this time . However, the "Environmental Analysis" may be received and used by the City Council in any manner deemed appropriate . C. E .Q.C.A. C . ' s Comments In reviewing the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee identified the following five areas of environmental concern : 1 . Development phasing 2 . Impact of development in adjacent jurisdictions 3. Noise impact data problems 4 . Traffic and public transportation (seasonal impacts ) 5 . Water quality (potable versus recreational usage) . The committee concluded that the "Environmental Analysis" had not fully studied the above concerns and that it should be considered as a first preliminary identification and not as an accomplished analysis . The C . E.Q .C .A. C . recommended to the City Council that the Department of Community Development continue with a full in-depth analysis so that the "Environmental Analysis" might properly be used to successfully complete the General Plan ' s implementation . TO: Planning Commission - 2 , Councilman Ryckoff' s Memo Councilman Ryckoff, in his memo to the City Coucnil dated February 14, 1977, suggested that the "Environmental Analysis " be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the City Council . Councilman Ryckoff indicated that the "Environmental Analysis " is silent on the potential for change and amendment, and on the mitigating effects of change to a more-restrictive growth concept. Letter - S.P .O.N. The S .P .O.N . steering committee, in a letter to the Mayor and members of the City Council dated March 7, 1977 (attached) , comments on the "Environmental Analysis" along with additional concerns . The steering committee indicated that it was its opinion that the present course of development in Newport Beach is conflicting with the desires of a majority of permanent residents . Staff Analysis The "Environmental Analysis " has dealt with the General Plan as it presently exists , with some consideration of the development of the City as it existed at the time of the original adoption of the General Plan and the trend growth alternative as projected by Development Research Associates. There has not been a thorough consideration of an alternative which would restrict growth substantially below that envisioned in the General Plan. It appears that many of the concerns expressed in the attached memoran- dums and letters are related to the existing General Plan rather than with the Environmental Analysis. These concerns can only be addressed with the reexamination of the physical , economic and social factors that would be considered with an amendment to the General Plan. Revising the "Environmental Analysis " will not in itself revise the General Plan or affect the intensity or timing of development. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission, as well as the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee and the Transportation Plans Citizens ' Advisory Committee, to report o.n the relationship of the development of undeveloped sites to support systems in time for the June, 1977 General Plan amendment session . This may provide the appropriate forum for a reconsideration of the previously-struck balance among the many physical , economic , and social factors . Staff recognizes that the Environmental Analysis is an imperfect document and that it doesn ' t explore in depth some of the alternatives that could be reasonably considered. However, it is suggested that time could be more-profitably spent on developing and exploring the alternatives themselves , accompanied by appropriate environmental documents , than on revisions to the Analysis . In addition, many of the concerns deal with technical matters (traffic , water quality) which require detailed studies , some of which are now being done (e. g . , the City-wide traffic model , the N. I .W.A. study) . Perhaps , the Planning Commission would want to suggest to the City Council that these concerns be incorporated into the studies which are underway. Suggested Action Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be accepted as an informational document, with the understanding that additional environmental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensity and/or X TO: Planning Commission - 3 timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan , Director By , Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memo from• Councilman Ryckoff 2) Comments from the C . E .Q . C.A.C . 3) Letter from S . P .O.N . L� - y February 14, 1977 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 13 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: Councilman Paul Ryckoff SUBJECT: EIR OF THE GENERAL PLAN Summary and Recommendation This EIR seems to require changes in the parts noted below. It is silent on the potential for change and amendment and on the mitigating effect of change to a more restrictive growth concept. Its thrust with respect to economics of growth is incorrect in its emphasis on the Ashley Report. The impacts noted seem inconsistent with the major goals, Page 4, Section 1.4, and with the major proposal stated, Page 5, Section 1.5, A. The net result is to Justify the growth aspects of the present general plan - e.g. , the last sentence in the Summary on Page 159. As a result, the state- ment of purpose and value in "Overview," Page vi , is not followed in this EIR. I suggest that it be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the Council. Detailed comments to support this conclusion and recommendation are presented below: Page 4, Section 1.4 - Protect and enhance the City's special charm and char- acter, etc. No comment Page 5, Section 1.5 - Major Proposals A. Maintain character and quality of living environment B. Provide for continued growth in a controlled manner F. Dwelling units from 27,000 to 40,500 Comment: Growth indicated in "F" may need revision for reasons noted below. Page 6, Section 1.5 - The residential growth element provides a limited growth Policy, which is commensurate with adopted policies and the general desires of the community. Comment: This seems to imply no change and a static situation with respect to community sentiment. 5 - 2 - Page 55, Section 2.12 - Water Resources H. Water Quality - It is stated that "it is apparent that man is the major source of pollutants entering the• waters of Newport bay and the ocean." Comment: See comment for Page 122, Section 3.12. Page 71, Section 2.22 - Land C. Housing - The chart of selected housing characteristics shows a decrease of single family and increase of multi-family units. Comment: Does this conflict with Section 1.5. A and B? Pie 74, Section 2.22 = One-third of growth in older areas per existing zon- ing capacities and two-thirds in newer areas- north of Coast Highway. No comment Page 100, Section 2.26 - Utilities A. Sewer Comment: What is sewer capacity? Shouldn't it be included? Page 112, Section 3.0 and 4.0 - This section focuses on the impact of the over- all project an states tthiat individual projects will be addressed as they are proposed. Comment: Shouldn't there be a consideration of our open space specifically 900 acres) since it is our major growth area capable of being mitigated? Page 113, Section 3.11 - Loss of Open Space. Impact stated to be decreased natural visual amenities and the public perception of a sense of open space. Comment: Is this compatible with Section 1.5, A and B? Page 116, Section 3.11 - Changes to natural topography due to grading Comment: It is possible that our present grading policies could be improved. Page 122, Section 3.12 - Decreased bay and ocean water quality Comment: Under mitigation no signifigant solutions are offered. For example, on Page 122 it is stated that total mitigation of adverse im- pact of general urban runoff . . . does not appear economically feasible. Compare the statement on Page 55, Section 2.12, that man is the major source of pollutants entering the bay . . . • 3 - Page 127, Section 3.21 - Increased pollution/dwelling units. It states that under mitigation none is possible. Comment: Wouldn't a revision of the General Plan constitute mitigation? Page 129-132. Exhibit 44 and 45, Section 3.23 - Increased Traffic Congestion' Comment: Under mitigation it states that expansion of the existing system will reduce the magnitude of the impact, but will not eliminate traffic congestion within the planning area. There is a correlary question whether the growth envisioned will not aggravate the present problem. Page 137, Section 3.32 - Cost/Revenue Impact Comment: The conclusion reached through quoting the Ashley Report should not be stressed in this section. This report was accepted only as another study to use with present methods of analysis and with possible future ones. Page 139, Section 3.32, Exhibit 48 Comment: The right-hand two columns are possibly misheaded "Marginal Cost Approach" and should read "Average Cost." Page 140, Section 3,32 Comment: Second paragraph - This section is only valid under a marginal cost concept and the contingencies in the paragraph immediately above. For example, under the average cost approach less residential development would mean greater surpluses. Third paragraph - The last sentence should be struck or modified. It lends an emphasis and conclusion improperly. Page 142-152. Section 5.1 - Trend Growth Alternative Comment: It seems unusual to present this lengthy discussion of a growth alternative rejected several years ago compared to a brief one-paragraph restrictive growth alternative. Was there really public opportunity to consider the more restrictive alternative? What about its mitigating effect on the undesirable impacts? There is no such discussion in this EIR. Page 1539 Section 6.0 Comment: Last sentence - what does it mean? Page 157, Section 8.3 - Urban Environment Comment: Shouldn't there be a discussion here on the growth commitment effect on traffic? 7 - 4 - Page 158, Section 9.0 - Growth Inducing Impact Comment: This statement omits the concept that a more restrictive plan would mean lesser intensities of development. If it says the one obvious thing, it should also say the other. Page 159, Section 10.0 - Summary Comment: This statement should leave open the potential for change, amendment or updating of the General Plan to reflect reality. The conclusion that the General Plan achieves a balance between environ- mental , social and economic factors in the overall public interest may be at odds with General Plan Policy, Page 4, in that the public interest may now require a more restrictive approach. PRUL RYCKOFF v V �gW PORr Department of Community Development a DATE: April 12 , 1977 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach FROM: Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Analysis of Newport Beach General Plan The staff analysis prepared in January of this year demonstrates a dedicated effort toward highlighting the many problems that remain to be solved if the present General Plan continues unchanged. It is the hope of this committee that the environmental concerns listed below, which were so clearly identified by staff, will be properly addressed by allowing staff to continue working toward solutions best suited to eliminate the harmful effects these conditions will produce if continued unchecked. 1 . Development: the estimated 47% growth in the next nine years is a time-bomb not a blessing. The impact of such rapid growth upon our ancillary public services and facilities as well as upon our daily human interchanges approaches the catastrophic. A more realistic phasing-in of our growth over a longer period of time is imperative if we are to maintain Newport Beach as a desirable place to live. Staff should be given this problem as a "highest priority" item. 2. Adjacent Cities : conspicuous by its absence is the impact the rapid growth of our neighboring cities has upon our environment. This growth creates tremendous pressures upon our recreational facilities since the recreational resources of Newport Beach are, in a real and major way, a contributing factor to the desirability these adjacent areas have for new residents . Irvine, for example , intends to surpass the Newport City pop- ulation by 1980 and to even double in traffic, sanitation , public transportation and must be considered when reviewing our own development programs contained within our master plan. Solutions for problems not of our own making are most difficult and require diplomacy and time. Staff must be encouraged to contribute both . 3. Traffic & Public Transportation : the seasonal impact visitors have upon our city's facilities needs to be more completely studied. Entire areas of our city are inundated during summers and holidays . Traffic snarls are commonplace in certain areas and at certain times . The EA must address itself to these problems and proposed measures to mitigate these environmental hazzards . 1 . 9 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach Page 2. 4. Noise: since a significant noise intrusion has already invaded many homes located near flight paths within the city, and since the General Plan incorporates much development that is dependent upon and which will encourage airport expansion it is imperative that the latest noise data material be used in any study of this problem. The EA appears to fall down in the use of such data and it is hoped that staff will be given access to and encouraged to use the most recent charts and equipment in their continuing study of this serious harmful problem as it relates to the completion of the General Plan . It is also hoped that this continuing study would consider traffic and other noise generating sources . 5 . Water Quality: the EA does not clearly differentiate between potable and recreational use. Since both are equally necessary for our survival it seems to this committee that a complete in depth analysis be authorized. Since a _ great many studies with recognized validity have been made in these areas , especially marine and biology studies of the harbor , staff has an immediate authorotative source area to begin their work from. Not only might staff' s finding become generally useful as a public source library, but these studies coupled with staff' s analysis might pinpoint and move toward solutions of our city' s most pressing water quality problems . In conclusion, this committee feels that the EA has not fully studied the above environmental problems and that the conclusions that were drawn should be considered only as first preliminary identifications not as accomplAshed analysis. The use of dated materials and the i-nability to have full consultation with other agencies that have jurisdiction within the city ' s boundaries has also precluded this EA from being a complete vehicle for properly defending, rejecting and mitigating the present General P1.an. It is the committee ' s hope that the City Council will congratulate the Community Development Department for the work so far accomplished and then authorize the Department to continue a full depth analysis including the hiring of necessary consultants so that the final EA may be properly used to successfully complete the General Plan ' s implementation. Reespp-e�ctfullllley submitted, Stayn¢Cole > Chairufff Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee SC/dlt . +'..�o33 . 1 •-LC.7 �'� .Cr J,� ('1� .•tit .ti 1 P'CT" BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, _�ALiF., 662 March 7, 1977 TOt NisWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL FROQ S .P.O.N. STEERING COMMTTTEP CONCERNING : CURRENT CONTROVERSIES : General Plan T.T .R. ; Hotels ; Mor itorium Mayor Dostal and Nembero of the Council, GENER&L PLAN E.T .R . : We are certain that the present course of development in New- port is on a direct collision course with the desires of the majori- ty of permanent residents. Example: A freeway was rejected because it would divide the City; create excessive noise, brim extra traffic with it's concurrent pollution and infiltration of already congested residential areas. The General Plan accommodated this desire i with a projection of a 6 lnne Coast Highway in problem areas and a 6 lane Jamboree--which representei a technical solution which would receive public support. How, then, r,an we justi- fy such excesses As as are described on pages 6-8 of the Traffic Anmlvsls section of the recent Crommelin-Pringle Re- port. In 1995w at the Coast Highway/Jamboree intersection, with 5 through lanes in each direction we will have an ICU of 1 .02 - 1 .18 (Level of service F+) unless such mitigating measures vre taken an a bypass road. Such a bypass road vir- tually means we are making Jamboree 11 lanes when our General. Plan says 6. Tn addition to being a rejection of our General Plan, these excesses will create all the ills. of a freeway such as described above. HOTTLS : We are certain that the number of hotel, and/or motel rooms in Newport Beach has a direct hearing on the ,sizr of conventions that will be brought to fill them; that the number of visitor fact.] l ti es annh as hotels and r^.stnurantr nl on,g Con.r•t Highway has a direct bearing on the numhrr or visiting vehicles which that voadway will. be forced to accommodate; and thet the number, of convention type hotel/motel visitors (not; primarily marine oriented) has a direct bearing on the pressures relating to the airport. Present zoning which allows for more hotels is in direct conflict with our General Plan statements Poncerning residential rhnraater and desire to con- trol. Local airport growth--since these uses helm to create an in- surmountable demand situation. �.e OUR PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF. 92662 -2- ia0ftATOr,IUM : We are certain -that the only definitive way -to assure. that certain elements of our, General Plan will. be reevaluated and chan- ges made to insure it's integrity is to instate an urgency ordi- nance giving the pity a temporary break from the pressures of the ne;rmi.t nrocess and time to evaluate needed zonina' chanSez . We are detormined to support the councilmen who fepl that this is so--to the extent that wo are presentl.,y planning a peti.t:on or possible initiative procedure to prove the need. PARK DEDICATION TNTTIATIVF: We have resolved to support this initiative. It is a step in the right direction and where park - dedication is not desirable , the in lieu fees are definitely appropriate to our needs. As I am fi- nishing this letter, I now know the outcome of -the Open Space Bond and am aviare of the good support from newer areas of town acid feel i that this supports the case for the Initiative. Sincerely, Jean Watt e� SPON , President City Council Meeting 'May -9 ; •1977 Agenda Item No. F-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 26 , 1977 TO : City Council FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Response from the Planning Commission and Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee to the City Council ' s referral of the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" . Suggested Action If desired, accept the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" as an informational document, with the understanding that additional environmental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensity and/or timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process , and with recognition of the environmental concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee , members of the Council , and interested citizen associations . Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission, on April 21 , 1977 (minutes attached) , reviewed the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan, and comments on same from C . E .Q .C .A. C . , S . P .O . N . , and Councilman Ryckoff, and adopted the following recommendation : "That the City Council accept the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" as an informational document, with the understanding that additional environmental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensity and/or timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process , and recognizing the environmental concerns expressed by the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee , the executive steering committee of Stop Polluting Our Newport, and Councilman Ryckoff, and that the City go forward with action on General Plan amendments to mitigate the environmental concerns . Further, that the ' Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan ' should be modified or adequate documents developed to address the forthcoming Community Facilities Element of the General Plan and that said document should address the library services and facilities provided by the City. " Finally, on motion of Commissioner Frederickson , the Commission moved that: "The City recognize its responsibility to the general public insofar as it relates to public lands held in trust by the City for the general public . " Background Attached is a copy of the April 21 , 1977 Planning Commission staff report, which includes a discussion of the background and a staff analysis of the concerns expressed regarding the "Environmental Analysis Report" . TO: City Council - 2 Respectfully submitted, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V . Hogan, Director By / (/ Co ell Advance Planning Administrator TC :Jmb Attachments: l Planning Commission minutes of April 91 , 1977. 2 Memo from Councilman Ryckoff. Y 3 Comments from the C . E.Q.C .A.C . 4 Letter from S .P .O. N. 5 April 21 , 1977 Planning Commission staff report. 3 C6MMIS8IDNERS city Of Newport Beach MINUTES April 21 , 1977 MOLL CALL Manx Ite_�#15 Referred to Planning Commission by the City ENVIRON- Cou'nci.l for review and comment. EN' TAL YSIS Commissioner Frederickson commented on the fact F THE that since we own and maintain beaches for the NE RT State of California, we are also obligated to the BE citizens of other cities in California as well as GENERAL our own. IPLAN Planning Commission discussed the matter of beachesDISCUSSIO� and their relationship to the goals of the City of AND Newport Beach . RECOM- MEND TION Motion X Following discussion , motion was made that the All Ayes City recognize its responsibility to the general public insofar •as it relates to public lands held in trust by the City for the general public . Commissioner Heather commented on the lack of a Community Facilities Element and the fact that libraries and the need for libraries had •not been addressed. Commissioner Agee concurred with the comments made in the staff report And felt that the recommenda- tions suggested should be followed rather than waste time re-writino this particular document.. He' also felt, however, that the concerns of the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee and the concerns of S.P. O. N. should be recognized and not overlooked because they are valid concerns and should be given consideration at the appropriate time . Community Development Director Hogan reported on the programs presently under way in connection . with some of the concerns expressed: He further advised that it was the intent of the Environ- mental Analysis document to furnish information and if it was felt that the information itself was not useable, then the document should be revised. Commissioner Cokas concurred that the concerns of C. E. Q. C.A. C . and S . P.O. N. should not be ignored and should be recognized. v , Page 29 . COMMISSIONERS • • " 9cm OO�Tp�Sm ytoo City of Newport Beach MINUTES 3C ti April 21 , 1977 ROLL CALL IIVOtx Commissioner Hummel commented on noise7trafficand their impact on the City especiallrespect to the cumulative effect of ne He also commented in support of the concerns expressed in the letters received from C.E.Q. C.A.C. and S. P.O.N. and felt that we should do whatever is necessary to weave their concerns into the planning of the City. Commissioner Frederickson felt that the Environ- mental Analysis was a very good report and contain ed much useful information. Motion x Following discussion , motion was made that Plannin Second X Commission recommend that City Council accept the All Ayes Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach Genera Plan as an informational document, with the under- standing that additional environmental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensity and/or timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process, and recognizing the h environmental concerns expressed by the Citize s Environmental Quality Control Adviso ry Committee , the executive steering committee of Stop Polluting Our Newport, and Councilman R c off p , y k and that the City go forward with action on General Plan amend- ments to mitigate the environmental concerns. Further, that the Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan should be modified or adequate documents developed to address the forth- coming Community Facilities Element of the General Plan and that said document should address the library services and facilities provided by the City. , f Page 30. Y February 14, 1977 STUDY SESSION AGENDA NO. 13 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: Councilman Paul Ryckoff SUBJECT: EIR OF THE GENERAL PLAN Summary and Recommendation This EIR seems to require changes in the parts noted below. It is silent on the potential for change and amendment and on the mitigating effect of change to a more restrictive growth concept. Its thrust with respect to economics of growth is incorrect in its emphasis on the Ashley Report. The impacts noted seem inconsistent with the major goals, Page 4, Section 1.4, and with the major proposal stated, Page 5, Section 1.5, A. The net result is to justify the growth aspects- of the present general plan - e.g. , the last sentence in the Summary on Page 159. As a result, the state- ment of purpose and value in "Overview," Page vi , is not followed in this EIR. I suggest that it be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the Council. Detailed comments to support this conclusion and recommendation are presented below: Page 4, Section 1.4 - Protect and enhance the City's special charm and char- acter, etc. No comment Page 59 Section 1.5 - Major Proposals A. Maintain character and' quality of living environment B. Provide for continued growth in a controlled manner F. Dwelling units from 27,000 to 40,500 Comment: Growth indicated in "F" may need revision for reasons noted be— of w. Page 6, Section 1.5 - The residential growth element provides a limited growth policy, which i commensurate is with adopted policies and the general desires of the community, Comment: This seems to imply no change and a static situation with respect to community sentiment. 2 - page 55. Section 2.12 - Water Resources H. Water Quality - It is stated that "it is apparent that man is the major source of pollutants entering the. waters of Newport Bay and the ocean." Comment: See comment for Page 122, Section 3.12. Page 71, Section 2.22 - Land C. Housing - The chart of selected housing characteristics shows a decrease of single family and increase of multi-family units. Comment: Does this conflict with Section 1.5, A and B? ' Page 74 Section 2.22 : One-third of growth in older areas per existing zon- ing dapac t es and two-thirds in newer areas- north of Coast Highway. No comment Page 100, Section 2.26 - Utilities A. Sewer Comment: What is sewer capacity? Shouldn't it be included? Pa a 112 Section 3.0 and 4.0 - This section focuses on the impact of the over- a pro ec an s��s that Individual projects will be addressed as they are proposed. Comment: Shouldn't there be a consideration of our open space specifically (900 acres) since it is our major growth area capable of being mitigated? natural visual s of Open v sual amenities and public Space. pact stated e r blicperceptinofasense ofopen uraspace. Comment: Is this compatible with Section 1.51 k and B? Page 116, Section 3 11 - Changes to natural topography due to grading Comment: It is possible that our present grading policies could be mp�roved. Page 122, Section 3.12 - Decreased bay and ocean water quality Comment: Under mitigation no signifigant solutions are offered. For example, on Page 122 it is stated that total mitigation of adverse im- pact of general urban runoff . . does not appear economically feasible. Compare the statement on Page 55, Section 2.12, that man is the major source of pollutants entering the bay . . . ' Y _ 3 _ Page 127 Section 3.21 - Increased pollution/dwelling units. It states that under mit gation none is possible. Comment: Wouldn't a revision of the General Plan constitute mitigation? Page 129-132, Exhibit 44 and 45, Section 3.23 - Increased Traffic Congestion' Comment: Under mitigation it states that expansion of the existing system will reduce the magnitude of the impact but will not eliminate traffic. congestion within the planning area. There is a correlary question whether the growth envisioned will not aggravate the present problem. Page 137, Section 3.32 - Cost/Revenue Impact Comment: The conclusion reached through quoting the Ashley Report should not be stressed in this section. This report was accepted only as another study to use with present methods of analysis and with possible future ones. Page 139, Section 3.32, Exhibit 48 - Comment: The right-hand two columns are possibly misheaded "Marginal Tos- pproach" and should read "Average Cost." Page 140, Section 3.32 Comment: Second paragraph - This section is only valid under a marginal cost concept and the contingencies in the paragraph immediately above. For example, under the average cost approach less residential development would mean greater surpluses. Third paragraph - The last sentence should be struck .or modified. It lends an emphasis and conclusion improperly. Page 142-152, Section 5.1 - Trend Growth Alternative Comment: It seems unusual to present this lengthy discussion of a growth a ternative re3ected several years ago compared to a brief one-paragraph restrictive growth alternative. Was there really public opportunity to consider the more restrictive alternative? What about its mitigating effect on the undesirable impacts? There is no such discussion in this EIR. Page 153, Section 6.0 Comment: Last sentence - what does it mean? Page 157, Section 8.3 - Urban Environment Comment: Shouldn't there be a discussion here on the growth commitment effect on traffic? - 4 - Page 158, Section 9.0 - Growth Inducing Impact Comment: This statement omits the concept that a more restrictive plan would mean lesser intensities of development. if it says the one obvious thing, it should also say the other. Page 159, Section 10.0 - Summary Comment: This statement should leave open the potential for change, amendment or updating of the General Plan to reflect reality. The conclusion that the General Plan achieves a balance between environ- mental, social and economic factors in the overall public interest may be at odds with General Plan Policy, Page 4, in that the public interest may now require a more restrictive approach. 1 P44AR -- PAUL RYCKOFF e� Department of Community Development u a DATE: April 12 , 1977 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach FROM: Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Analysis of Newport Beach General Plan The staff analysis prepared in January of this year demonstrates a dedicated effort toward highlighting the many problems that remain to be solved if the present General Plan continues unchanged. It is the hope of this committee that the environmental concerns listed below, which were so clearly identified by staff, will be properly addressed by allowing staff to continue working toward solutions best suited to eliminate the harmful effects these conditions will produce if continued unchecked. 1 . Development: the estimated 47% growth in the next nine years is a time-bomb not a blessing. The impact of such rapid growth upon our ancillary public services and facilities as well as upon our daily human interchanges approaches the catastrophic. A more realistic phasing-in of our growth over a longer period of time is imperative if we are to maintain Newport Beach as a ' desirable place to live. Staff should be given this problem as a "highest priority" item.. 2. Adjacent Cities : conspicuous by its absence is the impact the rapid growth of our neighboring cities has upon our environment. This growth creates tremendous pressures upon our recreational facilities since the recreational resources of Newport Beach are, in a real and major way, a contributing factor to the desirability these adjacent areas have for new residents . Irvine, for example, intends to surpass the Newport City pop- ulation by 1980 and to even double in traffic, sanitation , public transportation and must be considered when reviewing our own development programs contained within our master plan. Solutions for problems not of our own making are most difficult and require - diplomacy and time. Staff must be encouraged to contribute both . 3. Traffic & Public Transportation : the seasonal impact visitors have upon our city' s facilities needs to be more completely studied. Entire areas of our city are inundated during summers and holidays . Traffic snarls are commonplace in certain areas and at certain times . The EA must address itself to these problems and proposed measures to mitigate these environmental hazzards . 1 . 0 0 is TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach Page 2. 4. Noise: since a significant noise intrusion has already invaded many homes located near flight paths within the city, and since the General Plan incorporates much development that is dependent upon and which will encourage airport expansion it is imperative that the latest noise data material be used in any study of this problem. The EA appears to fall down in the use of such data and it is hoped that staff will be given access to and encouraged to use the most recent charts and equipment in their continuing study of this serious harmful problem as it relates to the completion of the General Plan. It is also hoped that this continuing study would consider traffic and other noise generating sources . 5. Water Quality: the EA does not clearly differentiate # between potable and recreational use. Since both are equally necessary for our survival it seems to this committee that a complete in depth analysis be authorized. Since a great many studies with recognized validity have .been made in these areas , especially marine and biology studies of the harbor, staff has an immediate allthorotative source area to begin their work from. Not only might staff' s finding become generally useful as a public source library, but these studies coupled with staff' s analysis might pinpoint and move toward solutions of our city' s most pressing water quality problems . In conclusion, this committee feels that the EA has not fully studied the above environmental problems and that the conclusions that were drawn should be considered only as first preliminary identifications not as accomplished analysis. The use of dated materials and the inability to have full consultation With other agencies that have jurisd-iction within the city' s boundaries has also precluded this EA from being a complete vehicle for properly defending, rejecting and mitigating the present General P1.an. It is the committee ' s hope that the City Council will congratulate the Community Development Department for the work so far accomplished and then authorize the Department to continue a full depth analysis including the hiring of necessary consultants so that the final EA may be properly used to successfully complete the General Plan ' s implementation. Respectfull'lyorcsubmitted, Stan ole , Chairr Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee SC/dlt t I— ., .;.'\.'^` �� ,: .� j' ter' o •1�1����; '���(��'�`1,;�`.''fN�lr� lr .p�T" 'BOI 102 BALBOA ISLAND,-'�. .�r,AlLI•F.� 19,�1662 March 7, 1977 TO: N't:WPORT BEACH CTTY COUNCIL i''ROP'ur S .P.O.N. STEERING CO6iMMEh CONCERNINGr CURRENT CONTROVERSIES: General. Plan E.T .R. ; Hotels ' f+ior.••ztorium Mayor Dostal and 'Iembers; of tho Courtci.l, GENET?AIr PLkN E.T .R. : We are certa.ir that; the present coarse of development in New- nort: is on a direct nollision corar'>e with the desires of the majori- ty of permanent residents. Example: A freeway was rejected because it would divide the City; create exces.nive noia-e , bring extra traffic with it's conc:trrent pollution and infiltration of already congestod residential areas . The General Plan accommodated this desire i with a projection of a 6 lama Coast Highway in problem areas and a 6 lane Jamboree--,which represents>'• a technical solution which would receive public :support. How, 'then, can we justi- fy such excesses as as are described on page 6-8 of the Traffic Analysis section of the recent Crommelin-Pringlo Re- In 199.5w at the Coast Hit*hway,/Jzmboree• i.ntersecti.on, with s throurh lanes in each direction we will have an ICU of 1 .02 - 1 AA (Level 'of service P+) unle:::.r such mitiga't.inp measures qre taken a.^. a bypass road. Such a bypass road vi.r- tual.ly means we are making Jamboree 11• l.anes when our General Plan says 6. Tr addition to being, a rejection of our General Plan, these excesses will. create all the ill.s, of a freeway such as described above.. HOTELS : We are certain tha.t tile. r;umbor of hotel. and/or motel rooms in, New ort Beach has a direct bn,r-rinrr, on thn :,ti:Zr of' onvnrttions -that wi.13 be brought to fi 1.7 them; that the numbor of vi,i to'r• faclj•i ti es Earth a.-, hotel.^ rind r^r,•t:urantr ;along Conrrt Hir'bway hap A diroct bearinr" on tho nombrr of v1sitinr< vehioln.s which that ro:zdway will. be formed to accrnnmodate; and that: ttmi number of convention tyiin hotel/motel v1s.1to•rs (not: primarily marine oriented) has: a direct bearing on the preosures relatin;; to the airport. Pre:sent .zonint, which al.l.ows for more hotels is in direct nonflict with mu• General Plan statements P.oncernirrff residontial chnrar.ter aria', desire to con- trol. Local airport growth--since these user; help to create an in- surmountable demand situation. w. • /Z i if � r • PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF. 92662 -2- k0RATo IUk s We are certain that the only defi ni tive war 'to assure that certain elements of our General. Plan will. be reevaluated and chan- ges made to insure it's integrity is to instate an urgency ordi- nance giving the city a temporary break from the pressures of th? ; Permit process and time to evaltasite needed Zoriino' changeo. We are determined to support the councilmen who feol that this, is so--to the extent that we are presently planning a petition or possible � initiative procedure to prove the need. PARK DF.DTCATION TNTTIATIVF.s We have resolved to support this initiative. It is a step in the right direction and where park- ded•i cation is riot desirable, the in lieu fees are definitely appropriate to our needs . As I am fi- nishing this letter, I now know the outcome of -the Open Space Bond and am a4iare of the good support from newer areas of 'town acid feel that this supports the case for the Initiative. Sincerely, J,gan Watt s/fSNON, President ' r Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1977 Agenda Item No . 15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 12, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan Background At the January 24, 1977 City Council Study Session, the City Council asked that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be referred to the Planning Commission and Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Planning Commission received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February 10, 1977 study session . At its February 14, 1977 meeting, the City Council received a memo from Councilman Ryckoff regarding the "Environmental Analysis" (copy attached) , which was previously trans- mitted to the Planning Commission. At the March 3, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the "Environmental Analysis" and the memo from Councilman Ryckoff and indicated that they would report to the City Council after reviewing the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee ' s comments . The Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February, 1977 meeting. The Committee ' s comments are attached. Discussion As previously indicated , the "Environmental Analysis" was prepared at the direction of the City Council to serve as a general assessment of the overall impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan . There is no legal requirement for formal certification of the "Environmental Analysis" since each element of the Newport Beach General Plan, which was adopted after the "Friends of Mammoth Decision" , was accompanied by an individual E . I .R. which was certified when each element was adopted . In fact, since the General Plan has been officially adopted, formal certification of this report would be inappropriate as there is no accompanying project action at this time . However, the "Environmental Analysis" may be received and used by the City Council in any manner deemed appropriate. C.E.Q.C.A. C. ' s Comments r In reviewing the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee identified the following five areas of environmental concern : 1 . Development phasing 2. Impact of development in adjacent jurisdictions 3. Noise impact data problems 4. Traffic and public transportation ( seasonal impacts) 5. Water quality (potable versus recreational usage) . The committee concluded that the "Environmental Analysis" had not fully studied the above concerns and that it should be considered as a first preliminary identification and not as an accomplished analysis . The C. E . Q .C .A. C . recommended to the City Council that the Department of Community Development continue with a full in-depth analysis so that the "Environmental Analysis" might properly be used to successfully complete the General 'Plan s i imP lementaton . TO: Planning Commission - 2 Councilman Ryckoff' s Memo Councilman Ryckoff, in his memo to the City Coucnil dated February 14 , 1977, suggested that the "Environmental Analysis" be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the City Council . Councilman Ryckoff indicated that the "Environmental Analysis" is silent on the potential for change and amendment, and on the mitigating effects of change to a more-restrictive growth concept. Letter - S.P.O.N. The S.P.O.N. steering committee, in a letter to the Mayor and members of the City Council dated March 7, 1977 (attached) , comments on the "Environmental Analysis" along With additional concerns . The steering ' committee indicated that it was its opinion that the present course of development in Newport Beach is conflicting with the desires of a majority of permanent residents . Staff Analysis The "Environmental Analysis" has dealt with the General Plan as it presently exists , With some consideration of the development of the City as it existed at the time of the original adoption of the General Plan and the trend growth alternative as projected by Development Research Associates . There has not been a thorough consideration of an alternative which would restrict growth substantially below that envisioned in the General Plan. It appears that many of the concerns expressed in the attached memoran- dums and letters are related to the existing General Plan rather than with the Environmental Analysis. These concerns can only be addressed with the reexamination of the physical , economic and social factors that would be considered with an amendment to the General Plan. Revising the "Environmental Analysis" will not in itself revise the General Plan or affect the intensity or timing of development. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission, as well as the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee and the Transportation Plans Citizens ' Advisory Committee, to report on the relationship of the development of undeveloped sites to support systems in time for the June, 1977 General Plan amendment session . This may provide the appropriate forum for a reconsideration of the previously-struck balance among the many physical , economic, and social factors . Staff recognizes that the Environmental Analysis is an imperfect document and that it doesn ' t explore in depth some of the alternatives that could be reasonably considered. However, it is suggested that time could be more-profitably spent on developing and exploring the alternatives themselves , accompanied by appropriate environmental documents , than on revisions to the Analysis . In addition, many of the concerns deal with technical matters (traffic, water quality) which require detailed studies, some of which are now being done (e.g. , the City-wide traffic model , the N. I .W.A. study) . Perhaps , the Planning Commission would want to suggest to the City Council that these concerns be incorporated into the studies which are underway. Suggested Action Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be accepted as an informational document, with the understanding that additional environmental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensity and/or TO: Planning Commission - 3 timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan, Director By Fred Ta ar co Senior Planner FT:Jmb Attachments : 1 Memo from• Councilman Ryckoff s, 2 Comments from the C .E.Q.C.A.C . 3 Letter from S .P.O.N. w Planning Commission Meeting April 21 , 1977 Agenda Item No . 15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FILE C®py April -12, 1977 ©o NOT . RrMOUE TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan Background At the January 24, 1977 City Council Study Session , the City Council asked that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be referred to the Planning Commission and Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Planning Commission received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February 10, 1977 study session . At its February 14, 1977 meeting, the City Council received a memo from Councilman Ryckoff regarding the "Environmental Analysis" (copy attached) , which was previously trans- mitted to the Planning Commission . At the March 3, 1977 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the "Environmental Analysis" and the memo from Councilman Ryckoff and indicated that they would report to the City Council after reviewing the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee ' s comments . The Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February, 1977 meeting. The Committee ' s comments are attached. Discussion As previously indicated, the "Environmental Analysis" was prepared at the direction of the City Council to serve as a general assessment of the overall impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan. There is no legal requirement for formal certification of the "Environmental Analysis" since each element of the Newport Beach General Plan, which was adopted after the "Friends of Mammoth Decision" , was accompanied by an individual E . I . R. which was certified when each element was adopted . In fact, since the General Plan has been officially adopted, formal certification of this report would be inappropriate as there is no accompanying project action at this time . However, the "Environmental Analysis" may be received and used by the City Council in any manner deemed appropriate . C . E .Q.C.A. C . ' s Comments In reviewing the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee identified the following five areas of environmental concern : 1 . Development phasing 2 . Impact of development in adjacent jurisdictions 3. Noise impact data problems 4. Traffic and public transportation ( seasonal impacts ) 5 . Water quality ( potable versus recreational usage) . The committee concluded that the "Environmental Analysis" had not fully studied the above concerns and that it sh.ould be considered as a first preliminary identification and not as an accomplished analysis . The C . E . Q .C .A. C. recommended to the City Council that the Department of Community Development continue with a full in-depth analysis so that the "Environmental Analysis" might properly be used to successfully complete the General Plan ' s implementation . P TO: Planning Commission - 2 Councilman Ryckoff' s Memo Councilman Ryckoff, in his memo to the City Coucnil dated February 14, 1977 , suggested that the "Environmental Analysis " be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the City Council . Councilman Ryckoff indicated that the "Environmental Analysis" is silent on the potential for change and amendment, and on the mitigating effects of change to a more-restrictive growth concept. Letter - S. P.O.N. The S . P .O .N. steering committee, in a letter to the Mayor and members of the City Council dated March 7, 1977 (attached) , comments on the "Environmental Analysis" along with additional concerns . The steering committee indicated that it was its opinion that the present course of development in Newport Beach is conflicting with the desires of a majority of permanent residents . Staff Analysis The "Environmental Analysis " has dealt with the General Plan as it presently exists , with some consideration of the development of the City as it existed at the time of the original adoption of the General Plan and the trend growth alternative as projected by Development Research Associates. There has not been a thorough consideration of an alternative which would restrict growth substantially below that envisioned in the General Plan. It appears that many of the concerns expressed in the attached memoran- dums and letters are related to the existing General Plan rather than with the Environmental Analysis. These concerns can only be addressed with the reexamination of the physical , economic and social factors that would be considered with an amendment to the General Plan. Revising the "Environmental Analysis" will not in itself revise the General Plan or affect the intensity or timing of development. The City Council has directed the Planning Commission, as well as the Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee and the Transportation Plans Citizens ' Advisory Committee, to report on the relationship of the development of undeveloped sites to support systems in time for the June, 1977 General Plan amendment session . This may provide the appropriate forum for a reconsideration of the previously-struck balance among the many physical , economic, and social factors . Staff recognizes that the Environmental Analysis is an imperfect document and that it doesn ' t explore in depth some of the alternatives that could be reasonably considered. However, it is suggested that time could be more-profitably spent on developing and exploring the alternatives themselves , accompanied by appropriate environmental documents , than on revisions to the Analysis . In addition, many of the concerns deal with technical matters ( traffic, water quality) which require detailed studies, some of which are now being done (e . g . , the City-wide traffic model , the N. I .W.A. study) . Perhaps , the Planning Commission would want to suggest to the City Council that these concerns be incorporated into the studies which are underway. Suggested Action Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be acce ted as an informational p document, with the understanding that addi• o ti nal environ mental information will be generated by current and future detailed studies and that a change in the intensityor and/or TO: Planning Commission - 3 timing of development can be addressed in the General Plan amendment process . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan, Director x. By_ Fred Talarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachments : 1 ) Memo from• Councilman Ryckoff 2) Comments from the C . E .Q . C.A.C . 3) Letter from S .P .O .N. February 14, 1977 STUDY SESSION AGENDA No. 13 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: Councilman Paul Ryckoff SUBJECT: EIR OF THE GENERAL PLAN Summary and Recommendation This EIR seems to require changes in the parts noted below. It is silent on the potential for change and amendment and on the mitigating effect of change to a more restrictive growth concept. Its thrust with respect to economics of growth is incorrect in its emphasis on the Ashley Report. The impacts noted seem inconsistent with the major goals, Page 4, Section 1.4, and with the major proposal stated, Page 5, Section 1.5, A. The net result is to justify the growth aspects of the present general plan - e.g. , the last sentence in the Summary on Page 159. As a result, the state- ment of purpose and value in "Overview," Page vi , is not followed in this EIR. i suggest that it be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the Council. Detailed comments to support this conclusion and recommendation are presented below: Page 4, Section 1.4 - Protect and enhance the City's special charm and char- acter, etc. No comment Page 5, Section 1.5 - Major Proposals A. Maintain character and quality of living environment B. Provide for continued growth in a controlled manner F. Dwelling units from 27,000 to 40,500 Comment: Growth indicated in "F" may need revision for reasons noted below. PA e 6 Section IA - The residential growth element provides a limited growth policy, which s commensurate with adopted policies and the general desires of the community. Comment: This seems to imply no change and a static situation with respect to community sentiment. 5 - 2 - P. age 55, Section 2.12 - Water Resources H. Water Quality - It is stated that "it is apparent that man is the major source of pollutants entering the, waters of Newport Bay and the ocean." Comment: See comment for Page 122, Section 3.12. Page 71, Section 2.22 - Land C. Housing - The chartFof selected housing characteristics shows a decrease of single family and increase of multi-family units. Comment: Does this conflict with Section 1.5, A and B? Pace 74 Section 2.22 = One-third of growth in older areas per existing zon- ing capacities and two-thirds in newer areas north of Coast Highway. No comment '- Page 100, Section 2.26 - Utilities A. Sewer Comment: What is sewer capacity? Shouldn't it be included? Page 112, Section 3.0 and 4.0 - This section focuses on the impact of the over- all project an states that individual projects will be addressed as they are proposed. Comment: Shouldn't there be a consideration of our open space specifically 900 acres) since it is our major growth area capable of being mitigated? Page 113, Section 3.11 - Loss of Open Space. Impact stated to be decreased natural visua al menities and` the public perception of a sense of open space. Comment: Is this compatible with Section 1.5, A and B? Page 116, Section 3.11 - Changes to natural topography due to grading Comment: It is possible that our present grading policies could be improved. Page 122, 'Section 3.12 - Decreased bay and ocean water quality Comment: Under mitigation no signifigant solutions are offered. For example, on Page 122 it is stated that total mitigation of adverse im- pact of general urban runoff . . . does not appear economically feasible. Compare the statement on Page 55, Section 2.12, that man is the major source of pollutants entering the bay . . . - 3 - Page 127, Section 3.21 - Increased pollution/dwelling units. It states that under mitigation none is possible. Comment: Wouldn't a revision of the General Plan constitute mitigation? Page 129-132, Exhibit 44 and 45 Section 3.23 - Increased Traffic Congestion Comment: Under mitigation it states that expansion of the existing system will reduce the magnitude of the impact but will not eliminate traffic congestion within the planning area. There is a correlary question whether the growth envisioned will not aggravate the present problem. Page 137, Section 3.32 - Cost/Revenue Impact Comment: The conclusion reached through quoting the Ashley Report should not Fe—stressed in this section. This report was accepted only as another study to use with present methods of analysis and with possible future ones. Page 139. Section 3.32. Exhibit 48 - Comment: The right-hand two columns are possibly misheaded "Marginal Cost Approach" and should read "Average Cost." Page 140, Section 3.32 Comment: Second paragraph - This section is only valid under a marginal cost concept and the contingencies in the paragraph immediately above. For example, under the average cost approach less residential development would mean greater surpluses. Third paragraph - The last sentence should be struck or modified. It lends an emphasis and conclusion improperly. Page 142-152, Section 5.1 - Trend Growth Alternative Comment: It seems unusual to present this lengthy discussion of a growth alternative rejected several years ago compared to a brief one-paragraph restrictive growth alternative. Was there really public opportunity to consider the more restrictive alternative? What about its mitigating effect on the undesirable impacts? There is no such discussion in this EIR. Page 153. Section 6.0 Comment: Last sentence - what does it mean? Page 157, Section 8.3 - Urban Environment Comment: Shouldn't there be a discussion here on the growth commitment effect on traffic? 4 _ 0r 7 - ' Page 158, Section 9.0 - Growth Inducing Impact Comment: This statement omits the concept that a more restrictive plan would mean lesser intensities of development. If it says the one obvious thing, it should also say the other. Page 159, Section 10.0 - Summary Comment: This statement should leave open the potential for change, amendment or updating of the General Plan to reflect reality. The conclusion that the General Plan achieves a balance between environ- mental , social and economic factors in the overall public interest may be at odds with General Plan Policy, Page 4, in that the public interest may now require a more restrictive approach. A-R . .� v v PAUL RYCKOFF a�W P V w �? Department of Community Development CKIN•oNN�� i DATE: April 12 , 1977 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach FROM: Citizens ' Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee SUBJECT: Review of Environmental Analysis of Newport Beach General Plan The staff analysis prepared in January of this year demonstrates a dedicated effort toward highlighting the many problems that remain to be solved if the present General Plan continues unchanged. It is the hope of this committee that the environmental concerns listed below, which were so clearly identified by staff, will be properly addressed by allowing staff to continue working toward solutions best suited to eliminate the harmful effects these conditions will produce if continued unchecked. 1 . Development: the estimated 47% growth in the next nine years is a time-bomb not a blessing. The impact of such rapid growth upon our ancillary public services and facilities as well as upon our daily human interchanges approaches the catastrophic. A more realistic phasing-in of our growth over a longer period of time is imperative if we are to maintain Newport Beach as a desirable place to live. Staff should be given this problem as a "highest priority" item. 2. Adjacent Cities : conspicuous by its absence is the impact the rapid growth of our neighboring cities has upon our environment. This growth creates tremendous pressures upon our recreational facilities since the recreational resources of Newport Beach are, in a real and major way, a contributing factor to the desirability these adjacent areas have for new residents . Irvine, for example , intends to surpass the Newport City pop- ulation by 1980 and to even double in traffic , sanitation, public transportation and must be considered when reviewing our own development programs contained within our master plan. Solutions for problems not of our own making are most difficult and require diplomacy and time. Staff must be encouraged to contribute both . 3. Traffic & Public Transportation : the seasonal impact visitors have upon our city' s facilities needs to be more completely studied. Entire areas of our city are inundated during summers and holidays . Traffic snarls are commonplace in certain areas and at certain times . The EA must address itself to these problems and proposed measures to mitigate these environmental hazzards . 1 . I'� -1 TO : Honorable Mayor and Council Members , City of Newport Beach Page 2. 4. Noise: since a significant noise intrusion has already invaded many homes located near flight paths within the city, and since the General Plan incorporates much development that is dependent upon and which will encourage airport expansion it is imperative that the latest noise data material be used in any study of this problem. The EA appears to fall down in the use of such data and it is hoped that staff will be given access to and encouraged to use the most recent charts and equipment in their continuing study of this serious harmful problem as it relates to the completion of the General Plan. It is also hoped that this continuing study would consider traffic and other noise generating sources . 5 . Water Quality: the EA does not clearly differentiate between potable and recreational use. Since both are equally necessary for our survival it seems to this committee that a complete in depth analysis be authorized . Since a _ great many studies with recognized validity have been made in these areas , especially marine and biology studies of the harbor, staff has an immediate authorotative source area to begin their work from. Not only might staff' s finding become generally useful as a public source library, but these studies coupled with staff' s analysis might pinpoint and move toward solutions of our city' s most pressing water quality problems . In conclusion, this committee feels that the EA has not fully studied the above environmental problems and that the conclusions that were drawn should be considered only as first preliminary identifications not as accompl1 shed analysis . The use of dated materials and the inability to have full consultation with other agencies that have jurisdiction within the city' s boundaries has also precluded this EA from being a complete vehicle for properly defending, rejecting and mitigating the present General Plan. It is the committee ' s hope that the City Council will congratulate the Community Development Department for the work so far accomplished and then authorize the Department to continue a full depth analysis including the hiring of necessary consultants so that the final EA may be properly used to successfully complete the General Plan ' s implementation. Respectfully submitted, Stan cwl rmal' Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee SC/dlt • a.ui;•• 1? \ PO Bb-X 102 BALBOA ISLAND, "�ALIF., ':9..2662 March 7, 1977 TOs NEWPORT B3ACH CITY COUNCIL, FROM S ,P,O.N. STEERING COMMTTTER CONCERNTNG: CURRENT CONTROVERSIES : General Plan E.T .R . ; Hotels ; Movitorium Mayor Dostal. and Members of the Council, GENERAL PLkN E.T .R. : We are certain that the present course of development in New- port is on a direct collision vour>e with the desires of the majori- ty of permanent residents. Example: A .freeway was rejected because it would divide the City; create excessive noise , bring extra traffic with it's concurrent pollution and infiltration of already congested residential areas. The General Plan accommodated this desire i with a projection of a 6 line Coast Highway in problem areas and a 6 lane Jamboree--which representei a technical solution which would receive public :support. How, then, can we justi- fy such excesses as as are described on pages of the Traffic Analvsi.s section of the 'recent Crommelin-Prinplo Re- port. In 1995w at the Coast Highway/Jamboree intersection , with 5 through lanes in each direction we will have an ICU Of 1.02 - 1 .18 (Level of service r+) unless such mitigating measures are taken as a bypass road. Such a bypass road vir- tually means we are making Jamboree 11 lanes when our General Plan says 6. Tn addition to being, a rejection of our General Plan, these excesses will create all the ills• of a freeway such as described above.. HOTELS : We are certain that the number or hotel, and/or motel rooms in Newport Beach has a di rent bearing; on the :;izh or conventions that vril.l be brought to fill them; that the number of visitor faculties such as hotels and rnntnura.ntr nl on,g Coint Highway has a di rent bearing on thn numbs+.r of visiting vehicles whl:h thn t roadwny wi 11. be forced to accommodate; and that; the number, of convention type hotel/motel visitors (not primarily marine oriented) has a direct bearing on the pressures relating to the airport. Present zoning; which allows for more hotels is in direct conflict with our General Plan statements concerning re;Wntial r, hnracter anQ desire to con- trol Local airport grow•tb--since- these uses help to create an in- surmountable demand situation. OUR PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF, 92662 1,i0RA'PORIUk We are certain -that the only definitive way -to assure. that certain elements of our General Plan will. be reevaluated and chan- ges made to insure it's integrity is to instate an urgency ordi.- nance J.ving the city a temporary break from the pressures of th? perni.t process and time to evaluate needed zoring' changes. We are determined to support the councilmen who feel that this is so--to the extent that wp are presently planning a petition or -possible initiative procedure to prove the need. PARK DEDTCATION TNT9'IA.TIVE: We have resolved to support this initiative. It 1s a step in the right direction and where park- dedication is not desirable , the in lieu fees are definitely appropriate to our needs . As I am fi.- nishing this letter, I now know the outcome of -the Open Space Bond and am aviare of the good support from newer areas of town arid feel i that this supports the case for the Initiative. Sincerely, Jt�an Watt • �l�il�'i' ��17�_. SPON , President Honorable Mayor and Council Members, City of Newport Beach Subject: Review of Environmental Analysis of Newport Beach General Plan The staff analysis prepared in January of this year demonstrates a dedicated effort toward highlighting the many problems that remain to be solved if the present General .Plan continues unchanged. It is the hope of this committee that the environmental concerns listed be- low, which were so clearly identified by staff, will be properly addressed by allowing staff to continue working toward solutions best suited to eliminate the harmful effects these conditions will produce if continued unchecked. 1. Development : the estimated 40% growth in the next five years is a time-bomb not a blessing . The impact of such rapid growth upon our ancillary public services and facilities as well as upon our daily human interchages approaches the catastrophic. A more realistic phasing-in of our growth over a longer period of time is imperative if we are to maintain Newport Beach as a desirable place to live. Staff should be given this problem as a "highest priority" item. 2. Adjacent Cities : conspicuous by its absence is the impact the rapid growth of our neighboring cities has upon our environment. This growth creates tremendous pressures upon our recreational facilities since the recreational resources of Newport Beach are, in a real and major way, a contributing factor to the desirability these adjacent areas have for new residents. Irvine, for example, intends to surpass the Newport city population by 1980 and to even double that by 1990, only thirteen years away. These pressures are felt in traffic, sanitation, public transportation and must be cons- idered when reviewing our own development programs contained within our master plan. Solutions for problems not of our own making are most difficult and require diplomacy and time. Staff must be encouraged to contribute both. 3. Traffic & Public Transportation: the seasonal impact visitors have upon our city' s facilities needs to be more completely studied. Entire areas of our city are inundated during summers and holidays. Traffic snarls are commonplace in certain areas and at certain times. The EA must address itself to these problems and propose measures to mitigate these environmental hazzards. 4. Noise: since a significant noise intrusion has already invaded many homes located near flight paths within the city, and since the General Plan incorporates much development that is dependent upon and which will encourage airport expansion it is imperative that the latest noise data material be used in any study of this problem. The EA appears to fall down in the use of such data and it is hoped that staff will be given access to and encouraged to use the most recent charts and equipment in their continuing study of this serious harmful problem as it relates to the completion of the General Plan. i 5. Water Quality: the EA does not clearly differentiate between potable and recreational use. Since both are equally necessary for our survival it seems to this committee that a complete in depth ananlysis be authorized. Since a great many studies with recognized validity have been made in these areas, especially marine and biology studies of the harbor, Staff has an immediate authorotative souce area to begin their work from. Not only might staff' s finding become generally useful as a public source library, but these studies coupled with Staff' s analysis might pinpoint and move toward solutions of our City' s most pressing water quality problems. In conclusion, this committee feels that the EA has not fully studied the above environmental problems and that the conclusions that were drawn should be considered only as first preliminary identifications not as accomplished analysis. The use of dated materials and the inability to have full consultation with other agencies that have jurisdiction within the City' s boundries has also precluded this EA from being a complete vehicle for properly defending, rejecting or mitigating the present General Plan. It is this committee' s hope that the City Council will congratulate the Community Development Department for the work so far accomplished and then authorize the Department to continue a full depth analysis including the hiring of necessary consultants so that the final EA may be properly used to successfully complete the General Plan' s implementation. Respectfully submitted Stan Cole, Chairman Environmental Quality Control Citizens Advisory Committee 2 )�t7� CW" i� o%A 0.0 P0,`' B.O102 BALBOA ISLAND, �r� L[- ` 92662 w \ `-`r'1 March 7, 1977 TOt NEWPORT LEACH CITY COUNCIL FILE COPY FROPot S ,P , O,N. STEERING COHNITTTEE DO NOT REMOVB CONCERNING : CURRENT CONTROVERSIES : General Plan E.T .R , ; Hotels ; Moratorium Mayor Dostal. and Members of the Council, GENER;IL PL4N E.T .R. : We are certa.ir that the present course of development in New- port is on a direct collision course with the desires of the majori- ty of permanent residents . Example + A freeway was rejected because it would divide the City; create excesr;ive noise , brim extra traffic with it's concurrent pollution and infiltration of already confestod residential areas , The General Plan accommodated this desire with a projection of a 6 lone Coast Highway in problem areas. and a 6 lane Jamboree--which represents%'_ a technical solution which would receive public support. How, then, can we justi- fy such excesses as as are described on pages 6-8 of the `traffic Analvsis section of the recent Crommelin-Pringle Re- port. In 1995T at the Coast Highway/Vamboree intersection , with 5 through lanes in each direction we will have an •ICU of 1 .02 - 1 .1.8 • (Level of. service F+) unless such mitigating meaoures are taken as a bypass -road . Such a bypass road vir- tually means we are making Jamboree 11 Lanes when our General Plan says 6. Tn addition to being a rejection of our General Plan, these excesses will, create all the ills of a freeway such as described above . HOTELS : We are certain that the 0mber of hotel and/or motel rooms in Newport Beach has a di•rent beriring on the Azo of convention: that will be brought tofill them; that the number of visitor faci..l i ties ;utr.h as hotels and rnstnurants ml on,g Coa tt :Ii;;hway ha.^, a direct bearinf, on the numhar of visitin<7 vehiclen which that roadway will. be forced to accommodate ; and that the number of convention type hotel/motel visitors (not primarily ,marine oriented) has a direct bearing on the pressures relatin„ to the airport. Presen•t ,2oning which allows for more hotels is in direct conflict with our General Plan statements concerning residential character an' desire to con- trol local airport growth--since these uses help to create an in- surmountable demand situation. r:;; 7� OURS PO BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, CALIF, 92662 -2- MOR,ATOR.IUm We are certain •that the only definitive way to assure that certain elements of our General Plan will be reevaluated and chan- ges made to insure it's integrity is to instate an urgency ordi- nance giving the city a temporary break from the pressures of the permit process and time to evaluate needed zoning chanLec . We are determined to support the councilmen who feel that this is so--to the extent that we are presently planning a petition or possible initiative procedure to prove the need. PARK DEDTCATION INITIATIVE: We have resolved to support this initiative. It is a step in the ri •ht direction and where park• dedication is no•t desirable , the in lieu fees are definitely appropriate to our needs . As I am fi- nishing this letter, I now know the outcome of •the Open Space Bond and am aware of the good support from newer areas of town arid feel that this supports the case for the Initiative. Since•r•el.y, J an Watt SPON , President • Planning Commission Meeting March 3, 1977 Agenda Item No . 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 23, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan At the January 24, 1977 City Council Study Session, the City Council asked that the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be referred to the Planning Commission and Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Planning Commission received the "Environmental Analysis" at its February 10 , 1977 study session and, at the suggestion 'of staff, agreed to consider this item at a future meeting . Subsequent to the Planning Commission ' s February 10, 1977 study session , the City Council again discussed the "Environmental Analysis of the General Plan" at its February 14, 1977 evening meeting . Also discussed was a memo from Councilman Ryckoff regarding the "Environmental Analysis Report" . (Copy attached) . The Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee received the "Environmental Analysis Report" at its February, 1977 meeting . The Committee is presently reviewing the document and is expected to develop comments on the document at its March 2 , 1977 meeting . It is anticipated that its comments will be available for transmission to the Planning Commission at the March 3, 1977 meeting . This "Environmental Analysis Report" was prepared at the direction of the City Council to serve as a general assessment of the overall impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan . There is no legal requirement for formal certification of the "Environmental Analysis Report" since each element of the Newport Beach General Plan , which was adopted after the "Friends of Mammoth Decision" , was accompanied by an individual E . I .R. which was certified when each element was adopted . In fact, since the General Plan has been officially adopted , formal certification of this report would be inappropriate as there is no accompanying project action at this time . Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission , after reviewing the "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" , the attached memo from Councilman Ryckoff, and the comments of the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee, recommend that the "Environmental Analysis Report" be accepted by the City Council for use as an informational document. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT R. V . Hogan, jDector By 4X Fr d lalarico Senior Planner FT:jmb Attachment: 1 ) Memo from Councilman Ryckoff February 14, 1977 STUDY SESSION AGENDA 'NO. 13 TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: Councilman Paul Ryckoff SUBJECT: EIR OF THE GENERAL PLAN Summary and Recommendation This EIR seems to require changes in the parts noted below. It is silent on the potential for change and amendment and on the mitigating effect of change to a more restrictive growth concept. Its thrust with respect to economics of growth is incorrect in its emphasis on the Ashley Report. The impacts noted seem inconsistent with the major goals, Page 4, Section 1.4, and with the major proposal stated, Page 5, Section 1.5, A. The net result is to justify the growth aspects• of the present general plan - e.g., the last sentence in the Summary on Page 159. As a result, the state- ment of purpose and value in "Overview," Page vi , is not followed in this EIR. I suggest that it be returned to staff for rework and resubmission to the Council. Detailed comments to support this conclusion and recommehdation are presented below: Page 4, Section 1.4 - Protect and enhance the City's special charm and char- acter, etc. No comment Page 50 Section 1.5 - Major Proposals A. Maintain character and quality of living environment B. Provide for continued growth in a controlled manner F. Dwelling units from 27,000 to 401.500 Comment: Growth indicated in "F" may need revision for reasons noted beT ow. Page 6, Section 1.5 - The residential growth element provides a limited growth policy, which is commensurate with adopted policies and the general desires of the community, Comment: This seems to imply no change and a static situation with respect to community sentiment. - 2 - Page 55, Section 2.12 - Water Resources H. Water Quality - It is stated that "it is apparent that man is the major source of pollutants entering the• waters of Newport Bay and the ocean." Comment: See comment for Page 122, Section 3.12. Page 71, Section 2.22 - Land C. Housing - The chart of selected housing characteristics shows a decrease of single family and increase of multi-family units. Comment: Does this conflict with Section 1.5, A and B? Page 74, Section 2.22 = One-third of growth in older areas per existing zon- ing capacities and two-thirds in newer areas. north of Coast Highway. No comment Page 100, Section 2.26 - Utilities A. Sewer Comment: What is sewer capacity? Shouldn't it be included? Pa a 112, Section 3.0 and 4.0 - This section focuses on the impact of the over- all project and states that individual projects will be addressed as they are proposed. Comment: Shouldn't there be a consideration of our open space specifically 900 acres) since it is our major growth area capable of being mitigated? Page 113, Section 3.11 - Loss of Open Space. Impact stated to be decreased natural visual amenities and the public perception of a sense of open space. Comment: Is this compatible with Section 1.5, A and B? Page 116, Section 3.11 - Changes to natural topography due to grading Comment: It is possible that our present grading policies could be improved. Page 122, Section 3.12 - Decreased bay and ocean water quality Comment: Under mitigation no signifigant solutions are offered. For example, on Page 122 it is stated that total mitigation of adverse im- pact of general urban runoff . . . does not appear economically feasible. Compare the statement on Page 55, Section 2.12, that man is the major source of pollutants entering the bay . . . A. Page 127, Section 3.21 - Increased pollution/dwelling units. It states that under mitigation none is possible. Comment: Wouldn't a revision of the General Plan constitute mitigation? Page 129-132. Exhibit 44 and 45, Section 3.23 - Increased Traffic Congestion' Comment: Under mitigation it states that expansion of the existing system will reduce the magnitude of the impact but will not eliminate traffic congestion within the planning area. There is a correlary question whether the growth envisioned will not aggravate the present problem. Page 137, Section 3.32 - Cost/Revenue Impact Comment: The conclusion reached through quoting the Ashley Report should not be stressed in this section. This report was accepted only as another study to use with present methods of analysis and with possible future ones. Page 139, Section 3.32, Exhibit 48 Comment: The right-hand two columns are possibly misheaded "Marginal Cost pproach" and should read "Average Cost." Page 140, Section 3.32 i Comment: Second paragraph - This section is only valid under a marginal cost concept and the contingencies in the paragraph immediately above. For example, under the average cost approach less residential development would mean greater surpluses. Third paragraph - The last sentence should be struck or modified. It lends an emphasis and conclusion improperly. Page 142-152, Section 5.1 - Trend Growth Alternative Comment: It seems unusual to present this lengthy discussion of a growth alternative rejected several years ago compared to a brief one-paragraph restrictive growth alternative. Was there really public opportunity to consider the more restrictive alternative? What about its mitigating effect on the undesirable impacts? There is no such discussion in this EIR. Page 153, Section 6.0 Comment: Last sentence - what does it mean? Page 157, Section 8.3 - Urban Environment Comment: Shouldn't there be a discussion here on the growth commitment effect on traffic? • - 4 - is Page 158, Section 9.0 - Growth Inducing Impact Comment: This statement omits the concept that a more restrictive plan would mean lesser intensities of development. If it says the one obvious thing, it should also say the other. Page 159, Section 10.0 - Summary Comment: This statement should leave open the potential for change, amendment or updating of the General Plan to reflect reality. The conclusion that the General Plan achieves a balance between environ- mental , social and economic factors in the overall public interest may be at odds with General Plan Policy, Page 4, in that the public interest may now require a more restrictive approach. PAUL RYCKOFF * /. 3el Planning Commission Meeting February 10 , 1977 Study Session Agenda Item No . 4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 2, 1977 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan At the January 24 , 1977 City Council Study Session , the City Council asked that the attached "Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan" be referred to -the Planning Commission for review and comment. The report was developed by the Community Development Department at the direction of the City Council . The purpose of the environmental analysis is to review the anticipated environmental effects of the Newport Beach General Plan . There is no legal requirement for formal adoption of this environ- mental analysis report since each element of the Newport Beach General Plan, which was adopted after the " Friends of Mammoth Decision" , was accompanied by an individual E . I . R. when adopted . However , the City Council has indicated that a general assessment of the overall impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan should be prepared . This environmental analysis report is primarily an informational document which will , 1 ) serve as a basis for future environmental reports and projects ; and 2 ) indicate potential environmental effects in a more-comprehensive manner than has heretofore been done . Staff would suggest that this item be placed on a future Planning Commission evening meeting agenda , perhaps after the Citizens Environmental Quality Control Advisory Committee has made its comments , for response to the City Council . Respectfully submitted , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FILE Copy, R . V . Hogan , Director F DO NOT REIAOVE Byr14 yzzt�f Ti Cowell Advance Planning Administrator TC :jmb Attachment: Environmental Analysis of the Newport Beach General Plan . r r r r r r �Ir ' i ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN i ' 1 1 . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH h JANUARY, 197.7 J TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE ■ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Table of Content Page Overview vi 1 .0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 1 . 1 Location of Planning Area 1 1 . 2 Project Description 1 1 . 3 Legal Framework 3 1 .4 Major Goals/Policies 4 1 . 5 Major Proposals 5 1 . 6 Background Studies 8 2 .0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 11 2 . 1 Natural Physical Environment 11 2 . 11 Land Resources 11 2 . 12 Water Resources 31 2 . 13 Air and Climatic Resources 60 2 . 2 Urban Environment 66 2 . 21 Demography 66 2 . 22 Land 66 2 . 23 Water 83 2 . 24 Transportation 84 2 . 25 Noise 94 2 . 26 Utilities - Public 100 2 . 27 Utilities - Private 101 2 . 28 Aesthetics 102 2 . 3 Government and Special Districts 105 � � i 2 . 31 Governmental 105 2 . 32 Educational 110 3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES 112 3 . 1 Natural Physical Environment 113 3. 11 Land Resources 113 3. 12 Water Resources 122 3. 13 Air and Climatic Resources 124 3. 14 Energy Resources 126 3 . 2 Urban Environment 127 3. 21 Demography 127 3.22 Land 128 3. 23 Transportation 129 3 . 24 Noise 135 3. 3 Government 137 3 .31 City Services 137 3. 32 Cost/Revenue Impact 137 1 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 141 4 . 1 Natural Physical Environment 141 4 . 2 Urban Environment 141 1 5 .0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN 142 Introduction 142 5 . 1 "Trend Growth" 142 5 . 11 Description 142 5 . 12 Rejection Rationale 146 5 . 2 "No-Project" 148 5 . 21 Description 148 5 . 22 Rejection Rationale 149 ii 5 . 3 "Restricted Growth" 151 5 . 31 Description 151 5 . 32 Rejection Rationale 152 6 . 0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN ' S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY 153 7 . 0 STATEMENTS OF OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING 154 8. 0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE GENERAL PLAN ' S IMPLEMENTATION 156 9 .0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT 158 10 . 0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 159 1 I' EXHIBITS 1 . Newport Beach - Location Map 2 . Newport Beach - Planning Area 3 . Shoreline Photo 4 . Shoreline Photo 5 . Newport Mesa Photo 6 . San Joaquin Hills Area Photo 7 . Major Landforms 8 . Seismic Hazard Areas 9 . Agricultural Land Capability 10 . Soil Classifications 11 . Photo - Santa Ana River to Balboa Jetty 12 . Photo - Coastal Intertidal 13. Photo - Rocky Intertidal 14. Upper and Lower Newport Bays 15 . Photo - Upper Newport Bay 16 . Photo - Lower Newport Bay 17 . Photo - Seminiuk Slough 18 . Groundwater Basins 19 . Santa Ana River Watershed 20 . Newport Beach - Watercourses 21 . Floodplain - Santa Ana River 22 . Floodplain - Upper Newport Bay/San Diego Creek 23 . Water Quality 24. Temperature Zones 25 . Residential Communities 26 . Statistical Areas 27 . Commercial Communities 1 i� 28 . Industrial Areas 29 . Transit District Routes 30 . Existing Roadways - 1975 31 . Existing Roadway Deficiencies 32 . Existing Bikeways 33. Air Transportation Sites 34 . Aircraft CNEL Contours - 1970 Operations Levels 35 . Contours of Constant (NEL - Military Helicopters ) 36 . Existing CNEL - Highways 37 . View Analysis 38 . Visual Environmental Features 39 . South Coast Air Basin 40 . Orange County Supervisorial Districts 41 . Newport Beach Council Districts 42 . School District Boundaries 43. Impact - Visual and Physical 44 . Projected Traffic Volumes - With Bypass 45 . Projected Traffic Volumes - Without Bypass 46 . Adopted Circulation System 47 . Highway Noise - Impacts 48 . Cost/Revenue Impacts 49 . Population/Dwelling Units - Trend Growth v ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN - OVERVIEW - Introduction The purpose of this Environmental Analysis is to review the anticipated environmental effects of the Newport Beach General Plan . This report evaluates the General Plan as adopted by the City Council including all subsequent amendments through June, 1976. This environmental analysis investigates the natural physical environment, the urban environment , and the government and special districts that are involved in the planning area of the City of Newport Beach . The value of the environmental analysis is : 1 ) it serves as a base for future environmental reports and projects ; 2) it indicates potential environmental effects ; and 3) it indicates measures which will mitigate the adverse environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan . Relationship to Individual Development Proposals This environmental analysis discusses general impacts as related to the general policies and proposals of the General Plan . The specific impacts of individual projects which may be developed cannot be identified until precise development plans are submitted . Thus , this report will not replace the requirement for environmental impact reports on individual projects as required by the California vi Environmental Quality Act (C . E . Q .A . ) . It is , however, anticipated that this report will serve as a valuable " information document" in the preparation of detailed E . I . R . ' s on individual projects �I vi_i 1 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT II 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 1 . 1 LOCATION OF PLANNING AREA The City of Newport Beach is located along the Pacific Ocean between Los Angeles and San Diego . The City is bounded on the west by the City of Huntington Beach , on the north by the City of Costa Mesa , on the east by the City of Irvine, on the south- east by the unincorporated lands of the Irvine Ranch , and on the southwest by the Pacific Ocean . Exhibit 1 on the following page indicates the location of the Newport Beach planning area in respect to the Southern California basin . The most striking geographic feature of the City is Newport Bay, comprising 1 , 216 acres of water area completely within the corporate boundaries of the City. Newport Beach contains 37 . 5 square miles of land , bay and ocean , with 32 . 3 miles of water frontage . Acreages for the City' s land and water components are as follows : FIGURE 1 -11 Acres Percent Total Land 10 ,028. 8 42% Bay 1 ,216 5% Ocean 12 ,864 53% Total 24 ,108 .9 1 . 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach consists of ten elements including an overall General Plan Policy Report developed at the start of the General Plan program. 1City Manager' s Office, "Statistical Information , City of Newport Beach 1974-75" , City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach , CA, 1975 . -1 - EXHIBIT 1 L06 ANGELES N • POMONA LON 5 GH • • 5ANTA MA ANAHEIM • NEWPORT 50ALH • LAGUNA KPGH SANTA CATALINA ISLANt7 • 5PN JUAty GAPISTRANO • 9AN CLEMEDITE • OUANSIDE 5AN PIE40 Element Adopted Amended Last 1 . General Plan Policies March 13 , 1972 - 2 . Land Use May 29 , 1973 July 26 , 1976 �t 3 . Residential Growth May 29 , 1973 February 9 , 1976 4. Circulation March 11 , 1974 March 24 , 1975 5 . Housing February 11 , 1974 - 6 . Conservation January 14, 1974 - 7 . Recreation and Open Space ( includes Scenic Highways) December 17 , 1973 July 26 , 1976 8. Noise October 15 , 1974 - 9 . Community Facilities (Anticipated adoption by - February, 1977) 10 . Public Safety ( includes Public and Seismic Safety) March 10 , 1975 - Source : Community Development Department The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach provides the City with a guide to future growth and change in accordance with a framework of officially-adopted goals and policies directed toward land use , circulation , housing , environmental quality, use and conservation of resources , safety and other relevant physical , social and economic factors . 1 . 3 LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Newport Beach General Plan contains all mandatory general plan elements as required by State law ( Section 65300 of the Government Code) . In accordance with this law the plan provides a comprehensive, III long-range direction for City growth and development. Two of the elements group required elements of similar concern . These are the Recreation and Open Space Element with a "Scenic Highways -3- J Element" section , and the Public Safety Element which contains the required "safety" and "seismic safety elements" . 1 . 4 MAJOR GOALS/POLICIES The initial step in the General Plan program for the City of Newport Beach was the development and adoption of a General Plan Policies Report . This report contains a statement of goals and a vision of what the citizens and elected public officials desire ,t for the future of the City. The major goal for the City is : I " IN PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY , it shall be the basic underlying goal of the City of Newport Beach to protect and enhance the City ' s special charm and character; its unique natural and man-made physical environment; its attractive visual environment, and the wide range of social , economic , cultural , educational and recreational opportunities which have contributed to the high quality of life enjoyed by its citizens . 111 Within the policy report general objectives , with supporting policies for nine areas of critical importance to the City are outlined . The following issues are addressed : 1 . Future Growth 2 . Land Use 3. Circulation and Transportation 4 . Housing 5. Community Facilities and Services 6 . Natural Resources 7 . Shoreline 8. Community Design 9 . Preservation and Redevelopment Citizen input was a major factor in the preparation of each element of the General Plan . The General Plan Policy Report 1City of Newport Beach , General Plan Policies - City of - Newport Beach , Newport Beach , California , March 13, 1972 . -4- was developed after numerous joint public hearings before the City Council and Planning Commission and each element was adopted only after at least one public hearing before the Planning Commission and one public hearing before the City Council . 1 . 5 MAJOR PROPOSALS The major proposals for Newport Beach contained within the elements of the General Plan are as follows : A. Maintain existing community character and quality of I living environment . B . Provide for continued growth of the City in a controlled manner . C . Projected Land Use : Area Percent of Total Residential 5 ,213 Acres 65% Commercial 1 ,402 Acres 17% Industrial 499 Acres 6% Public and Institutional 930 Acres 12% (Source : Land Use Element - Newport Beach General Plan . ) D. Several areas of the City are designated for "Specific Area Plans" . This designation calls for the development of detailed plans for particular areas where special, constraints and opportunities exist which must be dealt with on a more-detailed basis than is possible in the General Plan . E . Several areas of the City are designated for open space use with an alternate use indicated , if the land cannot tbe acquired or otherwise preserved as open space . F . The General Plan provides for residential qrowth from an -5- i existing 27,000+ dwelling units to an ultimate total of 40 ,500+ dwelling units , an increase of 33%. ELEMENTS : Land Use Element : This element establishes City policy for land development. The element' s major proposal is to maintain the existing "grouping of villages" City form. The Land Use Element divides the City into four major land use categories : 1 . Residential ( 4 subcategories) 2. Commercial ( 3 subcategories ) I3. Industrial 4. Public/Semi -Public/ Institutional (4 subcategories ) Residential Growth Element : This element includes a "Limited- Growth" policy, which is commensurate with adopted policies and the general desires of the community. The Residential Growth Element places density limits on all future residential growth which will limit population below that projected as a "trend-growth" model ,las follows : Dwellings Population 1 . Existing 27,149 58 ,477 2 . Trend Growth 48, 384 111 ,891 3 . "Limited-Growth" 40 ,543 95 ,659 ( Source : Residential Growth Element - Newport Beach General Plan) Recreation and Open Space Element : The basic premises of this element are that open space serves a public need, provides ta public service and is a necessary part of a high-quality living environment. Toward this end the implementation program proposes the expenditure of $8, 707,000 by 1990 for the 117he "Trend-Growth" model was developed for the City by Development Research Associates to be used as an economic baseline for -6- I general Plan studies . acquisition and development of open s.pace lands and recreational facilities . Conservation Element : The major proposals of this element are the restoration of Upper Newport Bay to its former viability, the development of an optimum water resources protection program and the protection of archaeological - paleontological resources . The major natural resources within the City are tidentified as Newport Bay, the coastline , limited oil resources Iand archaeological and paleontological sites . Housing Element: The major proposals of the Housing Element are 1 ) to maintain the existing high-quality residential neighborhoods and 2) to provide for a variety of housing types in order to serve a diverse housing market. Because of the regional nature of the problem of providing adequate housing for low- and moderate-income families , cooperation with the Orange County Housing Authority is proposed . Circulation Element : The major proposals of this element are : 1 ) the improving of the local street system in Newport Beach and 2) the development of a major regional bypass (Corona del Mar Freeway) so that much of the through traffic will not have to use the Coast Highway traffic corridor. The system will be enhanced by the improvement of a series of major arterials in a north-south direction for trips with an origin or destination within Newport Beach . Noise Element: The major proposal of the Noise Element is the development of a Noise Control Program. This program is directed toward reduction of noise levels and requirements -7- for noise insulation and attenuation in new developments . Community Facilities Element : The Community Facilities Element provides a long-range guide to the development of public facilities within the Newport Beach planning area . The Element provides for the long-range planning of facilities to ensure that timely development occurs and that the future needs of the City are met . The "Community Facilities Plan" map delineates existing and proposed facility sites . Public Safety Element: The major proposals of this element are 1 ) to introduce safety considerations into the planning process in order to reduce loss of life , injuries , damage to property, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fire , flood and dangerous geolgoical occurrences , 2) to review the natural physical hazards in the Newport Beach planning area and 3) to provide for public safety considerations in the physical development of the City of Newport Beach . 1 .6 BACKGROUND STUDIES : The following studies provided background information for the development of the Newport Beach General Plan . 1 . "Economic Base Analysis and Development Research Projections" and Associates 2 . "Upper Newport Bay Cooperative Newport Beach , Orange Planning Project" County, Irvine Company 3 . "Engineering and Economic Moffatt & Nichol , Feasibility Study of a Marina Engineers Along the East Bank of the Santa Ana River" 4 . "Jet Aircraft Noise" Paul S . Veneklasen & Associates 5 . "Orange County Airport -- Impact Wilsey & Ham Study" -8- 6 . "Noise Element Study on Highway Wyle Laboratories Traffic Noise in Newport Beach , California" 7 . "Geologic-Seismic Study Phase I" Woodward-McNeill & Associates 8. "Newport Beach Traffic Study" Alan M. Voorhees & Associates , Inc . 9 . "Ecological Survey of Aquatic Dr. Peter S . Dixon and and Terrestrial Resources" Gordon A. Marsh -9- Exhibit 2 NF.W Polz'C !31%AsGN� : .y PLMd JINA !'4eA coUMY y NKPOR -`- -j � StUCTt P{LFA p�DP'Y• u.c.l. i yFjp B r 0Ai = 2 5 Jo mi c "W z FASHION-� ISWtNO \ 7 m HOty'iI/J470N ` / wAY J HIMAWAY BAY r(f i c��✓Jj($ f j gVJv !fy s �J 1 � ' 2,0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 1 2 . 1 NATURAL PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2. 11 Land Resources Background : Newport Beach is one of twenty-six cities within Orange County . The County is bounded geographically by Los Angeles County on the northwest , San Bernardino and Riverside Counties on the northeast , San Diego County on the southeast and the Pacific Ocean on the southwest. Primarily 1 Newport Beach is an urban community. The majority of land within the City is developed in single-family and duplex residences , as shown in the following chart: 1 -1 -73 1 -1 -76 Percent of Percent of Acresl Total Acresl Total Residential 4 , 174 51 % 4,602 57. 2% Commercial 617 7% 1 ,187 14 . 7% Industrial 315 4% 318 4 .0% Public and Institutional 585 7% 615 7 .6% Vacant2 2 ,538 31 % 1 ,507 16 . 5% Total3 8, 339 100% 8 ,339 100% 1Gross acres , including net area plus interior streets and one-half of the perimeter streets , does not include public waterways or beaches . 2Includes developable acreage not committed for development 1 and land proposed for public acquisition . 3Does not include public waterways , tidal lands or beaches . -11 - �,may ] J..�M 4 Yjj'K y � �ssnb�?� c""-3a" ,ice-n'�h-s�.�L'+fy-�5 �-�'^nY�'�'1Y"VT*� 1 Shoreline :A. . of ocean acres of • ocean beaches1NewportBeach . addition, • ur City-owned bay beaches totalling approximately ofwater frontageI an additional 1sandyI Exhibit 4 f. t� J a ,r ! t ,may s:� S��n��,,..��"K�Y 17 O'k•�+ .��•� � Xw 1 Information City of Newport Beach . 74-75" , Newport Beach , California , i 11 1 t t I I t / . I • I I 1 1 1 1 t t t 1 t 1 I 1 1 r'�"..i� , P, r �a? •fir". /�yY .. �" _ F r �.. ..4 Wr"' M -'�r 'RSj.`T-.eft•r" y._...�. ,. ydnYT ilk. t � boundaryThe 8an Joaquin Hills lie along the southeastern developmentCity. New coastalThese 00 feet and run parallel . the coast, southward toward Laguna . beyond. Exhibit 6 w .w � y 11tiP.loRp fvRN.h EXHIBIT 7 G t ' v •? y lk21 1 1tij+\ } .� . vY 'r.4 • •:• tre! :.S i�:.� Y7Y a.S 'i 11� "'Y: u.y r. n�. 'k2y,�h :V ii� `+ { p� �ti'2 L::v'•J �•' t t;1�V' i 1?f. t !1'�i1 ' '.i.,2� 4aa�3 y,,��Y}l,}, .J• N T iZ'�'�yyA � 1S t� 1•;\},H�75.7 :, iro.. ,J:ry i�:1� :Y:.�'ti C�• )) �,:)55 rr, .!!rr!•1hr i'IJ},\ r,J !)^ ST 4'�.r.f•: 24:fy;R Slv �'r1' IF,r". i' il: '�'i''r(i5 : ; 4 !x[i< 1. i1a:�.. 2 { } � + z 1 f•,`,.; . i l,,5 r i�) n:.t',�'>,,,'• S19"' �„ r� � )iJ :�l'S�A:" n:4fc � �1yt,j t. '.� e.j't: �'SI { ���5 a\} Y•-0''.. �}'i'�Y r , S M •'N U!>, .S,'i 1,.cr G '1 C y f',4;:r:'Yt�V at ! ni F R i •1� lf:)r' r'J{ rN:+ 4iii�Fl rP•tial.in,� ..a.:\ \ . )j 1•} 'i.! R ^tl, ,i 52'+,y/'w.(; Kjtp)��:r'.kr•yi:!,tj1 i�..S :C^;.;., r• 1<�jl�y'3'i •a:;J.r,AM�.V:i4¢y( i�/!. y�\�•r T 1- r�'! �. ')�.jtZ77 1.� "n i'7.5, i,e,:a. ',.\„. •:1,`,Ki^t.r a;'.�'�:ct :.;1 .:{•;tt ,%.ry•.ZlJ, - S•rl.'N�,1 L}. 1:. 'q� t+Y.7•,+. nri• '\• 1�..;a/ ;r •a. r "i;7J, fC 'V.� ,i t l.: r r ��](�' 1N 1:,151i iA;..'1tf,�.G S!+{�fi'it.n:`:..,y:it).' .;{'::i�f•1Z' Z'}'::;t�.".i PSi{'.k��i;�i. '�`'i:ur.C�:�: 'r'+{r�{y�j�1,i�1' F,.4., �/ti•:R!{•]7�1'?f'17°Z:1`�'•[!!"i�5:.:{'Srisj��\'1'k'if'$'•irv�:t•'1{:`7r'l,: i y�,:a Y,j•':"7.Sr.YS}'•yti 7'w),,;,• ,yt. $}iF�?�d J {7 �i-S 7r�rY 7...L j.:nj eyv;:Jil.yt,..:alt e : ...Kiva.i{i: . 1p•'C%iy";,.'ri'�. / {'�4'XG,4) 1(��} Y�ly�ry:Cx�+`�5•' �i'�7 r?i:\:"1?}���'j.Jfi-.;••r y,. aCn ' )yK$�l\fit .TP f, S ! t`}6' :r�:A,1�:L•k.. PL,P' ,(C � 7:a fjl:. !: i^•j:.•:a•' �t n �{ 1. 51 i9 ehb 'J .'•. 5`!.� '`,r ••rin Y�j.;.. s:•c�Jr,iy r+. C:Se� rr11 !{ �9`y�'1 !�'i "N1GY it\' ,�( k. ', •y Y•.'�:,`)'n� 12]�•Ltf.1.;.ii.•: ,r u� � �},\J Fli�':;SM1'�.IY��� lift' � 'i::{:!-':ii. '•�:• ek'�.v��1, T r „tt�'` },'+ yr.,�i•e`..:;...� ,�l' �. 7• t�q�f� i { :i+a.:� iyS "f'•'P IN, •,�yfj ` ;lira+ tyi :p• . r•'1.t.�. •} a. , NNN, � Y..e�)�hat yn:t '} Y� 9faM1ir,,r Y/ !; s/.�l4f v.:.:jt'.l•(:• 1Ap y •• ,..'ST. �,�;• r �i�{j�1tt.5M\.�Y( !}.y�i }fSti ") '^h � M :•t•' r1['i:\'� `�-��f]" l �.}!i'J �:�f .f�si-h•i'rr j)'; �r� � ' �;S;nN;'1'y? it 21•_. Cr1;>T� ��-.r-r)'.`.ij�'�.�?�., �• !':,:' Pia. l' �.t J•n}'�a .y:i.; r f 4.Orr i i ��i��IJY(:V l AIY•. O 9.^p` ! 1 l;vy, � ,..,�� '.. wL'}ia:1Y6 i,4^ r 'f z SfS vs''• !.1 'r y'�i•?j^'r4`• :,i:'.Y `'7)�' � 11:C';`ti„ a:. n_;:�c+;»S.1 w� u Y i e���L�'t S^fi:tC :t5ea0. � •24ii.'i i�it't't'•`)i L.°:l .cal$`i1/7: SN.,��.q.0 L p F r• �kd•"Y+t;r::a•, t 'i:z4'ii r'4.;ti 'ir:>°,n 7..,i`;r2•�', 1 •fk^s,{:"Jh�,7a�Tlrt i',t#�a rr`�to- •r.�i, n>.;fr,:d .p, �i..pa ii•�Sl;;:.t�:, al....j•<,% u �`.L'p`:z.�tit,:'L+,:'• YK: ••}itf'Ci':'i � )^ ,'.��:::4 ` ;:""''i`�1^J;a:ri:: 4°T�:ai•f'.t y7 •i'`� 'q4�i" f'�l'• :p ;t.,• �?S;q�:':'i 't.�riaT^d�C• C Q �+SiCtt j y�,'�:ia'LtiS �Z1411`{:fi::y •;ti,;. ., ! •tt'ip.� •.5.4;I'r':':' •),•.t }i; .- '.t�ivy 4Y o,4�:''i ir,..,. },.,.� ,•� .{::'}:''�$:'y r ""'a7i{,tyrii Alt i�l�, . aatir r�tr;isfifn;`'. ,,t�r•:,,..,;, •:'t;:'SJ-mj,i`-..:y�::�e.. v: • .'��;i•'e:• :f,7.'":Y, ;;; J, t:;G`�;K • �;•"{dj', Jrr v:j^ 1 ,},S i:y iQ' {,.i j1. yrW ljrvna Y,nJ?r � E`;�A,vn:;:.y; a6� ii' e ir.'••:)if:.y`.r�ti:vik-,`;. fMG AATNIIR BN LL r a - I JAr�Rte lbA� v d o0 1 _ J! M2N a .QAR lYodAk3rx i �boh i 1 - - 1 r 1 ' C . Geology: The City is bounded on the west by the Santa Ana River, on the north and east by terrace and floodplain deposits , on the south by the San Joaquin Hills , and on the west by the Pacific Ocean . The ' City is partially situated on recent marine sands and silts resulting from littoral drift downcoast of the Santa Ana River, and partly on Quaternary marine terrace deposits which border the ' ocean and Newport Bay . Corona del Mar lies on marine terrace deposits . These terrace deposits continue south and. along the Coast Highway to Laguna Beach . The San Joaquin Hills are a ' faulted, complex mixture of sedimentary and volcanic rocks . Physiographically, Newport Beach is divided into three zones : ' the harbor and estuarine zone, including the Upper and Lower ' Bays and the shoreline beaches ; the recent marine terraces , including the bluff areas , Newport Center, and Corona del Mar; and the hill areas , primarily the San Joaquin Hills . Structurally, the study area is underlain by a broad anticlinal structure to the east of the harbor area , aligned in a general N-S direction . GEOLOGIC UNITS : A number of geologic units are found within the boundaries of the city. These units are : ' "Topanga Formation : (Middle Miocene) The Topanga Formation consists of a buff-colored , medium - to coarse - grained sandstone , which may locally contain tuffaceous volcanic material . It is found along the foot of the bluffs near University ' Drive , and in the San Joaquin Hills . It is moderately well cemented and massive in appearance . Monterey Shale : (Miocene Age) The Monterey Formation is found at the foot 'of the bluffs along the Coast Highway, along the Corona del Mar and Upper Bay shorelines , and in the San Joaquin Hills . The Monterey Shale is typically a thin-bedded,• diatomaceous , silty to sandy shale with siltstone , sandstone and chert interbeds . It is light tan to whitish ' in color and is commonly contorted and folded. -17- Capistrano Siltstone: (Miocene-Pliocene Age) The Capistrano Formation is younger than the Monterey and overlies it . Its appearance is quite similar to the Monterey. The Capistrano is found along the margins of the Upper Bay and in the San Joaquin Hills . It is typically a moderately massive siltstone with clay and sand lenses . Folding and disturbance of the ' beds is much less than that of the Monterey Formation . Un-named Sandstone : The Un-named Sandstone is found along the margins of ' the Upper Bay. It is light brown to white in color and is poorly cemented . Of relatively minor extent, it is important only insofar as it affects the stability ' of the Upper Bay bluffs . Marine Terrace Deposits : (Plio-Pleistocene Age) The marine terrace deposits comprise the greatest aerial extent of surficial geological units within the city. These deposits form the mesas on which Newport Heights , all the development around the Upper Bay, ' Newport Center, and Corona del Mar are built. Further older terrace deposits are found at higher elevations in the San Joaquin Hills . These terrace deposits are typically fine - to medium - grained sands with minor amounts of gravel and cobbles . Estuarine and Lagoonal Deposits : ( Recent) These recently deposited materials are found in the Upper Bay, and to a lesser extent in the Lower Bay, and at the Santa Ana River mouth . They include sands , silts , and clays , with the fine-grained sediments predominating . They have resulted from deposition in brackish water areas . The fine-grained sediments are commonly soft, compressible, and may contain appreciable organic material . Marine Sands : ( Recent) Most of the Lower Bay development has been built on marine beach sands , either natural deposits or reworked dredged sands . These deposits result from the southward ' drift of sands carried to the ocean by the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers . The sands are commonly medium grained , and may contain lenses of silt , gravel or organic ' materials . "1 1Woodward-McNeill and Associates , Phase I - Geologic-Seismic Study ' for the Newport Beach General Plan" , Orange, California , October 30 , 1972, Pages 6 and 7 . -18- ' D. Seismicity: The potential for severe damage and loss of life resulting from earthquake activity exists within the City of Newport Beach as it does throughout Southern California . The City could ' be faced with several major seismic hazards , such as 1 ) ground ' shaking , 2 ) ground failure , 3) ground displacement, 4) tsunamis and 5) seiches . The following discussion of seismic hazards ' from the "Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element" , prepared by the Association of Engineering Geologists , describes these ' potential hazards : ' "Experience has shown that in most areas of the world , including California , fault movements during historic time have nearly always occurred on already existing faults with evidence of geologically ' recent movement. Since earthquakes are the result of movement along faults , in attempting to predict future earthquakes and fault movement within - or near - a particular site , consideration should be given not only to the seismic record during historic time , but also to 'the presence of any faults with evidence of geologically recent movement . 1 The most widespread effect of an earthquake is ground shaking. This is also usually (but not always) the greatest cause of damage . Structures of all types , including engineered structures and public utility facilities , if inadequately constructed or designed to withstand the shaking force , may suffer severe damage or collapse . The vast majority of deaths during earthquakes are the result of structural failure due to ground shaking . Most such deaths are preventable, even with present knowledge . New construction can and should be designed and built to withstand probable shaking ' without collapse . The greatest existing hazard within the state is the continued use of tens of thousands of older structures incapable of withstanding earthquake forces . Knowledge of earthquake-resistant design and construction has increased greatly in recent years , though much remains to be learned . ' A second effect of earthquakes is ground failure in the form of landslides , rock falls , subsidence , and other surface and near surface ground movements . ' This often results in complete loss of strength of water-saturated subsurface foundation soil ( "liquefac- tion" ) such as occurred near the Juvenile Hall in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake and in the massive -19- 1 Turnagain Arm landslide in Anchorage during the 1964 Alaska earthquake . Most such hazardous sites can be either avoided or stabilized if adequate geologic and soil investigations are utilized . Another damaging effect of earthquakes is ground displacement ( surface rupture) along faults . Such ' displacements of the earth ' s crust may be vertical , horizontal , or both and may offset the ground by as much as 30 feet (as in 1857 in Southern California) . It is not economically feasible to design and build foundations of structures ( dams , buildings , bridges ) to remain intact across such zones . Fault zones sub- ject to displacement are best avoided in construction . ' In addition to regional investigations necessary to the basic understanding of faults and their histories , detailed site investigations are needed prior to the ' approval of construction in any suspected active fault zones . Utilities , roads , canals , and other linear features are ,particularly vulnerable to damage as a result of ground displacement. "l A seismic hazard map ( Exhibit 8) indicating the general locations and extent of areas subject to seismic hazards in Newport Beach is on the following page . A more-detailed analysis is provided in the "Geologic-Seismic Study" prepared for the City ' by Woodward-McNeill and Associates and the Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan . 1 1 lAssociation of Engineering Geologists , "A Planners Guide to the Seismic Safety Element" . ' -20- . j I11i0alEf�'IY 3 .1. = ` ♦ 1. i 3r f • R GROUND CATEGORY 5 ow Is a s+ � : r�}}aa+army}d+ano 3F-t�m i 1 a �7� �� � fur *, yc♦ }lf\ +�t+,�ta.��i 1 i °oa ys" ♦ i'r r ��V F��:Ti.�♦ � �� ��c, `'E`r;�,��i\♦r'�.�"33na`*`� � ♦ ♦♦ .♦ ci ♦nn� .. a + 1 i .♦�♦gib € i. ` `� a p'ad �pL♦� 55.. `{� w r_4��� '� //. • tr 5�y}�,yill 1 ' \ 1��+� a��9�f•4 � y' \� I� v "gyp►1�Lsa;R K.7 • kill ^ndd' �.�j�'+�`\� ��� ^fi `{.4� 1.�y'vy��� ��Pe`-1.� � pa tY�. Cat,,. 49Jb�aEa� � .`'}�c-;2,• s..vs;r 1 ��2'han��� ������\ i�_�iluttnM1�g�-� .... � � "�' ��LtN7s�.•j 1� S +♦+aa• �� � PP y. cCMuNA tu�nf tdt �� p- I t I- ��-r,}�jn0 ��\+i+r•�♦ .�♦ r"�"�- t,n a t G :R;,�nery*^vLj�+t �1�� �+s `} y trd�1, f....�J�.V ^ng+t 8 utK_V C 1 T� �' d'dSlBIIL ry•�. � i'cn i'Yn_•i.r,�j➢4pm �ifL7u N 3 � 1 E . Soils : Soils have been grouped into eight land capacity classes by the U . S . Department of Agriculture , Soil Conservation ' Service . Generally speaking , soil classes I through IV are suitable for some form of cultivation while classes V through VIII are not. Class I and II soils are subject to few limitations . They have both the widest range of use and the lowest risk of fidamage when cultivated . These flat, rich and fertile soils , while best suited for .agricultural uses , are also the easiest to build upon . Developable open lands such as these are urbanizing at the average rate of nearly 10 square miles each year . Class III and IV soils have more unfavorable natural features which restrict their use , and when employed for agricultural purposes , require careful management. Their primary uses are for cultivated crops , woodland, pastureland and wildlife land . Exhibit 9 on the following page indicates soil classification within the planning area . 1 -22- ': '•"z`<'<"�<' AInVL►GUL'fl1YLAl- L�tpS L,�1'M�ILt'K ORANAE ,:<y PRI/V� AGIYLIGUL'fll►tc.L ��LS [oUHfY AIRPORT '=='c .'.: GLASS 2 3L 17 `jli:P• •`!:• Fii y FASHION ^a..is is ...v• y 17 3 Tx 1 n ISLAND F ,:Y.i'i;�.�.:-'to:�<!sl.7.. �•7�_ f / ` T �"1'•�'FR\'I'Y.:::n4��_ �.�. \` „ / CPS kifWAY KE J �I i There are no prime Agricultural Soils , Class I and II ( Exhibit 9) located within the City . The majority of the low-lying lands are composed of sand and silt and not suitable for crops . There are no existing commercial agricultural uses within the City . Adjacent to the City to the southeast is the most southerly portion of the Irvine Agricultural Preserve . Within this southern section of this agricultural preserve there are limited occurrences of prime agricultural lands . The soils on the western side of Upper Newport Bay are Classes III and. IV soils (See Exhibitl0) and on the eastern section of the City, Classes VI through VIII . -24- so w m Cr go up am rr me im so +� Exhibit 10 RIf 1-1 �.: ,tz:�^ •� -f :_ Hl' �F,j'i{�. -•!a: Ivii+l�VpT'7.et(ey!/� " �'c ��> � - •if/, r�•rry "y* P�1JV�EP�+CbtF �oil,��•{.P+���'ak. tK `.`., !i �� ` �:"YiiS.•�}4 trytr. , \ � t a,F".,a.ti viF.•i �."•:`•b�_ - .;i�°C.��:.•�^J.�, ', may?j ryn�- :� l�J.w..:�`r'-' 're�f�:_ri'�N+,yl :+ V�•�• JJjj�+Ta,y^t$4. F . Minerals : The only extractable mineral located within the City of Newport Beach is oil . There are operating oil wells in the West Newport area and in Unincorporated County areas within the City boundary. In federal waters beyond the three- mile City limit, the federal government is leasing areas for oil exploration . -26- G . Vegetation and Wildlife : The major undeveloped areas remaining within the City were analyzed in terms of terrestrial resources in detail by Dr . Peter S . Dixon and Gordon A . March , ( "Ecological Survey of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources -- City of Newport- Beach" ) in July of 1973. Dr. Peter S . Dixon ' s and Gordon A . Marsh ' s findings are summarized within the remaining portion of this section of the E . I . R. In terms of vegetation, grassland communities and their associated biota , although still represented by extensive acreage , are rapidly diminishing within the City limits , because the slope conditions preferred by naturalized grasses are also subject to urban development due to minimal grading requirements . The Banning property - upland area overlooking the Santa Ana River flood plain ; Harbor View Hills - east of New MacArthur /1 Boulevard ( relocated) ; and the area around San Joaquin Reservoir, �I east of Spyglass Hill ; retain a semblance of a natural grassland community. Here a balance between native annuals ( lupines , fiddleneck, owls cover) and introduced weedy annuals (mustards) exist . The remaining grass-covered fields , except for the low hills directly above or north of Back Bay, are systematically plowed to reduce the potential summertime fire hazard . In the near future , it appears that this particular association of plants and animals will eventually disappear. Freshwater marshes , lakes and wetland habitats , either natural or artificial , are limited to a few areas of limited extent -27- in Newport Beach . Sites where such associations may be found include : 1 . Big Canyon (between Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive) and between the present and new MacArthur Boulevard ; 2 . Buck Gully; 3. Morning Canyon ; 4 . West Upper Newport Bay - opposite 23rd Street; 5 . West Upper Newport Bay - along Dover Drive ; 6 . The Delhi Flood Control Channel ; 7. Jasmine Creek ; 8 . East Upper Newport Bay - near the Newporter Inn and Back Bay Drive and below Eastbluff and the former saltworks ; 9 . San Diego Creek ; 10 . Harbor High School - artificial ecosystem. Of these , Big Canyon , the 23rd Street marsh of West bay, the eastbay thicket near the former salt works and the San Diego Creek channel are the most significant freshwater habitats remaining in the City. l` These grassland communities , unlike wetland associations will i or are expected to increase with urbanization , if runoff from new developments is not entirely contained within subsurface systems . In fact, the more important sites are flourishing because of a continuous rather than intermittent flow of, in many cases , of nutrient rich water . Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral associations are presently found in varying degrees of entirety on the : 1 . Banning Lease - bluffs and central ravine ; -28- 2 . Westbay bluffs ; 3. Big Canyon bluffs ; 4 . Eastbay bluffs - from Big Canyon to the Newporter Inn ; 5 . Morning Canyon ; 6 . Buck Gully; 7 . Jasmine Creek ; 8. San Joaquin Reservoir uplands ; 9 . Canyon near the Metropolitan Water District reservoir in Harbor View Hilts area . The west and east Upper Newport Bay bluffs , Buck Gully, the undeveloped marine terrace near the San Joaquin Reservoir and the Metropolitan Water District Canyon between Harbor View and Spyglass Hill are the primary remnants of a previously abundant coastal bluff and foothills association . -29- H . Archaeological - Paleontological Sites : The City has not been extensively surveyed for sites . However, thirty sites have been identified , primarily around Upper Newport Bay. These sites are on record with the Archaeological Survey Office at the University of California at Los Angeles . Recent discoveries have indicated that the City may contain important prehistoric remains . Prehistoric remains of man have been definitely dated as far back as 8 ,000 to 10 ,000 years ; there are indications that man may have inhabited the area as far back as 20 ,000 years . Archaeologists have , through excavation , established that at least two and possibly three distinct cultural groups inhabited the area . Late sites indicate that the City of Newport Beach area was heavily populated at the time of Spanish contact. Sites vary in size , content, and depth . The City also contains unique paleontological localities , especially along the bluffs of the east shore of the bay and the adjoining foothills . Vertebrate deposits within the City boundaries are considered . to be among the most important in the entire State . 1 - 30- 2 . 12 WATER RESOURCES Background : Water is used for domestic , municipal , agricultural , recreational and industrial purposes . In addition , it is the natural habitat of a multitude of marine organisms , fish , fowl , and animals . The principal supply of water to the subregion (Orange County) is from streams bringing water from outside the area through mountain canyons and local rainfall which is collected within the drainage system. A . Ocean and Shoreline : The Newport Beach City boundary extends three miles into the ocean resulting in 12 ,873 acres of ocean area being contained within the City limits . The Newport and Balboa piers , the entrances to the channel jetties , the rock groins in the West Newport area and navigational buoys are the only man-made objects located within the ocean inside of the Newport City limits . Oil drilling is prohibited by both jCity Charter and State Law. I - 31 - i t� r Coastal Intertidal : The coastal intertidal portion of the City of Newport Beach stretches •from the Santa Ana River to Cameo Shores , a distance of about seven miles . The coast between the Santa Ana River and the Balboa Jetty is entirely made up of sandy beach . The coast on the opposite side of the harbor entrance is made up of sandy beach with about one mile of rocky intertidal between the end of the City/State beach park and the City boundary at Cameo Shores . Exhibit 12 1 r .��r ,.rt� 4�rr,. 4.i. +, -yr.—%`:"d,..•!':✓", -. l^ -.. .. r:}'+r•���iM'�.W'cF� �,='Kr va.^yr.t. �2�� _ �'yy' sue- W..ti.�:c• ,r c•``�•tfM'a r,p i�.�y+J��n�'. •rfv.• � ^�q IA 1 Sandy Beach : With the exception of about one mile of rocky intertidal at the easterly limit of the City of Newport Beach , the whole of the coastal intertidal is occupied by sandy beach . These beaches have heavy usage for recreational purposes , particularly in the region between Newport Pier and the mouth of the Santa Ana River and the Corona del Mar City/State beach . Rocky Intertidal : The rocky intertidal area extends from the south end of the Corona del Mar City/State beach park to the City boundary at Cameo Shores , a distance of one mile. The shore is made up of exposed reefs with shallow tide pools and surge channels . The rocky area extends seawards but at a depth of about ten feet below the lowest tides , it is replaced by a large sand-covered plateau. -34- M 4 i B . Newport Bay: Newport Bay is an estuary, although the amount of freshwater entering it varies considerably as a result of the highly seasonal precipitation as well as marked annual fluctuations in rainfall . Historically, the flows of fresh water into the Bay have changed greatly from time to time , due principally to the vagaries of the Santa Ana River. The outline of the Upper Bay was formed by the erosive action of the Santa Ana River in prehistoric times . Newport Bay is divided into two parts ( Exhibit 14) by the constriction which exists at the Coast Highway Bridge . The Upper Bay is surrounded for the most part by bluffs and although there has been some development, major modification involves less than 10% of the periphery. In contrast , the Lower Bay is bounded only in part by bluffs on the northern and eastern borders and its periphery is largely made up of sandy/muddy lowlands protected by man-made bulkheading . The Lower Bay is totally developed with urban uses and as a small boat harbor. The Upper and Lower Bays differ considerably both in their geological structure and in the extent of modification by man ' s activities . .-36- .� r r !,•,�,�' ��� Exhibit 14 jo i>—'0 UPPER AND LOWER NEWPORT N��.vy, O00 SAY -DaM5 Ar MF-AN LOWER LOW WATER Q � •�` s>� �'� ".'-E+r'�-'?-`'.t}�"-`r— - Gam/ -/' L� �� 00 OdeAN DEPT1i5 u " 1 r lZZ 6-1 oul Uri s Q67pejgU �dC7C]L�7C7E7C3C9 ` Imo' „Ja cW 1 � „�'wevxa Pox .iri.i`Yi�i,iii_,�,1 {�.,,� ..�-- : Wp® .�1\�♦ rf .. 1 tni°c3 � Nyp � ��.I ilff � ^o bme.u.� - t.Y/IY��... '.-i;�, `\�� "CN,MM,L� ..• �8tp� p �^,aa•-aa b� a �. v°�,u�� Q��9o�000noVi�:��pC4� � /yI� R�� �/Jpp�p F aacacaoova BnO�U•nra �J �SY1�� ® 4� ! tJ ( nn� ' t s. _� ...i .. _ + 1(( �®S � SS ���gG7iJt®���n"� c m �� " �1 �+(�Ut1��G'�'��=o- 20 ��� ��•-- J � .i 313f ia:le{a/r 000j��[,7Q9� "t, 01 - _ ..._ �������,�o �_ m .-•. �(Fj , 000CJOPj 10 �.,r/� + ' _- .- 15 Gib;,. �r1°_�" _--___'�— ^~`• � Ft`�` r�> ©�0�\ ` �•pG _ 10 30 mom` 7 S_, 60 120 1 Upper Newport Bay : Upper Newport Bay is an elongate sinuate �+ body of water, some 3. 5 miles in length ( Exhibit 15) , oriented in ' a general northeasterly direction . Despite its length , the Upper Bay is narrow, rarely exceeding half a mile in breadth and much less than this in places . Bluffs extend along most of each side of the Upper Bay, with an average height of the order of 100 feet. The general outline of the Upper Bay and the occurrence of these bluffs are a reflection of its formation by the Santa Ana River in prehistoric times . The total area of the Upper Bay , between the marginal bluffs , consists of more than 1 ,000 acres , of which about 700 acres are covered at extreme high water. The total shoreline is of the order of 70 ,000 feet. l The depth of water in the Upper Bay has varied considerably due to changes in the rates at which deposition and erosion of silt occurred and also through artificial dredging operations . At the present time the maximum depth of water probably does not exceed 20 feet while at the most northerly end of the Upper Bay the depth does not exceed a few inches at high tide . As in all estuaries , the water in the Upper Bay is a mixture of seawater entering from the ocean and freshwater from terrestrial drainage . The salt content of the water in Upper Newport Bay shows complex variations due to tidal changes and complex seasonal changes in rainfall and run-off. Seawater enters the Upper Bay from the Lower Bay after the various mixing processes which have occurred in the latter. 1City of Newport Beach , Recreation and Open Space Element - Newport Beach General Plan , Newport Beach , California , November 10 , 1975 , Page 45 . -38- �k'No �' .. +•�i. + 'z AL OvIlm SjF r cM1[...Y" •vvri !�n .,y'w 'tea. .'."-"`"' � n T �,•itp��rWN.y1` { �' �"'� � Y'. r.T. � 3cti.W�' 'lj i rL rv 's y V Vbly I _� r t Lower Newport Bay: Lower Newport Bay is an elongate body of water some four miles in length , oriented in a general northwest/ southeasterly direction (Exhibit 16) . The Upper Bay enters at a point about midway between the entrance and the innermost part of the Lower Bay. The maximum width of the Lower Bay is about half a mile . The Lower Bay is bounded by bluffs on the northern and eastern sides , the southern and southwestern boundaries being provided by the Balboa Peninsula . This peninsula is a consolidated sands pit only a few feet above the highwater mark of extreme tides . The Lower Bay contains some seven islands formed initially from sand banks but subsequently enlarged by dredge spoil . All the islands are now consolidated by complete bulkheading as a result of the development of the Lower Bay. The development is residential , recreational (small boat harbor) , and industrial (principally in connection with the boating activities ) . Excluding the islands , the total extent of water in the Lower Bay is about 1 ,200 acres and the total shoreline is about 120 ,000 feet. l The depth of water in the major channels is Imaintained at about 20 feet by dredging although the depth is much less than this in the innermost channels , particularly in ' the vicinity of Newport Island. 1City of Newport Beach , Recreation and Open Space Element - Newport Beach General Plan , Newport Beach , California , November 10 , 1975 , Page 45 . -40- . t".�"' `�►� may`'.` wit n�•t K' ��/- • .� ' �,}`�./. Fy .ti+�/�%�y£�n4 \"�. '' J•'i 5y ..}F'vetl ".'.�{! 1 ' 1 C . Seminiuk Slough : Seminiuk Slough ( Exhibit 17) contains an area of water restricted to relatively narrow , finger-like channels . The general outline is complex. The principal channel commences at the point where the Coast Highway crosses the Banning Channel and the Santa Ana River. It is essentially sinuate in shape , initially lying parallel to the Coast Highway . It then curves away in a wide sweep before eventually returning with the innermost part lying within 100 yards of the Coast Highway . This principal channel is bounded on the southern side by residential property. There are various channels within the Banning Property, none of which are particularly well defined as this area is flat swampy marshland . The eastern end of the principal channel is backed by bluffs which are about 100 feet in height with a narrow shelf, some ' 100 feet in width , at their base . The principal channel communicates with the Banning Channel through a large pipe , so that the wet area lying within Newport Shores is subject to tidal action , although there is no open passage for the various small boats which are maintained in the area . i -42- a. 1 7 �41 • 1 ` , r i 1 D . Groundwater Basins : There are five distinctly separated major groundwater basins (Exhibit 18) in Orange County : 1 . The Coastal Plain Basin ; 2 . The La Habra Basin; 3 . The Aliso Creek Basin ; 4 . The Trabuco and San Juan Creek Basin ; and 5 . The Laguna Creek Basin . The City of Newport ' Beach is located primarily within the coastal and San Diego Creek basins . The main ground water basin extends below three hundred and thirty square miles or under 42% of the county surface . l This basin contains roughly four million acre feet of water. iWater flowing from the local watershed supplemented by water imported from the Colorado River is pumped into the underground ' basin or is allowed to percolate into the soil through large settling basins or through unpaved bottoms of rivers and flood control channels . In 1964 , 60% of the water used in Orange County was from the local watershed . Today this source can support only about 40% of fresh water requirements . 1 1 lOrange County General Planning Program, The Physical Environment of Orange County, Santa Ana , California , November, 1971 . -44- cr+ Exhibit 18 €"€€'s'::iiifif €':'s's f €€€€ i `•.'s ................................................................................................................. ........ ........................ .. . ........................................................................... € 's€ i [ €€.€€'€€ `.``: ii[€ €i` =':'€"•. '':ii i`:III€iif[[€ 's€ i: a" "` iiii[ €€ i'::€e i€ t.' €€€ €€€€€€€€_€€€_€€€i_€€€€€€€i€`[€ff [[[: €€ I@€ ii ii'• ii. €€€ €i :'•':i€iii€ii`. € € €€"€ :€i€iiiiif€ ............................................ ............................... ... ................................... ............. ::HIM—* : ' !€fi............................` ':':i€ii Eif€€€€ €'..............`i's€':€ 'si D A u K w s t "`i'.fi[I'si€€€ €':':€I''si':4€ : :.' `•. `:`[ iiifii's'si € .......................................... ...... .....:::: ...::::::..................... :.•::::::::::. :_:......_:................. ............... .€; €�_ €; 's€€�€i'si:'`€ii€€€€€€=[�€':'siiii�€€"iiiii€�€€€ii's:€�€€:?�€€�`€'siiiiii :€�€€�s€€€:-::::::::::.... ••:::::::::::::::: ...................... ................::«:••:::::::::::: ::: ss:;::t: . .. :: ::::::::::::::.:............................. ................. ..... e ................... ................... $ . '................................. ttt::s .......... ................................... ........................................................................ ............................... ............................... ............................ ...................................................................... .. € .... .......................................................................... iii::l€€€€::�.... =ii€'s€lii'siPl::::•�:::::::......._ tttt::tt:::: ss :::.• . l— s a J U I N H ................................................................................................ . . ....................... c r I ': '.................... e ` ``€i�ii ii€iii'isEiiEEEi`iiiiE'EE:i fEE € €e:€- .................. [s€ , 3 a F 4L 0 —� ...................... .............................::::::::::::.::�::.•::.........:::::� r �+ a 'ii�iiii` :i"•.iiiiiiiiiiiiiii:::r 5 ............................ ................ .............................. . _l n c y� � A :...... :::: iiiii ::::.. �J •� •••••� H14NWAY ' E . Watersheds : The City of Newport Beach is affected primarily by two major watersheds ; these being the Santa Ana River which drains to the ocean just west of the City and the San Diego Creek which drains a major portion of Orange County into the Upper Newport Bay. Localized minor watersheds drain into Upper and Lower Newport Bay and , in the Corona del Mar area , to the ocean . ' The Santa Ana watershed (Exhibit 19 ) is the most extensive in Orange County running through a three-county area from its headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains to its outlet in the Pacific Ocean . -46- SANTA ANA Exhibit 19 RIVER WATERSHED PUN? M P. A%T. SAN *,jkJ&vm1* A IJg Rk-.71411poliml, FMLERTON S= ' F . Watercourses : The main watercourses for the City are listed below. They are all intermittent in nature , flowing only ' during winter rainy months . (Exhibit 20) 1 . Santa Ana River 5 . Delhi Channel 2 . San Diego Creek 6 . Big Canyon Creek 3. Buck Gully 7 . Jasmine Creek 4 . Morning Canyon Creek 1 -48- Exhibit 20 oKm4e NEr\cPortr gEc,c►k COUNTY / WA'rEtz LE:I!►Z5E5 AIRPORT f rj,D, S/Q.l t�1E1i� DELKI d•G � I f art b i � \ 5,^ Arta p NA paves l 4 014 co"N �^\ ) <I3 i HrrL eo •lA6Mlh1� l r> sIz FASHION 3 0EE44- A ISLAND F Huµt1u470N \ f � CPS y�.AY '� f M•�i H14NWAY ---- `- J \�--� CANS SAN r �„JD• ------------ ---------------- �/ ' G. Floodplains/Historic Flooding : It is normal for watercourses to periodically overflow their stream beds , and in Orange County, historical records show flooding over substantially all of low lying western Orange County by the Santa Ana River. ' With the construction of Prado Dam, destructive floods with loss of life and severe damage , such as occurred in 1938, have thus far been prevented . However, in spite of numerous improve- ments to the Santa Ana River Channel and a network of flood control facilities , the floodplain of the Santa Ana River can still expect to be subject to a standard project flood ( statistically ' occurring once in around 200 years) that will inundate the homes of the 900 ,000 or so living on the floo.dplain . The City of Newport Beach lies within the limits of the flood plains of both the Santa Ana River and the San Diego Creek . Exhibits 21 and 22 illustrate these flood plains . l It is known that numerous large floods have occurred in the ' Santa Ana River. In terms of discharge, the largest on record was the flood of 1861 and 1862 . Other large floods occurred in 1825 , 1867 , 1884 , 1891 , 1910 , 1916 , 1927, 1938, 1965 and 1969 . The early flood problem in the County was largely the uncontrolled 1 flow of streams originating in the mountains and discharging ' onto the relatively flat alluvial plains . The rapid post World War II increase in Orange County ' s population largely concentrated ' on these alluvial plains made them particularly susceptible 1Department of the Army, Los Angeles District , Corps of Engineers , Flood Plain Information San Diego Creek and Peters Canyon Wash , Orange County, California , Los Angeles , California , June , 1972 . and Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers , Flood Plain Information Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, Orange County, California , Los Angeles , California , 1975 . - 50- Exhibit 21 • . �. . COUNTY xmropq A _ a. IN IN 17 ISLAND < V ------------ � wrw n A �{yy AIM{/ GYM � y ��� �1M1'.�Mw{I��V•V Ww. YVVIIMMM��. � �• N� ..\�� w•�1 �VYVYVYr ��Y Kjl Exhibit 22 oKmgf / SPN pIF.Gid GPkC - AWUNTY MPO, POTS-MTIAL FLOOP PLP N NAZARP AIRPORT / i� J ucl I I --LL _ ZF a .1 I r FASHIONS � IrTx I ^ ISLAND € m t A L 61 HuljT1A14TOH fc/ ' �� W�+Y � f HI4NWAY BAY f �JD to the effects of local accumulation of storm water from overflow or scour of existing water courses . The flood of 1825 wa,s of sufficient magnitude to change the course of many rivers in the Los Angeles and San Diego areas . During that flood the Santa Ana River changed its course and raged through Newport Bay carrying with it gravel and sand to form a spit at the mouth of the bay which is now known as the Balboa Peninsula . In 1862 the Santa Ana River again flooded the lowland area destroying vineyards , orchards and grainfields . Some areas as far as four miles from the river were covered by floodwaters four feet deep . -53- H . Water Quality: Water quality is defined in terms of the physical , chemical and biological properties of water pertinent to the use under consideration . The groundwater quality in the basin has been deteriorating over the years because of infiltration of chemicals and salts from agricultural operations , saltwater intrusion , land outfalls , the poor quality water flowing of Colorado River water used to recharge the groundwater. Colorado 1 River water, with over 800 parts per million of total dissolved solids is also delivered directly to both urban and agricultural !' users , presenting problems to both , particularly in the south County area which is very dependent on imported water. An important fact is that the U .S. Public Health Standard of 500 ppm TDS for drinking water is exceeded by the imported Colorado River water . While blending of groundwater and imported water has helped somewhat, nevertheless , substantial portions of the County groundwater basin have in excess of 600 ppm TDS . Orange County Water District reports that during 1971 -72 , the average quality of water served by the major agencies within the district was 623 parts per million in total dissolved solids and 295 parts per million in total hardness . The use of bottled water and home water softeners is rapidly expanding throughout the County. The importation of State Project water which has 230 ppm TDS for groundwater recharge and direct delivery will improve the situation somewhat. The State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act defines water pollution as follows : " ' Pollution ' means an alteration of the quality of the waters of the State by waste to a degree which unreasonably affects : ( 1 ) such waters for beneficial -54- uses , or (2) facilities which serve such beneficial uses . " The following chart (Exhibit 23) illustrates the apparent pollutants which have from time to time , entered the bay (and ocean) waters , their sources , and their apparent effects . Water pollution can result from both natural phenomena and the actions of man ; however, it is apparent that man is the major s-ource of water pollutants entering the waters of Newport Bay and the ocean. i 1 -55- WATER QUALITY GRAPH NO . 23 POLLUTANT BASIC SOURCE CONTRI-BUTORS ADVERSE EFFECTS Coliforms Sewage , human Surface runoff,. Human health , (bacteriologi - and animal boaters , swimmers , indicates possible cal ) wastes , soil animals , and presence of pathogens and vegetation birds Nutrients People , Surface runoff Health of water -- fertilizer, from homes , excessive nutrient garbage , farms , and leads to excessive sewage boaters algal growth in turn leading to other problems Pesticides People , Surface runoff Health of water, garden and from homes and marine life and farm sprays farms wildlife Detergents People , car Surface runoff Health of water, washing , from homes , aesthetics , sewerage sewerage excessive algal growth Oils and People, boats , Surface runoff Aesthetics and Fuels cars from streets , damage to marine direct from life boat spills , running of boat engines Debris/Trash People Surface runoff Aesthetics from uplands . People using waters and beaches , ad- jacent homes and businesses Sediment Soils Surface runoff Health of water, from natural marine life erosion and poor construction practices Trace Metals People, paints , Street runoff, Health of water, motor vehicle boat hull marine life , fuels and scraping and wildlife emissions -56- Water quality in Upper and Lower Newport Bay was analyzed by Dr. Peter S . Dixon and Gordon A. Marsh , ( "Ecological Survey of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources - Newport Beach Planning Area" ) . They indicated that the major environmental problems of Upper Newport Bay relate the quality of water entering the bay primarily from the following sources : 1 ) San Diego Creek ; 2) Delhi Channel ; and 3) urban areas run-off. They identified the following pollutants : "1 . Silt and materials in suspension . 2 . Nutrients , which stimulate plant growth . 3. Floating materials and trash . 4 . Toxic materials such as herbicides , pesticides , heavy metals , oil , et� . , derived from domestic and industrial activity. " Dr. Dixon and Mr. Marsh described the aforementioned within their report as follows : "l . Suspended Solids . The quantities of silt or sand suspended in the various waterflows are of critical importance in any area and are of particular significance in an estuary such as Newport Bay. The movement of materials in suspension and their subsequent settlement depend on the size of the particles involved and the water flow rates . As a result of the various inter- actions of particle size and flow rate there can be selective movement and settlement of particles of different types as well as changes in character so that an area may be associated with settlement at one time and erosion at another. . . "2 . Nutrients . Ultimately, the biotic community in the Upper Bay is dependent on the growth and population characteristics of the plants which serve as the primary producers of the area,, namely, the phytoplankton, the benthic algae and the higher plants of mudflat and salt- marsh . The growth of these plant populations is governed by the nutrients available , particularly nitrates and phosphates . . . 1Dixon , Dr. Peter S. and Marsh , Gordon A. , "Ecological Survey of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources" , Newport Beach, California . -57- "Additions of Materials Other Than Nutrients . With increasing mechanization and the complexity of agricultural practices , and the spread of urbanization and industriali - zation in the watershed , all manner of materials are being introduced into the Upper Bay through the freshwater flows . It is not possible to categorize these in detail but the major constituents to be expected will include : i ) herbicides , pesticides and ' control ' chemicals used agriculturally and domestically in yards , ii ) petroleum products , rubber , lead and other by- products of automobile use derived from road flushing, particularly in the first storm of winter, iii ) petroleum products derived from power boats or fuelling operations , iv) heavy metals or various sorts derived from the ' light industries ' now developing. . . 3 . Floating Materials . The aspects of deteriorating water quality most obvious to the general public is the occurrence of floating trash . This can result from perfectly natural events , such as the uprooting of vegetation or the dying back of plant materials . These natural events can be accelerated by human activities or completely ' unnatural ' phenomena introduced. . . "4 . Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations . The quantity of oxygen present in water is critically important for a large number of organisms . . . "5 . Coliform and Other Bacterial Counts . One of the few aspects of water quality which has been of general concern for many years has been with respect to public health and hygiene . The standard bacteriological test has been to count the numbers of cells of Escherichia coli present in a water sample . This organism occurs predominantly in the intestinal flora of man and animals and its frequency of occurrence in a water sample is taken as an indication of the level of fecal contamination. There have been many investigations of Newport Bay with respect to the bacterial levels during the past 10 years and in many of these the water in the Upper Bay did not meet accepted standards for swimming. The basic difficulty is that coliform bacteria can occur in water as a contaminant from soil as well as from feces and the feces may well be derived from animals other than man . "l lDixon , Dr . Peter S . and Marsh , Gordon A. , "Ecological Survey of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources" , Newport Beach , California , July, 1973 , Pages 86 - 99 . -58- I In addition to the items discussed previously in regards to the Upper Bay, Lower Newport Bay has additional problems in regards to water quality . The study prepared by Dr. Dixon and Mr. Marsh identified the following pollutants within the Lower Bay: r111 . Nutrients . . . there are indications on occasions of sewage discharges in the bay and residential usage of boats is likely to influence these . . . c . Addition of Materials Other Than Nutrients . "The Lower Bay will receive all the flows from the Upper Bay, together with contaminants of urban run-off either directly or from the storm drains , and all the products of industrial activity in its vicinity. The materials which it will receive include : . . . "iv) heavy metals derived from domestic gutter and paint run-off, and from the various boat maintenance operations carried out professionally around the bay and from innumerable amateur operations of the same kind . "2 . Floating Materials . . . "The floating trash in the Lower Bay is made up of th.at material which is passed from the Upper Bay together with other floating materials of local origin . The trash noted in the Lower Bay includes : i ) trash of agricultural origin derived from the drainage areas of the San Diego Creek and the Delhi Ditch , ii ) trash derived from the decay and breakdown of phytoplankton and vegetation in the Upper Bay, iii ) trash derived from the dumping of domestic and constructional debris in the Upper Bay, iv) locally derived trash from all the various recrea- tional activities in the Lower Bay . . . "3. Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations . . . "4. Coliform and Other Bacterial Counts . . . "Various investigations of Lower Newport Bay during the past few years have indicated that bacterial counts in excess of those recommended for water contact sports or swimming were being exceeded . "1 1Dixon , Dr. Peter S . and Marsh , Gordon A. , "Ecological Survey of Aquatic and Terrestrial Resources" , Newport Beach , California . -5,9- 2 . 13 Air and Climatic Resources A. Climate : The climate of any particular region is dependent upon latitude , altitude , and the distribution of land and water . Other factors of influence are high and low pressure areas , topography, ocean currents and the rotation of the earth . The City of Newport Beach has been described as having a "Mediterranean Climate" . In actuality, the City of Newport Beach is located within two climate zones ; the shoreline zone and the nearshore zone . ( Exhibit 24) -60- Exhibit 24 FIrAT LNIIO FOo'[Kp►t► ZONE O� E NRPO / I yP,gyf my e u►► / BAt `i ha�RSHORE ZONE z i �--_ � . l 1 J.P a �4iN Hru F 1 FASHIONS a r>TH J ISLMAN yy I o SNORE�.iNE PONE H14VAWAY Shoreline Zone : l Running immediately along the base of cliffs and occasionally several miles inland , this region is dominated by the ocean . The ocean ' s temperature rarely changes more than 8 to 10 degrees throughout the year. This zone ' s climate exhibits limited fluctuation . The winters in this zone are so mild that the coolest nights often go by unnoticed by residents of the area . On occasion dropping to below 28 degrees , coldest temperatures generally occur in the coastal canyons and near the canyon mouths where considerable frost damage may result. Winter temperatures average about 52 degrees . Mean annual air temperature for Newport Beach is 61 degrees . Relatively mild summers with average highs of about 68 degrees generally prevail throughout this zone along with medium humidity and daily fogs . Nearshore Zone : 2 Extending to cold air basins and. hilltops above air drained slopes , this region is also heavily influenced by the ocean and only slightly warmer than the shoreline zone . Year-round temperatures vary little from the above-described zone , averaging also 68 degrees during the warmer summer months and about 53 degrees during the winter. Only slightly warmer than the shoreline zone , the winter temperatures rarely drop • � to less than 30 degrees . lOrange County General Planning Program, The Physical Environment of Orange County, Santa Ana , California , November, 1971 . 2Ibid . -62- The average temperatures , in degrees farenheit, for the Newport area from 1930 to 1960 are as follows : l Jan . Feb . Mar. Apr. May June Mean daily 54. 0 55 . 1 56 . 6 59 . 0 61 . 7 64 .4 Mean daily maximum 62 . 7 63.4 64. 8 65 .9 68. 1 70. 4 Mean daily minimum 45 . 1 46 .6 48. 5 52 .0 55 . 2 58. 3 Highest 84 89 91 96 89 101 Lowest Jul . Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov . Dec . Ann . Mean daily 67 .4 68. 2 66 . 7 63. 2 58. 7 55 . 4 60 . 9 Mean daily maximum 73 .5 74 .3 73 .-6 70 . 7 68 . 1 64 . 7 68 .4 Mean daily minimum 61 .4 62 .0 59 .8 55 . 7 49 .5 46 .4 53. 4 Highest 106 94 100 95 94 85 106 Lowest 49 52 49 42 34 33 29 B. Precipitation : The average precipitation , in inches , for the 1 Newport Beath planning area is as follows :2 ( 1930 - 1960) Jan . 2 . 27 Jul . 0 . 01 Feb . 2 . 53 Aug . 0 . 07 Mar. 1 . 71 Sept. 0 . 19 Apr . 1 . 19 Oct. 0 . 45 May 0 . 20 Nov . 1 .01 June 0 . 08 Dec . 2 . 17 IAnnual 11 .88 C . Frost : The occurrence of frost within the area is limited . This low occurrence rate and soil conditions contribute to the great diversity in the types of vegetation within the Newport Beach planning area . lDepartment of the Army, Office of the Chief Engineer, Review Report on the Santa Ana River Main Stem - Including Santiago reek aTc -nd �treet Drain , for Flood Con and _Allied Purposes , s Revised Draft nvironmenta Statement, Washington D .C . , December, 1975 . 2Ibid . -63- D . Fog : Fog appears frequently along the coast from mid-December to March generally . This condition usually burns off by mid- morning of each day, yet on an average of 20 days a year it remains , necessitating airport and traffic slow downs . High fogs occur in the summer months as moisture close to th•e ground is burned off. E . Inversions : Temperature inversions occur where cold and warm air cannot mix and the atmosphere becomes stable . This occurrence is seasonal in nature . Areas of less than 3000 feet in elevation experience inversion over 1 /2 of the days of a normal year . The inversion layer contributes to the air quality by containing pollutants in the lower atmosphere (See Air Quality Section 2 . 33B) . F. Winds : Sea-Land Breezes - The sea-land breeze system is local in nature and consists of winds that sweep inland by day (sea breezes ) and flow toward the sea by night ( land breezes ) . These air currents originate through daily atmospheric pressure and temperature changes over the land and ocean and are considered a daily feature of the climate . The existence of this sea-land breeze system is the primary factor behind the mild winters and moderate summers experienced in the area . Northwesterlies - Southern California ' s climate is dominated by the North Pacific high pressure cell located between the United States mainland and Hawaii . Winds flow out of this high pressure area in a clockwise direction , reaching the southland as relatively cool , dry, subsiding northwesterlies . These winds are generally 1 westerly due to coastline orientation and deflection caused by -64- 1 the Palos Verdes Peninsul.a . Santa Anas - Santa Anas are high velocity winds , sometimes reaching 65 miles per hour , accompanied by abnormally high temperatures occurring most often from mid-October through, the month of March . They are northerly and northeasterly winds having their origin in air moving out of a high pressure belt, often in Central Nevada . Their extreme warmness is a consequence of 1 the descent and compression of the air as it flows into the lower elevations of the Los Angeles - Orange County basin . Characteristic of the Santa Anas are excessive low humidity, a high degree of visibility a few hours before their arrival , increased temperatures , and occasional dark brown dust clouds in the distance . "M -65- 2 .2 URBAN ENVIRONMENT 2 . 21 Demography 2 . 22 Land A. Population : A population enumeration made by the State Department of Finance and Newport Beach Community Development Department for the 1976 Special Census indicates a January 1 , 1976 population of 63,101 persons for the City of Newport Beach . A detailed demographic analysis of Newport Beach is provided in the Housing Element of the General Plan ; please refer to the Housing Element for more-detailed population data . The following charts indicate population growth for the City from 1940 to 1976 and Housing Element estimates for 1985 and 1990 : 1 1 -66- Percent increase for each 5-year Year Population period 1940* 4 ,438 1945 9 , 396 112% 1950* 12 , 120 29% 1955 18,541 53% 1960* 25 ,200 36% 1965 36 ,650 45% 1970* 49 ,422 35% 1971 51 ,000 1972 53,595 1973 56,480 1974 60 ,351 1975 62 ,688 22% 1976* 63, 101 1985 88,450 47% 1990 95 ,659 8% Population Characteristics , 1976 1 . Decreasing Average Age 2 . Median Family Income = $23,800 3 . Average Age - Male = 33 years old; Average Age - Female = 35 years old . 4. Household ( Family) Size = 2 . 36 5 . 1 ,447 people were unemployed (2% total population looking for employment) 6 . 834 people with physical handicaps (Source : Community Development Department - City of Newport Beach ) *Census Information -67- B. Employment : The total employment within the subregion was projected by Development Research Associates to double between 1970 and 1990 . This increase is lower than the rate that was experienced during the 1960 ' s . Since 1960 , unemployment has fallen within a range of 3.8% to 7 . 2% . Development Research Associates has projected that during the next 20 years unemployment will follow historic trends . By 1980 it is expected to hover around 5%. The chart below projects employment by industrial groups . Employment Type % 1970 % 1990 Agriculture 1 . 4 . 5 Mining . 004 . 002 Construction 6 . 1 5 . 5 Manufacturing 26 .4 24 . 0 TCU 3. 1 3. 0 Trade 24 .0 21 .0 Finance Associated 4 . 7 5 . 2 Service 19 . 7 22 .8 Government 14 . 2 18 .0 Source : Development Research Associates , Economic Base Analysis and Projections , Newport Beach , California , 1972 . -68- C . Housing : The City of Newport Beach is comprised of a collection of small residential communities . The older residential areas (villages ) were developed prior to the incorporation of the City. The grouping of residential villages ( Exhibit 25) developed with individual identities due to natural physical barriers (bay, peninsula , islands ) and the marketing and development plans of the newer villages (Big Canyon , Harbor View Hills , Spyglass ) . -69- Exhibit 25 OKM4F ' • CURTY FMA view NEWIlowr wrwreuFf t4ewpmr DOME ISLWMD S. NEW j .wwwv�wwww� ,www�rwnw Iw�n� M � . • � -�- .....v.:"mow.. .. The General Plan projections indicate that from 22 ,478 dwelling units in 1970 , the City will grow to approximately 40,543 dwelling units by 1990 , an increase of 80% . This percentage of increase is larger than that of population due to a decreasing family size . The charts below shows selected housing characteristics for Newport Beach . 1 Characteristic 1970 1976 1990 Total Units 22 ,478 29 ,812 40 ,543 Single Family 66 . 6% 50. 9% 43% Two-Family 14. 3% 20 . 7% 24% Multi -Family 19 . 1 % 28 .4% 33% Vacancy Rate 14 .2% 10 .93% Unk. Household Size 2 . 6 2 . 36 2 . 3 (Source : Community Development Department - City of Newport Beach ) 1 -71 - The tables which follow provide a recent history of dwelling unit and population growth in the City . Yearly dwelling unit and popu- lation counts are based on building records and census data since 1970 . Dwelling Unit/Population Count 1970-1976 ' Year D .U . ' s Change/Year Population Change/Year 1970 22 ,478 49 ,422 1 ,578 (+3 . 1 %) 1971 23,450 972 (+4 . 3%) 51 ,000 2 , 595 (+5 .0% ) ' 1972 25 ,035 1 ,585 (+6 . 7%) 53 ,595 2 ,885 (+5 . 3%) 1973 25 ,860 825 (+3 . 2%) 56 ,480 3,871 (+6. 8%) 1974 27, 945 2 ,085 (+8. 0%) 60 ,351 2 , 337 (+3. 8%) 1975 28,910 965 (+3 . 4%) 62 ,688 612 (+0 . 9%) 1976 29 ,751 841 (+2 . 9%) 63 ,300 1970-1976 Total +7 ,273 D . U . ' s +13,878 Population -72- Komi r Exhibit 26 ' F � city of g r/�g r Newport Beach _ r r ® statistical divisions statistical areas 0 � y0 Its O � •,�.' W .i �" .\ „' ._ J �� f <5:�=• \;>_..;. QTI /\ s 7 . �r � i 1 }}}1712o.e•v SS{21 i1�i � ���@� `C <•� "_ -a•µF. i �.�i' N.!O�op`e^�-���.� �—� m -r ' �� '?ir1- 'tea �• e _•'✓� ,— - }C���'�a � �_ ' .��_ — ` \ 1 � _ _ �\ .—� prepared by Advance Planning In terms of the geographic distribution of projected residential growth, approximately one-third of this projected growth in dwelling units ' is expected to occur in the older sections of the City (south of Coast Highway and Old Corona del Mar) and the remaining two-thirds of this growth is expected to occur north of Coast Highway. ' Generally, growth in the older sections will be the result of redevelopment and eventual buildout, according to existing zoning capacities , of the two-family and multi-family districts . With respect to population , the Residential Growth Element indicates a projected 1990 population of 95 ,659 . Recent population studies , including the 1976 Special Census , suggest that average household size tends to fluctuate over time , complicating the process of projecting future population levels . At this time there is no indication that recent trends in family size and occupancy have changed sufficiently to invalidate the General Plan population projection , given current development policies . 1 ' 1 ' -74- D. Commerce : The commercial areas within the City can be classified by nature ( regional highway, local /neighborhood , tourist) . Primarily , new commercial development ( 1970-Present) has been specialty commercial ' and restaurant commercial . Commercial office space has increased significantly, along with motel and restaurant space within those areas in proximity to the ocean , bay and airport. 1 1 1 1 ' -75- Exhibit 27 (AUNTY urrr'r AIRPORT INpuS I 1 � J - ZrL e > � 5pYG1A5S HILLS urr sNoPPINk I B)d FAS �iLUFF s CEN'TEC� s WESTWFf a uNkr4 e NN I� f pqe I> S 5110PPWh z FASHION O �\ —1 o D x c pp A T q COCST 6►.YSIDE tP�T HI+47oF1 ` _ / 1 /yUfjtS 111GNW Y +^�nY N BN.BOA GOASZ BAY r �,JD• 4EN'IltPt�NEWPoItc ..... ..... GENTFL�L dDd-4+�A uDo Vt4LAG.E CPNNEtoY Ytt1A(,E 15Ft+ s't<tF�T 61 M`FI,pDEN ` E ' E . Industry: Within the City of Newport Beach , eight statistical areas contain ' industrial uses . The industrial areas around the Orange , County Airport on the north and west sides of the City have led the region ' in industrial growth during this decade . Projected growth in the ' aerospace industry during the 1970 ' s , though , has not occurred to the degree anticipated during the late 1960 ' s . Marine-Industry within the City is primarily located within the Mariners ' Mile area and the Cannery Village area . Marine industry within the City has been in a steady decline during the past ten ' years due to land costs (taxes ) and pressures for other uses of the waterfront . 1 1 ' -77- ■� ■� m M 410 Exhibit 28 i � rtiYE you {NVtiS�RU.I- C ;NITIEZ a�eo�T � cot.uNa J u.c.l. I r� o AERoNu7pONI� ur 2 \ .1 si P FASHIONS \J ISImD / rucz n 3 t p A OIL- t t T 7 yJgY < J yu�['fIFJ47oN AELVs 6EA04 MAY11NBA3 MS \ v Y BAY r �J9• CPNkf.RX VIUALit. ' F. Recreation: The City of Newport Beach ' s fortuitous location and physical amenities have resulted in the City ' s status as a regional recreation destination . Recreational areas within the City have been classified in the Recreation and Open Space Element as follows : (1 ) Activity Parks (6) Greenbelts and Paseos (2) View Parks ( 7) Ocean (3) Public Beaches (8) Trails (4) Golf Courses (a ) Equestrian (b) Bicycle (5) Newport Bay (c ) Hiking Parks : There are 21 existing City-owned parks with a total area of 95 .0 acres , resulting in 1 . 5 acres of public park area per thousand ' residents (based on the January , 1976 population of 63,101 persons ) . ( If public school grounds were added to the park acreage , a total of approximately 273.8 acres , or about 4 . 3 acres per thousand residents would result. ) Most of the City ' s residential areas are well served with conveniently-located parks . Shortages of park ' space occur, for the most part, in the older sections of Newport Beach . In the newer residential areas , parks are provided - as each neighborhood is developed . ' -79`- 1 View Parks : (a) Cliff Drive West of Riverside Drive in the Newport Heights ' Area: This view park is part of the publicly-owned open space area which lies between Cliff Drive , Avon Street, and Riverside Drive . The portion of this open space area on top of the bluff affords views of the harbor, ocean and lower Newport. (b) Ensign View Park : This view park is under construction on City-owned property located on Cliff Drive . The view park will offer commanding views of the harbor, ocean and lower Newport. ' Golf Courses : Newport Beach has four existing golf courses . Although these golf courses are privately-owned, they provide 1 major public open space benefits in terms of: 1 ) aesthetics ; 2) contribution to maintenance of air quality due to the oxygen production of the lawns , trees and shrubs ; and 3) recreation . The four existing golf courses are as. follows : 1 . IRVINE COAST COUNTRY CLUB (PRIVATE) - located at the north- east corner of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. 2 . GOLF COURSE ADJACENT TO NEWPORTER INN ( PUBLIC) - on the west side of Jamboree Road north of Coast Highway. ' 3. BIG CANYON COUNTRY CLUB (PRIVATE) - located within the Big Canyon residential development, north of San Joaquin ' Hills Road between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard . 4 . NEWPORT BEACH GOLF COURSE ( PUBLIC) -- located on Irvine Boulevard at Mesa Drive . ' -80- C. Water and Beaches Existing Ocean Beaches ' All of the 6 . 1 miles of ocean front and 262 acres of sandy ocean beaches in the City of Newport Beach are in public ownership . Convenient public access to these beach areas is provided by the street ends leading directly onto the beach. Access points in ' West Newport occur every 200 to 300 feet; access points on the ' Balboa Peninsula occur every 300 to 500 feet; access to Corona del Mar State Beach is provided by the access road leading to ' the beach parking lot and at various stairways and footpaths . ' Existing Public Bay Beaches There are four major City-owned bay beaches ( 19th Street, loth ' Street, "N" Street, and Pirate ' s Cove) , comprising a total of approximately 2,000 lineal feet of water frontage and approximately 1 3. 5 acres of sandy beach area . These bay beaches serve the need for public swimming areas which are protected from the surf, being particularly suited to swimming use for the very young and the senior citizens , for whom swimming in the surf off the ocean beach could be hazardous . These beaches are also generally more protected from the wind than ocean beaches and on windy days , they get considerable use by many people who would normally use ocean beaches . Bay Currently there are approximately 1 ,200 acres of bay water available for public marine recreation within the City, including both Upper and Lower Newport Bay . Newport Harbor is a major ' regional recreational harbor for both power and sail boats , with approximately 9 ,000 boats berthed among residential piers , ' -81 - in commercial marinas , and on off-shore and on-shore moorings . It is estimated that the owners of approximately 80 percent of these boats live outside Newport Beach . In peak months-, .over 80 ,000 boats enter and leave Newport Harbor. Other recreation uses of the bay include fishing , and in limited areas , swimming . 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' -82- I ' 2 . 23 DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY A . Supply : Prior to the turn of the century , precipitation , ' the Santa Ana River and shallow supplementary wells were the principal sources of water for the settlement in the County . ' With the advent of the deep well turbine pump , extensive ' tapping of groundwater resources began in earnest for rapidly expanding irrigated agriculture and growing communities . Such was the demand that saltwater intrusion in the coastal areas and drastic lowering of the water table resulted. The realization ' that supplies were inadequate prompted the cities of Santa Ana , Fullerton and Anaheim to become charter members of the Metropolitan Water District which developed facilities for the importation of Colorado River water. The first delivery to Orange County arrived in 1941 . In 1949 , use of the imported water to recharge ' the groundwater basin was begun . This year, the first deliveries of the State Water Project were received by spreading upstream ' in the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino County for infiltration into Orange County through Prado Dam, and by special arrange- ments directly to consumers in some areas to supplement for an ' inoperative reservoir on a temporary basis . 1 1 -83- ' 2 . 24 TRANSPORTATION A. Land : The Orange County Transit District currently serves Newport Beach with 11 routes . Within the district ' s long-range planning are provision of Dial -a-Ride and extended bus programs for a majority of the County. The Corona del Mar Freeway is one of the proposed major bus routes for the sub-region. Existing routes are indicated on the following page . (Exhibit 29 ) 1 -84- AM[y� EXHIBIT 29 i. 76 71 k .SIT pIS'QZJC.T h 7' a 1T COUUNNW ?� • .o FFOFT 6 ' t 74 n 1y U.C.I. U►/ d BAi � � J`Qo� I w rotor Ro• ` � +•SZ` 7� c 6! � S- R ` 3 FASH�IdIF td -/ NSf K , s S•7 m s."� IfI( HuN?Im47oF1 '\ I HoiP�Tgl,Ry, T7 64T t JD. s;6, c7 ✓�� The automobile is the primary mode of transportation for the residents of the planning area . There are 204 miles of streets within the City of Newport Beach . Exhibit 30 on the following page indicates the location of existing roadways and their classification . The road classifications are the same as used by Orange County for the Master Plan of Arterial 'Highways . These are summarized as follows : Approximate Road Right of Width Curb to No . of Median Capacity, Classification Way, Feet Curb, Feet Lanes Width , Feet ADT* Freeway Variable Variable 4 Variable 55 ,000 Variable Variable 6 Variable 100 ,000 Variable Variable 8 Variable 135 ,000 Major 120 102 6 14-18 40 ,000 Primary 100 84 4 16-20 25 ,000 - 6 0-4 35 ,000 Secondary 80 64 4 0 14,000 *(ADT) Average Daily Traffic The City of Newport Beach participates in the Orange County Arterial Highway Financing Program, in which the County assumes up to 50% of the cost of major roads shown on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways . Several links of the highway system presently are at or over capacity. Exhibit 31 ( Page ) indicates traffic volumes , highway widths and capacities as of 1974. -86- Exhibit 30 Es�iSTlNCsi GtRU1lA71oN SYST� OFAN4F pAWPF- ROAD 6 LANE DIVIDFA CnUNtt / lRIMAfCY RDAD '} LANti DIV117ED WONT cassY K�tHwA7-V aa+f�� t mw PKlMAF�'[ P.OP�D MD©lFJED�nwTeo waou. / Iillll Sf,GONDA{LY loan �} LAtdE uNVIVIDEO I � OF-IDq� .». Z L,ANFh l I l> \ P n 3 S l z WHIP "TM S ISLnN E i J BAY NDT L4*f DIVIDED 9UFWTA-4VARP LANP- DIVIDED L&S-5 TKew ZECot\»or2Y �evurrN qi A secondary mode of transportation within the planning area is the bicycle . There are an estimated 28 miles of marked bikeways within the City. Three major reasons for bicycling within the community have been identified as : ( 1 ) Functional (to work , school , etc . ) ; (2 ) Recreation ; and ( 3) Physical Fitness . Exhibit 32 indicates the location of existing bikeways within Newport Beach . 1 -89- ! a+i �. J� r r AAA ♦ V,AA � � �..� -�4-`�tY/I �� � w; B. Air: The City of Newport Beach is served by the Orange County Airport . The airport is adjacent to the northern-most corporate boundary of the City . The Orange County Airport provides local ( inter-state) flights only. Los Angeles International Airport (approximately 45 miles from Newport Beach) serves international and national air travel demands . Ontario International Airport is approximately 46 miles from Newport Beach , and provides limited services to the City . Exhibit 33 indicates the location of Southern California airports in relation to the City. 1 -91 - �'• HOu-YWOOD-09JIMA NK •bti SUM. ': ' �oS �'•�r 7SMi�J .. . . . ,.... > • : : ••. ONTARI0 '•i '/$'i/NiiV ••..,� � ••♦c POry���FRWY �'•••., •i SHR '•♦ �'O SR: -•Q yO FRWY LONG OVA" 8r.� SzM. Rwy • ORgNCaE •e., ; COUNTY : •'••...� NFEWPOKc mk" e ♦♦•••` AIR TRANSPORTATION 51TE5 • m A5 RE.!-ATE'D TO NEWPORT SrA&H N . W DTIME GE FROM NEWF'Og ' SEAC.H •.,�� ♦ W ♦•♦ W i C . Water : There are three instances of water-oriented. transportation within the City of Newport Beach . The first, the Balboa Island tFerry provides water transportation to bicycles , automobiles , and pedestrians between Balboa Island and the Pavillion area of the Central Balboa Peninsula . The second is the transportation from the Balboa Pavillion to Catalina Island . Third is the newly-initiated "water taxi " service , connecting major restaurants and bayside commercial areas . _93- 2 . 25 NOISE A. Stationary Sources : This category of noise impacts includes such sources as : 1 . Industrial Operations 2 . Air Conditioning and Swimming Pool Motors 3 . Maintenance and Construction Operations While no research studies have been conducted on stationary noise sources in Newport Beach , it is apparent that this category of noise has a relatively minor impact. Few complaints of continuing noise from stationary sources are received . Most of the industry in the City of Newport Beach could be classified as " light" industry involving mostly research and development activities ; no major ."heavy" industries (with large noise-producing machinery) are located in the City. In view of the large amount of building activity in the City, periodic noise impacts from operation of construction equipment must be expected . However, these noise impacts are temporary in nature and generally occur only in the daytime . B. Mobile Sources : There are three major sources of mobile noise which affect the Newport Beach planning area : (1 ) Aircraft Operations at Orange County Airport (2) Helicopter Operations - Military Operations (3) Highway Noise Aircraft: Since the appearance of turbojet and turbofan propulsion systems in the field of commercial aviation , a significant noise intrusion has invaded many homes located near flight paths -94- within the City of Newport Beach . In addition , military helicopters contribute to the overall noise levels in some parts of the City . Existing noise levels within the City of Newport Beach from Orange County Airport and military operations are shown in Exhibits 34 and 35 . -95- Exhibit 34 � � 9 '•' d I -. .•..;'42�',�� .y ° `p of i ' r ! S p n f p Now P o r f 6 ' '. •qnp A oe 8j° d i 55 dBAt o 5 u Y a r LI dOI ^ } C ( ^ I r V l n e / P p p { I s l a n d N 11 [� Ago '' �o O 2 .�. o I 14 E 70 l v £ ..^""• c i6 N e w Flight Path t a yam, p 1 s o� .6 F o 3 N a e - , m t 55 5 V;f o b o . •�� a n 3 \ � � r ° tl' 1.!• b e R.. H ers.on Flight Path Denote Dis- 7 ' I 1 tan from Start of Takeoff Roll (Tiausapds of Feel) 'Number of Aircraft Operations A i.ref + Way 300-2^g flight ' I 'Aircraft � I(n7no-39DD) �(a9oo-�zoo) (2200-0700) Boeing 737•or 17 W n 2 Doug "9 Douglas DC- legend: 3 ffng ipe'9us- A O 0 Normal Takeoff Per r"A' Iry Ic Pvx,Gutbafk at 1,.500 Ft.Altitude Source-. Paul S. Veneklasen g,Associates, ',1970' CREL [OBTOURS FOR 1979 OPEPATIMI. LEVEL s rl.■► +r �s �.. r r� = low so am on ■r am sw4wo GontTotias& of GONG CF,►.iT GNE L EXHIBIT 35 AmWr^Wt foKmF FIELIGaI'TERS I I I ( COU NTY / 5$ b49 AIRPORT I I I I I ( I I I z ► on BAt I Z I► I �bq I h 3 Ao FASHIONISLMV \ A Hwy < \11'C•) ' \ v H141AWAY \ \� l� coo ASZ�� �.�✓a .BAY \ �JD• \ AIN 1 Highway : Existing highway noise levels and contours were measured and calculated by Wyle Laboratories as a major portion of their consultant study : "Analysis of Highway Traffic Noise in Newport Beach , California" . Wyle Laboratories ' major findings are included herein in Exhibit 36 entitled "Existing CNEL Contours " . -98- s■� Ir.s r.� r ss om " IM r m m m ■r +r " � -- it Nam Exhibit 36 4 'S " ( l e / ® ^fie"•. • P � [ ;i�te � - q�r - � - m3 `— Gf / � , r. _ •� ,...-� cam+,. OQL .�1.. _ .+.. ^ tom!"�',t�.. - '• p� ,Ov� ��'`�tP44�e- ``,M,./�,G .a'`:•�,S_- _ t-�—''- �:- • t v..° �' it,pT� �oJ,��. !.yet, ;it^e'_�= ���l�a • Hu�;;�' m 1 y� .e !?=A *yam' �, � •^ —_ _ _ �-_=-`" -�•: GlWOFxEWPofi(MW EXISTING CNEL CONTOURS— t FOR HIGHWAYS -- 1sOUHCwYLE LABORATORIES ' 2 . 26 Utilities - Public A. Sewer: The Public Works Department - Sanitation Division of the City provides for the operation and maintenance of the sewer lines within the City . The sewer systems major features are as follows : (1 ) Total Connections - 19371 (2) Lineal Feet Sewer Mains - 830 ,280 (3) Pumping Stations - 20 (4) Flow (millions of gallons ) 3,800 B . Water : The City of Newport Beach provides water to the residences , businesses and industries within the community. All water used by the City at present is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District . tC . Streets , Lighting , and Maintenance : The City of Newport Beach provides for the maintenance of City streets and for street lighting . The State of California provides two crews for the maintenance of ' state highways within the City. -100- 2 . 27 Utilities - Private : A. Gas : Southern Counties Gas Company B . Electricity: Southern California Edison C . Telephone : Pacific Telephone Company D . Cable Television : Teleprompter -101 - 2 . 28 Aesthetics : The visual environment of the planning area is created through a complex interplay of forms . Exhibit 37 idtcates the major features of the community and the locatiom of major public views : -102- Exhibit 37 oKm4F / YIf�W AtVALY515 COUNTY A rop"7 *ISUAL olNTS of WIF"lTSp ' J u.c.t. ® vt5UAl o lSVPcb l/ > Y1EW s I � J I_ am! r� c yt T U► a z Sq \ �o 8 Z FASHION 17Tu l SI,AND .NUt�'fI1J47aN v S � � �wAY J 1 AY JD. a `��l I r � r r r r ■r r �r ■r �r r �r r r r� r r �r Exhibit 38 o�Axr,E �\ I MaJoR PNYStL+a1. EEATURf.S COUNTY nlreoRr \ 1 _ J \ Z Q h 3$� ` �o�4lN hrti S FASH low --� ♦ ��TM ` Is o gab �o /�/�/r 2 . 3 GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS 2 . 31 Governmental : A. Federal : Newport Beach lies within the 39th and 42nd Congres- sional Districts . Due to continued growth in southeastern Orange County , there has been a steady increase in congressmen from the ' County in the United States House of Representatives . I B. State : Newport Beach is within the 36th State Senate and 73rd and 74th Assembly districts . C . Regional : The City of Newport Beach is a member of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) . A primary function of this governmental body is region-wide coordination ' of federal grants and programs . ' The Newport Beach Planning area is within the South Coast Air Basin as identified by the California Air Resources Board . The air basin is made up of Orange County, parts of San Bernardino , Riverside, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties ( see Exhibit 39 ) . ' The State of California Air Resources Board is charged primarily with controlling motor vehicle emissions . There are four monitoring stations located in Anaheim, Costa Mesa , La Habra and the Orange ' County Airport. -105- Exhibit 39 NORTH�AyT pLA7fAt1 NOKK WAUT AIR EAS I N 5 6A6RAME410 yALLE'( LAW FRAKV-lsw ' PJAY ARP.A 5AN IOMUIN YALLJ '( GAT NoR'tN PJP61N CE N fRPI ' LbAh7 VALL�(5 5oUTH GEN7RA1- ��� SourHI�AST b�5�f�7 c'istr� 5oU7HGDAS7:5 L09 ANGEI.ES �"•'',.:5:�r�:;rC•:M�. L.p4uKA OEP�K� ' SAN plEt,o ' D. County : Within Orange County the City of Newport Beach is located within the Fifth Supervisorial District. This district ( Exhibit 40 ) is the largest in size (acres ) within the County governmental framework . E . Local : Newport Beach has a Council /Manager type of adminis- tration and is one of seven Charter cities within the County. The City was incorporated in 1906 . Exhibit 41 indicates existing ' councilmanic districts . ' The City of Newport Beach provides both fire and police services ' to the community. A detailed description of existing facilities and projected requirements is provided in the Community Facilities ' Element of the General Plan . -107- ,Poll TO d ie nil l �aa 7 Qf�IAL�p. 1 rtlW rLli l�urir .cl{I�r� go w 0 , f � ••" F ill �� 91Ie7tli� �rvE'�dU��l , 1- r[�,���,•��•7�r^``'7i 5 ry vS•'"i �YfA �1n{LTAL,1"f�.y C .L IVY 1CrCjCt•• L. ¢',M[i...� �//S1ry a. -r. v f'M �'��,.fSYda'Qlia¢Si 'S.RAn..nA � G'�.n.�.Nll�.ir!sA t.d•11�+ i'Y'ga1,l�hSr ��cLliru Emil } ®®rY 73�iE•p^ILl N.LLt'I.I�P�IIiiJViY 9l1ti1WHO •� �h • -� P"Q�T. L iS���Y 19A.i.� �.. "•?"Ol III — tlllY re y iN4fi .L31ttlG: G�r.'itla3M51 99rd�Rs�x5' , t iiEErFii�,1l 6.Ln171F1C11111CC.. i ml{lu{{ s ate• � :• •""' V�ii{'CY`1�tltltltl/:f1l11i®1 1�•"Cj '� �� Ii ••'.." u+g� rr. G \ +' �iiaa1ae� •� �i � 1 � 11iii�i��6 am � � 1 y -eiPsp 33 EXHIBIT 41 OFAN4E i CDUN7Y j] C.OUNUL. 191z)7f12lLTS 4- a �? U►f o = S 0111, O s •• g�503 • • •, 5 JD • ..• " � •: c �V/N ht� , ti••• � 9,008 z 11 ix � n ISLIJdD 6 � eFC 4, 41��W • O /O/3@ ,•F i �ef'� •+ •�' �T SWAY H 47oN ��� O $658 � ••.•'• .. F •SIC HIGHWAY A � Qy,JD• g/641 2 . 32 Educational : A. College : Newport Beach is located near three major universities : the University of California at Irvine ; California State University at Fullerton ; and California State University at Long Beach . ' Numerous private institutions and trade schools are located within ' driving range of the City . B. Junior College : The City is within the Coast Junior College ' District. This district covers a majority of the five coastal ' cities of Orange County and also contains undeveloped portions of coastal Irvine Ranch lands . The district currently operates two ' sites . ' C . Elementary , Middle and High School : Newport Beach is located primarily within the Newport Mesa Unified School District (Exhibit 42 on the following page) . This district also includes the City of Costa Mesa and portions of the coastal Irvine Ranch lands . The ' districts currently operates in Newport Beach , eight elementary, ' one middle , one intermediate , and two high schools . A review of the status of the district in terms of sites and current enrollment is provided within the Community Facilities Element. 1 M M M = M AN r` r EXHIBIT 42 OKAN4E / CouNrr • �,1-IDaL t�15'fYZICfS AIRPORT / r 1V yP4?e MINE- UN1F►EO SCHOOL 3)15TR1GT T ! utt eAi 0 3 � '' NEYlPO[t'i"-MESR UN�FlED ScF1DOL- )z �S�L!'� D15TR\CT �1� 5 ''°emu t(�.�L� �Z•�tYJ1YW 3 `a l S z FASHION- � 177N µuw1l,147014 / 6FhH <\ H14µWAY ' -- ✓J �� cAR .BAY t �' 1 3,0 AND 4,0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, II 1 1 1 I 3.0 AND 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ADOPTED MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. ' Introduction The following is an assessment of the environmental impacts of the Newport Beach General Plan . This section focuses on ' cumulative and long-term impacts of the overall project. The potential impacts of individual projects to be developed in compliance with the General Plan will be addressed as they are proposed , in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the policies of the City of Newport Beach . ' This section further identifies mitigation measures which will ' avoid or reduce the adverse environmental impacts of the overall project. The environmental impacts of the General Plan are identified ' within this section by italics . 1 ' -112- 3. 1 NATURAL PHYSICAL RESOURCES 3. 11 Land Resources IMPACT: Loss of existing open space/undeveZoped areas to residential, commercial, industrial, public, semi-public, and institutional uses . •The land use inventory prepared by the Community Development Department in January, 1973 , indicated that 2, 538 acres within the planning area were vacant/undeveloped. The General Plan proposes that this vacant land be developed for a variety of urban uses . While a portion of this acreage will be developed for park and open space uses , the project represents a ' commitment to a general urbanization of the majority of the vacant land within the planning area . Additional secondary impacts of this loss of open space will be discussed throughout the remainder of this section . MITIGATION MEASURES : The City of Newport Beach , within the Recreation and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the General 1 Plan , has analyzed and evaluated all remaining vacant sites within the planning area and has provided for the needs of the citizen and visitor to the community in terms of open space for recreation and conservation . . IMPACT: Decreased natural visual amenities and the public perception of a sense of open space. In connection with the urbanization of the remaining large vacant areas and in-filling of vacant parcels within the planning area , the general public will sense a gradual loss of open space . Existing views from major thoroughfares and residences will be lost to new construction and redevelopment. The sense of separation between villages and -113- adjacent communities will be reduced . The perception of prominent natural physical features will be altered and in some instances may be eliminated . Exhibit 43 indicates the major undeveloped areas which will be lost to development and areas where public view perspectives may be affected. i �r i t t -114- Mao M M A m iow " m om 0* 60 No " m Exhibit 43 IMPACT ANAL-f5i5 GRAN / COUNTY > viF-W AIt30KT ! ® v15uA4. OPEN SPACE ��'—� •�� PA"fHWA�( NOVFASHION \ �dD• J Mitigation : The City of Newport Beach has identified within the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan a program for the acquisition of sites for parks and open space within the planning area . In addition , the City, through the use of P-C District zoning , other development review and E . I . R . procedures , will assure that new development will be designed to mitigate the decrease of natural visual amenities and public perception of a sense of open space . IMPACT: Changes to natural topography due to grading. It can be expected that minor changes to the natural topography will occur within the planning area due to the projected land development. The hillside areas (See Section 2 . 11 and Exhibits 6 and 7) would be the most affected . The construction of roads and new residential building pads in hillside areas will create the major impact. Mitigation : The City of Newport Beach has adopted the following hillside development policy, to be applied to all hillside developments : " In order to ensure the preservation of natural topographic features within the City, the following criteria shall be used as general guidelines in the preparation and review of plans for any development on sloping land or near natural bluffs : 1 . The proposed development should preserve the natural skyline and the significant topographic features of the site . Particular attention should be given to the number and distribution of structures , the design of the street system, and the location of open space . 2 . The proposed development should protect and retain significant vegetation , particularly mature trees , on the site . 3 . The proposed deve-opment should retain and create open space and view areas . 4 . The proposed development should provide public access to view areas and other natural features . -116- 5 . The grading plan for the proposed development should include variable slope ratios and undulating slopes . 6 . The proposed development should provide adequate setbacks from steep slopes , natural canyons , and natural bluffs in order to prevent structures from detracting from the visual character of these areas and in order to ensure the safety i and stability of these areas . 7 . The proposed development and grading plan should include specific provisions for the control of all surface and subsurface drainage from the site paying particular attention to the quality of water entering the bay and ocean . 8 . The proposed development should retain the natural topography and should minimize successive padding and terracing of building sites . "l IMPACT: MineraZ Depletion: While there are no active oil fields within the City of Newport Beach , in County territory within the planning area , active oil production is projected to continue until such time as the resource is depleted or becomes economically nonviable . This represents an irreversible environmental change and the depletion of a non-renewable natural resource . Mitigation : None possible . . IMPACT: Increased public safety hazard from seismic-reZated environmentaZ factors. The General Plan projects the development of new areas and the continuation of existing developments in areas of seismic safety hazard . Residences of the planning area could be faced with ground shaking , ground failure , ground dis- placement, tsunamis and seiches . Mitigation : The City of Newport Beach has adopted the following mitigation measures in terms of a risk reduction program: The City shall 'require Environmental Impact Reports for any development within areas of 1City of Newport Beach , Council Policy Manual , Newport Beach , Cali - fornia , Page K-7 . -117- natural physical hazard , as defined in this Element ( Public Safety Element) ; said E . I . R . ' s to include detailed assessment of the hazards and a comprehensive mitigation program. The City shall require complete studies of the siting and construction of emergency/ critical facilities ; new emergency/critical facilities shall not be constructed in areas of high natural physical hazards . The City shall support the development concept of clustering structures and facilities in favorable areas , restricting development in steeply-sloping topography , on bluff edges , erodible areas , and other areas of high natural - physical hazard . The City shall adopt a new grading ordinance , including more-stringent erosion and siltation control and geologic hazard mitigation requirements . The City shall require geologic and seismic studies as an integral portion of all Environmental Impact Reports with detailed mitigation measures for any development in areas of high potential hazards . The City shall critically review proposals for development in expansive and collapsible soils and will require detailed geotechnical studies prior to development to assure mitigation of risk . The City shall require building siting and design to be compensatory with geologic hazards which reflect varying requirements based on risk , location and type of occupancy, and shall be safe and stable for its intended use . The City shall encourage and participate in future studies of faults and seismic hazards to provide more-detailed technical information . " ( Public Safety Element) The Uniform Building Code additionally requires that all structures be constructed in such a manner so as to resist seismic forces and establishes criteria for engineering analysis to assure this . IMPACT: Loss of wiZdZife, wiZdZife habitats, and naturaZ vegetation. As previously indicated , a substantial portion of the planning area will be developed for urban uses with loss of habitats for -118- wildlife . It can be anticipated that existing wildlife within the vacant areas will be replaced with those more-closely associated with urban areas . Mitigation : The proposals of the Recreation and Open Space Element for the acquisition and maintenance of natural vegetation , wildlife , and their habitats will reduce the impact of their loss . The overall adopted policy in terms of loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat is : The City shall preserve and protect those areas within the City that, due to their outstanding aesthetic quality and value , their natural value as watersheds or wildlife habitats , or their high susceptibility to major hazards from such phenomenon as earthquakes , floods ( including tidal floods ) , or landslides , should be considered for permanent open space . " (General Plan Policies ) In addition , the City of Newport Beach has been an active participant in the acquisition and enhancement of the Upper Newport Bay. Also , several sites (Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, Jasmine Creek, Big Canyon and San Diego Creek flood plain) are indicated for open space acquisition or maintenance . IMPACTS: Loss of archaeotogicaZ and paZeontoZogicaZ sites. The potential exists for the loss of known , or as of yet undiscovered , archaeological and paleontological sites in the undeveloped portions of the City. Mitigation : In order to encourage the identification , preservation , and cataloging of archaeological and paleontological sites , the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following policy to be applied to new development : Archaeological Sites "GENERAL POLICY . The policies set forth below shall be used to guide the development or redevelopment of lands within the City : 1 _119- A. The City shall , through its planning policies and permit conditions , insure the preservation of significant archaeological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 . B . The City shall prepare and maintain sources df information regarding archaeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze , classify , record , and preserve archaeological findings . C . It shall be the responsibility of a landowner or developer prior to the commencement of land development to cause the proposed site to be examined to determine the existence and extent of archaeological resources . The examination shall be by qualified observers , approved by the City. The observers shall prepare and submit to the City a written report describing findings and making recommendations for further action . The report shall discuss both positive and negative aspects of the effects of the proposed development on archaeological resources . D . Based on the report and recommendations of the observers , the City shall take such steps as are necessary to assure that any findings or sites are recorded, and where appropriate , preserved and protected . These steps may include requiring the landowner or developers to incur reasonable expenditures of time or money, encouraging the involvement of appropriate volunteer or non-profit organizations or acquisition of the sites by public or private agencies . Provision shall be made for the deposit of scientifically valuable archaeological materials which are removed from the site with responsible public or private institutions . In all cases , the City shall seek responsible scientific advice and make the necessary decisions consistent with the public interest. " 1 1City of Newport Beach , Council Policy Manual , Newport Beach , California , Page K-6 . -120- "GENERAL POLICY . The policies set forth below shall be used to guide the development or redevelopment of lands within the City : A . The City shall , through its planning policies and permit conditions , insure the preservation of paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 . B . The City shall prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals who can analyze , classify, record, and preserve paleontological findings . C. It shall be the responsibility of a landowner or developer prior to the commencement of land development to cause the proposed site to be examined to determine the existence and extent of paleontological resources . The examination shall be by qualified observers , approved by the City . The observers shall prepare and submit to the City a written report describing findings and making recommendations for further action. The report shall discuss both positive and negative aspects of the effects of the proposed development on paleontological resources . D. Based on the report and recommendations of the observers , the City shall take such steps as are necessary to assure that any findings or sites are recorded , preserved and protected. These steps may include requiring the landowner or developers to incur reasonable expenditures of time or money, encouraging the involvement of appropriate volunteer or non-profit organizations or acquisition of the sites by public or private agencies . Provision shall be made for the deposit of scientifically valuable paleontological materials which are removed from the site with responsible public or private institutions . In all cases , the City shall seek responsible scientific advice and make the necessary decisions consistent with the public interest. "1 1 1City of Newport Beach, Council Policy Manual , Newport Beach , California , Page K-5 . r -121 - 3. 12 WATER RESOURCES ' IMPACT: Decreased bay and ocean water quality. As the construction of the proposed land uses within the General Plan occurs , increased urban run-off of questionable quality will enter the ocean and bay through existing water courses . The ocean waters have historically been viewed as a disposal of jurban wastes as well as a recreation and environmental resource . Mitigation : Individual E . I . R. ' s on projects within the city, grading regulations , and siltation controls will somewhat mitigate this impact by reducing the volume and pollutant contents of runoff from new development . The Uniform Building Code includes provisions covering erosion control and the denuding of natural ground covers which could result in sediments being washed into the ocean and bay. However, total mitigation of the adverse impact of general urban runoff from yards , parking areas , and streets does 1 not, at this time , appear to be economically feasible . There is no practical system for the treatment of the large volumes of urban runoff entering the bay and ocean at hundreds of points . Also , the major adverse impact of the San Diego Creek and Delhi Channel drainage into the bay is beyond the City ' s control . Additional Adopted City Policy: " In view of the regional nature of the bay water quality problem, the City will actively support the development of a coordinated , watershed-wide program ( including legal regulations ) for control of waste and sediment discharge and to intercept, to the extent possible , wastes and sediments upstream from the Upper Bay. " (Source : Conservation of Natural Resources Element, Page 14, of the Newport Beach General Plan ) -122- On September 10 , 1973, the City Council adopted Resolution No . 8098 which states : "WHEREAS, the Upper Bay presently is heavily silted and its future viability in jeopardy because of present and projected silt levels ; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Transportation requires fill which can be obtained from bay silt as part of a revitalizing program for the Upper Bay at potentially minimal cost to the County or City; and WHEREAS , a program designed to restructure the original contours and channels can be conceptualized which will protect and in fact improve the present life support system and water quality ; NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach supports the concept of the restoration of Upper Newport Bay to its former viability that existed prior to the salt works , and will endeavor to cooperate with the County in removal of silts from certain areas of the Upper Bay in conjunction with the construction of the Corona del Mar freeway by the State Department of Transportation . " (City Clerk ' s Office) i -123- 3 . 13 Air Resources : IMPACT: Decreased air quality. Additional population and vehicle miles travelled within the planning area will add incrementally to diminishing air quality within the South Coast Air Basin . Localized impacts on air quality due to traffic congestion should be anticipated within the planning area . The continued use of jet aircraft adjacent to the planning area willalso ' contribute to the degradation of air quality. Mitigation : The' City of Newport Beach has recognized that air pollution is a regional problem and that the solution to this problem will require the support and cooperation of all of the local governments . The Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No . 770 on July 24, 1972, which states : WHEREAS, the likelihood of serious mortality from air pollution in California in the near future has become increasingly clear through newspaper reports and scientific studies ; and WHEREAS , although the degree of air pollution varies in intensity from district to district, there can be no doubt that even those cities relatively free from air pollution at this time will most surely be seriously affected as the pollution spreads ; and WHEREAS , the pattern of steady increase in air pollution from the 1940 ' s to the present and the varying , sometimes ineffective , controls thus far implemented , point up the urgent need for immediate , strict and uniform air pollution control throughout the state , with the basic enforcement being the task of local and regional agencies ; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach recognizes that the regional approach is the only way to meet the problem of imposing statewide air quality standards , and that cities should play their full role in developing effective machinery in order that state and/or federal governments will not be forced to intervene ; tNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Newport Beach hereby declares its intention to play -124- its full role in policy formulation and planning i with respect to strict control of air pollution , through close cooperation with the Orange County Board of Supervisors , and through participation in and maintenance of an efficient and effective County air pollution control district. " In addition the City will : "Pay particular attention to possible stationary sources of air pollution in the review of all Environmental Impact Reports . Continue attempts to assure limitation of Orange County ' Airport operations . Encourage development and use of emission reduction equipment for aircraft and automobile engines . Pursue the development of alternative means of transporta- tion which would reduce use of the automobile within the City. Continue to oppose freeways which would bisect the community and which would bring increased through traffic with its attendant increase in air pollution emissions . Continue to monitor the noxious gas odor problem in West Newport and periodically check on the effectiveness of the gas scavenging and burn-off system; additional I corrective measures , if necessary, will be undertaken within economic and physical constraints . i Attempt to assure elimination of the oil production- associated odors in the Newport Shores area through cooperation with the Orange County Air Pollution Control District. Re-evaluate City policies to include the purchase of lower weight or horsepower or lower emission vehicles whenever feasible . " (Conservation of Natural Resources Element) i -125- 3. 14 Energy Resources : IMPACT: Increased demand on non-renewable energy resources. The continued urbanization of the City of Newport Beach will result in increased demand for non-renewable energy resources . Mitigation : The Uniform Building Code requires energy analysis and establishes insulation requirements for residential structures . It is anticipated that analysis and requirements for non-residential structures will be in effect by early 1977. In addition, the City will continually monitor state-wide and federal efforts aimed at developing alternative energy sources and will adapt local regulations as appropriate . I i 1 I I -126- 3. 2 URBAN ENVIRONMENT 3 . 21 Demography IMPACT: Increased population/dwelling units within the pZanning area. The General Plan allows for an increase in dwelling units , and thereby population , within the overall planning area . The 1 increase is approximately 51 % over the existing January 1 , 1976 levels . While population increase is not in-and-of itself an adverse impact, it adds to or reinforces a majority of the impacts reviewed within this E . I . R . Mitigation : None possible ; however, as discussed in Section 5 . 1 , the General Plan limits residential development to a level below that of the trend growth projection. IMPACT: Increased housing demand and population increases in ' adjacent communities. The Residential Growth Element and Land Use Element restrict the total number of units , and thereby total population , within the planning area . The restriction on growth and development within the planning area will tend to increase demand within adjacent communities . Mitigation : None possible . IMPACT: Increased housing costs within the planning area. The Residential Growth and Land Use Elements , by restricting total dwelling units , will increase the selling price of existing units within the planning area . The cost of new housing units to be constructed will also be increased at least partially as a result of demand exceeding supply . Rental costs will follow the 1 increased costs of existing and new housing . Mitigation : None possible . -127- 3 . 22 Land IMPACT: Loss of existing open space. See section 3 . 11 Land Resources . Mitigation : (See section 3 . 11 land resources) IMPACT: Increased demand for public facilities. Increased popu- lation , commercial , industrial , office , and recreation uses within the planning area will create this increased demand for public facilities . The specific site allocations for public facilities are indicated within the Community Facilities Element of the General Plan . Mitigation : The Community Facilities Element of the General Plan will provide for the increased demand for public facilities ' within the planning area . t -128- 1 3 . 23 Transportation IMPACT: Increased traffic congestion. The General Plan ' s policies , programs and general land uses when implemented will create additional traffic congestion within the Newport Beach planning area . This increase in congestion is not directly attributable ' to any one aspect of the community ' s development, but will be caused by the expansion , growth , development and redevelopment ' of all sectors of the urban environment within the planning area . The impact in terms of ADT ' s is identified overall and on selected segments of the circulation system in Exhibits 44 and 45 which follow: 1 1 -129- m = we m Mon M �Vft EXHIBIT 44 OFM4F UUNTY Wilk "^66 WHIT AVPKAAE- (0) 4oqAeAlY AT UFF Lsv&t,oF swm zop, v VW� b jpoo Ilk 1'+,,Scpo 0 lb A Z6,006 fit Too s I�pv 430490 00 000 .841 -- ------ --- -------------- ---------- - -----------—----- /000 To,0 0 0 '57, 00 6010 0 +t,006 & rp &-? &--f 4 1000 000 43.,000 'Tef000 0,000 61000 tripoo I Mitigation : The Circulation Element of the General Plan outlines proposals for the expansion of the existing street and highway 1 system. The expansion of the existing system will reduce the magnitude of the impact, but will not eliminate traffic congestion within the planning area . Exhibit No . 46 illustrates the adopted Circulation Element Plan for streets and highways . 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' -132- NEWPORT BEACH •.•.,••°° ���,\ EXHIBIT 46 " CIRCULATION ELEMENT ° MASTER PLAN OF STREETS & HIGHWAYS ® MAJOR ROAD Q INTERCHANGE F SIX LANE DIVIDED ADOPTED PRIMARY ROAD m FREEWAY 1 ,fit fff I FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROBS t 0 PRIMARY ROAD BRIDGE MODIFIED SECONDARY ROAD Jr • �F Y FOUR LANE UNDIVIDED • ROUTES THAT REQUIRE FURTHER c� ;! ' �. ._• ?� �� ' ' © COORDINATION c^=� - :• v ._ t''' ��� / �• � '$j`?/ '_ ©0 '% � 1, _Cu�rl•.G•_,���1 - -+�a� ,l•�i,, ���� '4 `,� Q �+ •� dr ,if � s •t-`1 - s9n��-"�,t•� r4-_, '�� i��� .£�`•o��\1�f •i! %� O fr�I I ii i •••I ^3 `• �•�i ` K, 'i' 'f'y ©�410�O��a© t�, R _ f� �'� o© OgpB® C•41q]g1�pp©a ---: x'x •• , ^.,,e d _;. b - 4'�^_e�; e- _ �f�4V w �\�" � -.C: DIIDs7� II qu � _.i -_'- �• •.L M. . �,,,,,-m •'�11•I 111 i!( •?::2: -_.-� :�"' .`���. ii .-ate !?RDQII�QQ � i '� � -' Ali _�____; - -���= m=-.a_�_..a^..e-� - " �: , •• °a`�UUC�`TiL`;� �.�.'\..� -1 ,i1- - �l-���, � Y •� Y �—__. _!w p i•)• `U � �'•.-'n \1�•� �� �__ � _ ` ram._ scale in feet i IMPACT: Increased demand for commercial air transportation. Further development will add to the demand for commercial air transportation within Orange County. The City ' s existing policy is that : "The present location of Orange County Airport is unacceptable as a site for a regional airport facility and should , therefore, be restricted to its ultimate function as a local airport, confined to the use of non-jet commercial carriers capable of short take-offs and landings , and small private non-jet and pleasure- type aircraft . " Mitigation Measures : The City of Newport Beach has adopted the ' following policy in terms of this impact : "l ) In view of increasing demands and the economic pressures to expand air transportation services in the Orange County region , the City shall actively encourage and participate in the planning and development of a regional airport facility at a location which will be least detrimental to surrounding residents and adjacent land uses . The new facilities should be developed for occupancy by 1977 - the date on which specific air facility leases may be considered for termination or renewal . ' 2) The City shall encourage and assist in the planning and development of a regional mass transit system with other appropriate agencies , where such system ' may best serve to reduce the rising demand for adequate and efficient transportation facilities . ' 3) Any mass transit system and the various local support facilities , shall each be designed and operated so as to protect and enhance the physical , social , and ecological environment of the Newport Beach area . 4) The City shall also• promote and assist in the ' development of adequate regulations and controls to reduce the present levels of noise , pollution and other hazards associated with the operations of the Orange County Airport and ensure that such regulations and controls are developed and maintained as a standard that is found to be acceptable to the City of Newport Beach . " ' -134- 3. 24 Noise IMPACT: Introduction of noise associated with highways into areas ' not previously affected. Expansion of the highway system and increased traffic will result in additional areas experience noise associated with highways . Exhibit 47 indicates the areas that will be affected. ' Mitigation : New residential development within the 60 dB CNEL contours will be required to provide sound attenuation as required by the Building Code . ' -135- w r ■� r r r r +� w w r r r r w r r r r Exhibit 47 RX HEI �1Nyyy p j � .�O o o®nya 4pOp, 7�i r �'- ',,; -� - -- -����(+�'�• - -�'Qao° \ �°p°'Sa. �'' rye :• 'I _�__�_ � _fl ''��aoa., �.�'.r,� :y��R •d0a��'.Qi9�'w _ 'a! 1 r, _ :� _000 ', ��� � � l! \ T ' clY OF NMPOU Buw PROJECTED CNEL CONTOURS t , o e A N FOR HIGHWAYS SOURCE- WYLE LABORATORIES 1 3. 3 GOVERNMENT ' 3.31 City Services IMPACT: Increased demand for governmental services. The increased development will require increases in City personnel , equipment , and public facilities in order to maintain the current levels of ' services . The services to be provided and site locations are indicated within the Community Facilities Element. Mitigation : These increases will be provided and financed through increased revenues . ' 3. 32 Cost/Revenue Impact IMPACT: It is estimated that the additional residential, commercial, and industrial development provided for in the General Plan will result in additional City revenues which will exceed the additional ' costs of providing City services. This conclusion is based on the consultant study " Fiscal Impact Analysis System" prepared by Ashley Economic Services , Inc . in August of 1976 . Utilizing the ' "marginal cost" approach , proposed in this study (which relates the net additional costs of personnel , equipment, and facilities required to serve various categories of new development to the ' revenues which will be generated by the new development) , the projected annual surplus is quite significant. Even if the "average cost" figures are used (which provide for a "fair share" allocation of all current City costs to new development) , the estimated annual revenues from the new development proposed by the General Plan would still exceed the annual costs , though the indicated surplus is not as significant . ' -137- Exhibit 48 on the following page indicates the estimated annual cost/revenue effect expected for each acre of new residential , ' commercial , and industrial development and applies these per-acre figures to the projected "build-out" of the City based on the General Plan : 1 -138- EXHIBIT 48 MARGINAL COST APPROACH AVERAGE COST APPROACH Annual Cost/ Additional Estimated Per-Acre Annual Cost/ Estimated Per-Acre Revenue Development Cost/Revenue Effect Revenue Effect Cost/Revenue Effect Effect Residential 940 Acres +$1 , 194* +$1 , 122, 360 (-$71 )* (-$6 ,694) Commercial 344 Acres +$4 ,000 +$1 , 376,000 +$1 ,900 +653,600 Industrial 72 Acres +$1 ,800 +$ 129 ,600 +$ 515 37 ,080 Total Projected Annual = $2 ,627,960 +$683,964 Surplus of Revenues Over Costs for New Development *Assumes an average per-unit value of $100,000 and an average density of 6 DU ' s per acre . w m It should be noted that this projected surplus at the build-out state of the City (by 1995-2000) does not take into account possible increases in the levels of services or the possibility of the general nation-wide inflation having a greater impact on costs than revenues . 1 Also , it should be noted that any major reductions to the area of developed land (as would result from major public acquisitions , beyond those proposed in the General Plan) will result in a reduction of the anticipated surplus . Itis likely that increased levels of services , as demanded by the citizens of the community, will result in a reduction of, or ' elimination of, this projected surplus . Also , it seems natural for ' a city to increase its levels of services (and , thus , its expenditures ) as its revenues increase , since in each annual budget there are always ' more "needs " (or desires) for services than can be met. The important point is that, based on the Ashley study, the implementation of the City ' s General Plan will provide a positive economic impact ' and, in fact , the revenues generated by new development may provide for the possibility of improved City services and facilities in the older portions of the City. ' Mitigation : None required . 1 ' -140- 4.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 4,0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The planning process which produced the Newport Beach General Plan sought to minimize unavoidable adverse environmental effects . The effects described in the following section , for the most part, are those unavoidable adverse effects which can generally be attributed to urban development and redevelopment. 4 . 1 Natural Physical Environment . Decreased natural vegetation and wildlife . . Loss of archaeological and paleontological sites . . Decreased public visual amenities and the loss of open space/ vacant land . . Landform alteration . . Decreased ocean and bay water quality. . Decreased air quality . . Increased energy demand and consumption 4 . 2 Urban Environment . Increased population and dwelling units . . Increased water consumption . . Increased demand for commercial air transportation . . Traffic congestion . 1 . Increased demand for public and private utilities . . , . Increased housing costs . ' . Increased noise levels from stationary and mobile sources . -141 - 5,0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN 5,0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE GENERAL PLAN Introduction This section of the impact report will describe alternatives to the Newport Beach General Plan which could be considered and the rationale for their rejection . The alternatives are presented with a general description of each for elements and the effects of the alternative . 5 . 1 "Trend-Growth" Alternative 5 . 11 Description - "Trend-Growth" Alternative : The following describes changes to each element of the Newport Beach �! General Plan to effectuate the "Trend-Growth"1 alternative within the City . Land Use Element: The "Trend-Growth" alternative would require major changes to the Land Use Element, as this Element is the City ' s expression of policy for land development . Some changes in land use designations would be required, along with a relaxation of development standards . The following describes the resulting "Trend-Growth" alternative : "Residential " • . dwelling unit increase to 46 , 127 units . increased multi-family areas . residential developments exceeding 15 DU ' s/Acre 1The "Trend-Growth " alternative was developed for the City by Development Research Associates as a basis for the General Plan studies and illustrated the probable development of the City which would occur without any changes to City policies or regulations . -142- "Commercial " : loss of marginal uses to residential expansion of corporate office developments reduction of "marine" - commercial sites increased tourist-related service facilities "Industrial " • . loss of marginal uses to residential . increased business/office industrial uses . increased office, commercial and restaurants "Public" • . increased demand on facilities . require major increases in actual physical facilities Residential Growth Element: This Element would project an "unlimited growth" policy . The Residential Growth Element would not indicate density limits on future residential growth (population) . The Element would allow for the following "Trend-Growth" conditions : Dwellings Population 1 . Existing 29 ,821 63, 101 2 . Trend-Growth Projection 46 ,127 109 , 330 (Source : Community Development Department, City of Newport Beach ) -143- Recreation and Open Space Element: The basic premise of the Element would remain the same . The implementation program for the acquisition of parks and open space areas would have to be revised to accommodate additional population and concomitant recreational requirements . Conservation Element : The major proposals of the Element would remain . Policies protecting existing resources and acceptable levels of impact on the natural physical environment would be modified . Housing Element: The statistical tables would be revised to reflect the increased number of DU ' s and population . Circulation Element : Major additional street widening would be required to serve the additional traffic . -144- 1 Noise Element: Noise level projections would be modified to allow for increased noise levels and increased area subjected to noise in conjunction with changes to the Circulation Element and increased traffic . Public Safety Element: No changes to the Public Safety Element would be required . Community Facilities Element: Revision would be necessary to increase the number and/or size of facilities to serve the additional population . -145- 5 . 12 Rejection Rationale - "Trend-Growth" : The "Trend-Growth" alternative was rejected by the City of Newport Beach in order to preserve the "community character" and the "quality of the living environment" . There are no apparent physical and economic constraints to growth (especially residential ) , within the limited range from the lowest feasible limits to the "Trend-Growth" alternative . The major question within the community when this alternative was rejected was not "What can we support?" , or "What can we afford?" . The question was , "What do we want?" . Demography: The "Trend-Growth" alternative would result in increases in unavoidable adverse environmental effects . The existing predominance of single-family homes would be eliminated by increases in multi -family units . Increases in the size of residential structures would result in more massive , boxy and out-of-character buildings , and the overbuilding of small lots . Natural Physical Environment : The "Trend-Growth" alternative would increase unavoidable adverse environmental effects on the land , water, air and climatic , and energy resources of the community . Urban Environment: The "Trend-Growth" alternative would have the following effects on the existing urban systems : Land : . adverse effect on housing goals . increased intensity of commercial sites . increased business/park industrial sites . increased demand on recreational facilities . increased demand on public facilities . increased demand on quasi -public facilities -146- Water : . increases in water consumption decreases in available water supplies . decreases in water quality Air• . decreases in air quality Transportation : . increased demand on air transportation facilities . increased demand on land transportation systems beyond capacity levels of planned facilities Utilities - Public : increased demand on sewer, water and street maintenace Utilities - Private : increased demand on private utility facilities and services such as gas , telephone and electricity Noise : increased noise levels from mobile sources Government• The "Trend-Growth " alternative would increase demands for governmental services . -147- 5 . 2 "No-Project" Alternative 5 . 21 Description - "No-Project" Alternative: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (C . E . Q .A . ) , each impact report prepared must consider the "No-Project" alternative . Prior to the adoption of the Newport Beach General Plan (as described in Section 1 . 0 ) , the existing General Plan for the City of Newport Beach consisted of the "Master Plan for the City of Newport Beach" prepared for the City in May, 1957 , by Hahn , Wise and Associates , Planning Consultants . This plan consisted primarily of three components : ( 1 ) land use; (2) circulation ; and (3) parks and recreation. The 1957 "Master Plan" ( Exhibit 49 ) projected a heavy dependence on the Coast Freeway, in respect to land use allocation and circu- lation pattern . -148- 5 . 22 Rejection Rationale - "No-Project" : The "No-Project" alternative is rejected because of three items . The first reason is the existing legal requirements . The City of Newport Beach , in order to comply with Title 7, Division 1 , Article 5 , Sections 65300 to 65302 . 4 of the California Government Code , was mandated to prepare the following elements in addition to those in effect ( a ) Open Space Element; b) Conservation Element; c) Housing Element ; 1 d) Seismic Safety Element; e) Public Safety Element; f) Scenic Highways Element; and g) Noise Element) . The second reason is that the City ' s previous plan does not represent an expression of the "goals " of the community. The General Plan Policies Report was prepared in 1972 and 1973 following public hearings and meetings . This report charted a direction for the community ' s future . The "No-Project" alternative would not possibly achieve the objectives of the City of Newport Beach . The third reason is that the 1957 Plan was based primarily on a circulation system that no longer will be developed . -149- i 1 /u r�rn ` 1 f� �����/, ��pn■ : [�� �++��I� \O��,eL``' � `�Feu I�r�a ,�a�r n: � . ��� 1�Dh1U! u 1 ��r .� _ ����"�tU �� rub/j1YriE�i�uilf� �► - -__ y_ 5 . 3 "Restrictive-Growth" Alternative 5 . 31 Description - "Restrictive-Growth" Alternative : The Newport Beach General Plan as adopted represents a "Limited-Growth" policy for the City in terms of commercial and industrial expansion , and residential growth . A "restrictive-growth" alternative is one that reduces the extent and/or intensity of urban development to a severe degree . -151 - 5 . 32 Rejection Rationale - "Restrictive-Growth" Alternative : The "limited growth" alternative (adopted General Plan) was determined by the Planning Commission and City Council , during the many public hearings and as a result of massive public testimony, to be acceptable and reasonable when viewed within the legal , social , and economic contexts of our society. Thus , a more-limited "restrictive growth" alternative was rejected . -152- i r� 6.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY 6.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Newport Beach General Plan is a long-range , comprehensive guide for the future growth and development of the City . As such , it establishes a positive relationship between local short-term uses and long-term productivity and assures that short-term uses will be consistent with long-range objectives . The long-term productivity of the environment will be maintained or enhanced except for those instances of adverse and unavoidable impacts indicated in Section 5 . 0 . In many cases , such as the preservation of open space and the revitalization of Upper Newport Bay, the plan projects an enhancement of the long-term productivity of the natural environment. -153- i 7,0 STATEMENTS OF OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING i i t i i i i i 7,0 STATEMENTS OF OTHER RELEVANT PLANNING The 'Newport Beach General Plan is generally supportive of other relevant public and private planning activities within Southern California . The General Plan attempts to provide forinnovative and appropriate solutions to the desires of the community as expressed in the General Plan Policies Report adopted by the City Council in March of 1972. The following plans are applicable within the Newport Beach planning area and adjacent to it : A. California Coastal Zone. Conservation Commission 1 . California Coastal Plan iB . County of Orange 1 . Land Use Element 2 . Open Space Element 3. Conservation Element 4 . Scenic Highways Element i5 . Housing Element - "Goals and Policies" 6 . Recreation Element - jA. Master Plan of Regional Parks B . Master Plan of County-wide Bicycle Trails C . Master Plan of Hiking and Riding Trails D . Interim Master Plan of Local Parks 7 . Master Plan of Arterial Highways 8 . Master Plan of Drainage 9 . Safety Element ( including Seismic Safety) 10 . Southeastern Orange County Land Use and Transportation Study (pending) -154- 11 . Santa Ana River -- Santiago Creek Greenbelt Plan and Greenbelt Implementation Plan (pending ) 12 . Airport Commission (Land Use Plan ) 13. Amendment No . 76-1 to the Land Use Element - TICMAP 1 planning effort (pending) C . City of Irvine 1 . General Plan D . City of Costa Mesa 1 . General Plan E . City of Huntington Beach 1 1 . General Plan F . Private Planning 1 . Irvine Company Advocacy Plan 2 . Laguna Greenbelt Inc . ' 3 . Friends of Upper Newport Bay -155- 3,0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE GENERAL PLAN'S IMPLEMENTATION I� 1 li S,0 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED 1 IN THE GENERAL PLAN'S IMPLEMEJTATION The following irreversible environmental changes can be anticipated: 8 . 1 DEMOGRAPHY The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach indicates a • continued growth for the community in terms of population , housing and economics . This represents an irreversible commitment of land and material ' resources . ' 8 . 2 NATURAL PHYSICAL RESOURCES 8. 21 Land Resources : The General Plan projects urban use into ' existing undeveloped land . Once land is committed to urban use, it is unlikely that such areas will , at a future time , be turned over to substantially less intensive use or open space. 8 . 22 Water Resources : The implementation of the General Plan will commit domestic water supplies as required to serve the urban develop- ment. Increased runoff from urban areas will adversely effect bay and ocean water quality. 8 . 23 Air and Climatic Resources : The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach , due to increased motor vehicle traffic , represents a short-run decrease in air quality and potential long-run adverse effect. The degree of change is dependent on policies and programs of jurisdictions beyond the control of the City . 8 . 24 Energy Resources : The General Plan for the City of Newport Beach represents a commitment of energy resources for the construction and maintenance of urban development. The existing sources of energy, and energy capacities will require limited expansion . -156- 8 . 3 URBAN ENVIRONMENT 8. 31 Land : The Newport Beach General Plan represents a policy commitment to irreversible environmental changes in terms of land being ommitted to urban development . 8 . 32 Water : The General Plan indicates an irreversible environmental commitment to increased use of water to serve the expanded urban areas . 8 . 33 Circulation : The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach ' General Plan represents a commitment to the automobile as the primary transportation mode, which results , at least a short-range commitment of oil resources for the circulation of people and goods . 1 ' -157- i I 9 .0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT 1 9 .0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT ' The Newport Beach General Plan is a limited growth plan . While the General Plan does not eliminate growth in Newport Beach , the plan does limit, control and direct urban expansion . In fact, if the Newport Beach General Plan were not adopted, significantly greater intensities of development would undoubtedly occur . r r -158- i 1 i ' 10,0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1 1 1 1 1 i ' 10,0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The City of Newport Beach , through the General Plan Policies Report , has defined the public policy for the future of the community. It is recognized that certain adverse environmental impacts , as discussed in this report, will result from the implementation of the Newport ' Beach General Plan ; however , the Planning Commission and City Council , in adopting this plan have found that the General Plan achieves a ' balance between environmental , social , and economic factors in light ' of the overall public interest . 1 t ' -159-