HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-12_EQAC_AgendaCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
AGENDA
MONDAY May 12, 2003
LOCATION: City Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. 3300 Newport Boulevard
Roll Call
1. Minutes of April 14, 2003
2. Traffic Model Update discussion — Mr. Rich Edmonston (Exec. Summary attached,
and also found at: http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/trafficmodel.pdf)
3. Natural Water Treatment System Draft Environmental Impact Report
4. Report from EQAC Member on GPUC
5. Report from EQAC Members on GPAC
6. Report on LCP
7. Council Member Reports
8. Communications Subcommittee Web Page Discussion (Attachment)
9. Public Comments
10. Future Agenda Items
NEXT MEETING DATE: June 16, 2003
LOCATION: Police Dept Auditorium
ati,�PORT CITY OF NEWPORT BLACH
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
cy "opN`y COMMITTEE
Draft Minutes 04 -14 -03
Minutes of the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee held at the
City Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, on,
April 14, 2003.
Members Present
Richard Nichols Council member
Robert Hawkins, Chairperson
Barry Eaton, Vice Chairman
Gary Borquez
Thomas Eastmond
Ray Halowski
Carol Hoffman
Tom Hyans
Staff Representatives
Dave Kiff, Assistant City Manager
Members Not Present
Barry Allen
Steve Bromberg Mayor
Gus Chabre
Laura Dietz
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Minutes of March 17, 2003
Elaine Linhoff
Dolores Otting
Nancy Raney
Richard Rivett
Cris Trapp
Louis Von Dyl
Christopher Welsh
Jennifer Wynn
Chandra Slaven, Assistant Planner
Phillip Lugar
Jim Miller
Marge Pantzar
Barry Eaton moved to approve the minutes. Cris Trapp requested that the
minutes include the new members present. Barry Eaton agreed to the change.
Tom Hyans seconded the motion to approve the minutes with the change.
Motion passes.
2. Introduction of New Members
No new members.
3. Report from Subcommittee on San Joaquin Reservoir DEIR
Cris Trapp suggested two changes to the letter for the San Joaquin Reservoir
DEIR. Discussion ensued. Cris Trapp moved that the committee adopt the
letter with the corrections. Barry Eaton seconded the motion. Motion passes.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
O 4
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
z -
�OA�p
COMMITTEE
Draft Minutes 04 -14 -03
4. Discussion of City Public Information Function
Dave Kiff explained the public information function to EQAC.
He mentioned they are in the process of renewal of the cable company contracts
and that they are working to improve the City's websites.
Chairman Hawkins requested that the Communications subcommittee address
the lateness of posting information on the City's website, and also asked for
volunteers for the Communications subcommittee. Dolores Otting volunteered.
5. Report from Membership Sub Committee
Councilman Nichols commented on the committee appointment process and new
rules for electing volunteers for committees.
6. Report from EQAC Member on GPUC
Barry Eaton reported on GPUC meeting and gave an overview of the GPUC
resolution and scope for May's meeting. Barry Eaton also reported on the
outcome of the traffic study for the General Plan from today's GPUC meeting.
7. Report from EQAC Members on GPAC
Tom Hyans reported that GPAC heard Woodie Teshier's presentation on the
State's general plan process.
8. Report on LCP
Dave Kiff reported on the LCP concerning its circulation and the removal of
Newport Coast.
9. Council Member Reports
Council Member Nichols discussed the problems with committees in terms of
appointment inconsistencies.
10. Public Comments
None
11. Future Agenda Items
�f
2
WP�R CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
o g ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
c7< oaNA COMMITTEE
Draft Minutes 04 -14 -03
IRWD Natural Treatment System National Waste Water Disposal project EIR —
Comments
Next EQAC meeting to be May 12`h.
Request a Fiscal Impact and Economic Analysis Study from Dave Kiff.
Chairman Hawkins adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
3
DRAFT
TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
Prepared For:
Mr. Rich Edmonston
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Prepared By:
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
41 Corporate Park, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92606
John Kain, AICP
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Marlie Whiteman, P.E.
March 26, 2003
JK:CW:MW:pr
JN:00460 -21
1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... ............................... 1
2.0 MODEL STRUCTURE /EXISTING CONDITIONS ............. ............................... 6
2.1 Existing Land Use Data
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data
2.3 2002 Trip Generation
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
2.5 2002 Trip Distribution
2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
2.7 2002 Traffic Source Analysis
2.8 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT CONDITIONS......... 38
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
3.2 General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
3.3 Buildout Trip Generation
3.4 Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
3.5 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
n.
LIST OF EXHIBITS
C;
EXHIBIT
PAGE
A
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC MODEL (NBTM) PRIMARY
STUDYAREA...................................................... ...............................
3
B
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DISTRICTS ....................... ...............................
7
C
MODE CHOICE FOR WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACHRESIDENTS ........................................... ...............................
13
D
MODE CHOICE FOR HOME -WORK TRIPS OF NEWPORT
BEACHWORKERS ............................................. ...............................
14
E
PURPOSE FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
BYDESTINATION ............................................... ...............................
16
F
PURPOSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ...........
18
G
DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH ...
19
H
PURPOSE OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
BYORIGIN ........................................................... ...............................
20
PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ..........
21
J
ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH ...............
22
K
NEWPORT BEACH EXISTING THROUGH LANES ..........................
23
L
EXISTING COUNT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) .....................
24
M
NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SURVEY CORDON LOCATIONS .....
27
N
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR NB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF NEWPORT COAST DRIVE .............. ...............................
28
0
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB COAST HIGHWAY
SOUTH OF SANTA ANA RIVER ......................... ...............................
30
P
TRAFFIC SURVEY RESULTS FOR SB MACARTHUR BLVD.
NORTH OF BONITA CANYON DRIVE ................ ...............................
31
Q
INTERSECTION COUNT LOCATIONS ............... ...............................
33
i0
R NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
THROUGHLANES .............................................. ............................... 44
S GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) ...... 45
/r
fPF\
\ i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2002 LAND USE SUMMARY .......... 8
2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY.. ............................... ...... ........ 9
3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2002 TRIP GENERATION .................... 11
4 DELETED
5 NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY
UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY ......................... ............................... 35
6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
LANDUSE SUMMARY ........................................... ............................... 39
7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON ........... ............................... 40
8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
TRIPGENERATION .............................................. ............................... 42
9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION
COMPARISON....................................................... ............................... 43
10 NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION
(ICU) SUMMARY .............:..................................... ............................... 47
iz
TRAFFIC MODEL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CURRENTLY ADOPTED
GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT FORECASTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This executive summary has been prepared to provide an overview of existing traffic
conditions and forecasts of future conditions, based on the currently adopted General Plan
of the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan forecasts have been prepared using the
Newport Beach Traffic Model, version 3.1 (NBTM 3.1). The NBTM 3.1 travel demand
forecasting tool has been developed for the City of Newport Beach to address traffic and
circulation issues in and around the City. The NBTM 3.1 tool has been developed in
accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Orange County Subarea
Modeling Guidelines Manual (August, 1998). The NBTM 3.1 is intended to be used for
roadway planning and traffic impact analysis, such as:
• General Plan /Land Use analysis required by the City of Newport Beach.
Amendments to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
• Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis.
The NBTM 3.1 is a vehicle trip based modeling tool, and it is intended for evaluating
general roadway system supply and demand problems and issues. The NBTM 3.1 has
been specifically calibrated to provide the most representative conditions in the City of
Newport Beach. This is sometimes described as "shoulder season" conditions, which are
experienced in the spring and fall seasons.
NBTM 3.1 differs from previous Newport Beach Traffic Models in several key ways. First,
NBTM 3.1 is a traffic model that includes most of Southern California, although the level of
detail is much less for areas further away from Newport Beach. Previous versions were
"windowed" models, that ended a short distant beyond the City's primary modeling area.
NBTM 3.1 also includes an additional step, which is a conversion of the City's land use
data into socioeconomic data. The socioeconomic data is then used to calculate trip.
1 /2
generation. Both of these changes are required by regional modeling consistency
guidelines, and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is responsible for
certifying the consistency of local models. Additionally, this updated model also includes
greater level Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) detail in key areas of the City where the question
of future development levels is in question, particularly the area adjacent to John Wayne
Airport. Greater detail has also been added in the Newport Coast/ Newport. Ridge area,
due to its annexation into the City. Another difference in this traffic model from prior
versions is an improved methodology to conduct intersection analysis, which insures that
the traffic flow between related intersections is reconciled.
1.1 Basic Methodology nd Assumptions
The NBTM follows the model structure recommended in the subarea modeling
guidelines, which is a "focused" modeling approach. The concept of a focused
model is to provide.the greatest level of detail within the primary modeling or
study area, with the least detail for those parts of the model which are
geographically distant from the primary study area. The guidelines refine this
concept into a three -tier system, with tier 1 being the least detailed component
(used to account for regional traffic), tier 2 being the previous regional framework
(County; sub - regional traffic). And tier 3 being the primary study area (local
traffic).
The primary study area of the NBTM is shown on Exhibit A. The primary study
area of the NBTM is generally bounded by the Brookhurst Street/Santa Ana River
on the west, Adams Avenue /Baker Street/Campus Drive /SR -73 on the north,
Crystal Cove State Park on-the east, and the Pacific Ocean on the south. The
primary model area includes the City as well as portion of Costa Mesa and Irvine.
The areas outside NB are included in the primary modeling area due to the
proximity of adjoining land uses and their interrelationship with Newport Beach
development resulting from the structure of the road system.
2
0
�7.
I-- W
CY]
=a
X �-
c
ce
CCa
a
C
Z
r
W
c
O
V
Y.
V
Q
W
m
5�
O
0.
W
Z
\
ss -ns
Ott /
zs
as
m:
;1
NBTM 3.1 is highly dependent on the Orange County Transportation Analysis
Model, Version 3.1 (OCTAM3.1). The primary modeling steps or processes used in
the development of NBTM 3.1 are:
• Land use to socioeconomic data (SED) conversion
• Trip generation and mode choice
• Trip distribution
• Time of day factoring
• Traffic assignment
• Post - assignment data refinement processing (validation)
NBTM relies on regional model estimates of trip generation, trip distribution, and
mode choice. The model accommodates changes in land .use /socioeconomic and
roadway network characteristics in the following manner:
Trip Generation - Trip generation estimates are based on socioeconomic
data driven by the City's land use data. The number of
trips calculated from this source is then used to adjust
the regional projections to reflect local conditions.
Trip Distribution - Trip distribution estimates are based on distribution
patterns estimated by the regional travel demand
model and incorporated into NBTM. The regional trip
distribution is adjusted to match local trip generation
using an industry- accepted approach known as the
Fratar model.
Mode Choice - Mode choice is the method of transportation selected
by individuals traversing the region. These modes
include single and multi- occupant automobiles, buses,
trains, bicycles, pedestrian, etc. Mode Choice is
estimated by using regional model mode share ��
projections, which are incorporated into the subarea
model.
Traffic Assignment - Traffic is assigned to the roadway system on the basis
of travel time and cost. Tolls are explicitly included in
the traffic assignment process .using.the procedures
obtained from the regional travel demand model. Traffic
is assigned separately for the AM, mid -day, PM and
nighttime periods of the day, to allow to more accurate
representation of the effects of the congestion on the
choice of travel routes by drivers.
Post Model Refinements -The goal of volume forecast or post model refinement is
to utilize all available information to assure the model is
able to predict future traffic conditions. The NBTM
refinement procedure incorporates 2002 traffic count
data, 2002 model validation data, and future model
forecasts as inputs to this process.
Jt
5
ti
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter of the executive
summary
describes existing 2002
shoulder
(fall /spring)
season conditions the City of
Newport
Beach. Traffic Analysis
Districts
have been
established that group areas with similar characteristics. These districts help to refine
estimates of where traffic originates, identify trip generation /distribution adjustments, and
make land use occupancy adjustments, all to reflect the characteristics of a geographic
area. The Traffic Analysis Districts are shown on Exhibit B.
2.1 Existing Land Use Data
Land use data within the primary study area is a key input to the modeling process.
The initial land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff by the City of
Newport Beach. Table 1 summarizes the existing 2002 land uses for the City of
Newport Beach, by land use type. These land uses were then converted to
socioeconomic data as part of the initial modeling process.
2.2 2002 Socioeconomic Data (SED)
City of Newport Beach SED that has been converted from the land use data in
Table 1 is summarized in Table 2. Conversion factors were established using
those from previous conversion efforts in the County. These were then refined to
more closely match citywide summary data and the regionally accepted Orange
County Projections (OCO- 2000). Occupancy factors and SED conversion factors
have been differentiated for the 'Balboa" area (districts 3, 9, and 10 on Exhibit
B). This differentiation was necessary because of inaccurate initial model
predictions compared to existing street counts. These differences can be related
to unique spring and fall trip generation, which is different from other seasons.
For instance, lower retail occupancy is experienced during the "shoulder"
(spring /fall) seasons represented by the NBTM.
ly,
C
m H
m
W %A
/G
%A
N
Z
a
V
e
Li.
LAW
,:;7.
L9
N
0
G
6
z
W
0
W
J
M
r
a
o w
m
0 �
m Z
t t
N_ N_
N N
J J
a a
V V
LL LL
<a
a u
PM
a
w fc
TABLE 1
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2002 LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM'CODE
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNITS'
1
Low Density Residential
14,841
DU
2
Medium Density Residential
12,939
DU
3
Apartment
7,622
DU
4
Elderly Residential
348
DU
5
Mobile Home
894
DU
6
Motel
210
ROOM
7
Hotel
2,745
ROOM
8'1
Resort Hotel
-
ROOM
9
Regional Commercial
1,259.000
TSF
10
General Commercial
2,926.160
TSF
1.1
Commercial /Recreation
5.100
ACRE
12'
Regional Commercial
-
TSF
13
Restaurant
640.520
TSF,
142
Family Restaurant
-
TSF
15
Fast Food Restaurant
78.031
TSF
16
Auto Dealer /Sales
288.320
TSF
17
Yacht Club
54.580
TSF
18
Health Club
63.500
TSF
19
Tennis Club
60
CRT
20
Marina
1,055
SLIP
21
Theater
5,489
SEAT
22
Newport Dunes
64.00
ACRE
23
General Office
10,900.190
TSF
24
Medical Office
761.459
TSF
25
Research & Development
327.409
TSF
26
Industrial
1,042.070
TSF
27
Mini- Storage/Warehouse
199.750
TSF
28
Pre - scho)I/Day Care
55.820
TSF
29
Elementa /Private School
4,399
STU
30
Junior /High School
4,765
STU
31
Cultural/Learning Center
35.000
TSF
32
Library
78.840
TSF
33
Post Office
53.700
TSF
34
Hospital
351
BED
35
Nursin /Conv. Home
661
BEDS
36
Church
377.760
TSF
37
Youth Ctr. /Service
149.560
TSF
38
Park
113.970
ACRE
40
1 Golf Course
305.330
ACRE
Units Abbreviations:
DU = Dwelling Units
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
CRT = Court
STU = Students
Z Uses 8, 12, and 14 are part of the old NBTAM model structure and are
not currently utilized in the City land use datasets.
�D
U: tUcJobs `,004601Excell[00460- 21.xls]T 1
C
TABLE 2
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED 2002
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA SUMMARY
VARIABLE
QUANTITY
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
Occupied Multi - Family Dwelling Units
20,409
Group Quarters Population
661
Population
75,817
Employed Residents
44,379
Retail Employee
10,198
Service Employees
24,594
Other Employees
36,246
Elem/High School Students
9,164
F:� USERS�PLN`PTemple�MYDOCS\ [00460-21CDW TrafficTables.xls]T2
2.3 2002 Trip Generation
Trip generation has been estimated from socioeconomic data in the NBTM model
area. The trip generation factors have been derived from regional trip generation
estimates from the regional model (OCTAM 3.1). This methodology breaks down
traffic into trips produced (productions) and trips attracted (attractions). Table 3
summarizes the overall trip generation for 2002 conditions for the City of Newport
Beach. The overall trip generation for the City of Newport Beach is an estimated
697,626 daily vehicle trips.
2.3.1 Trip Purpose
NBTM trip generation data has been developed for the following 7 trip
purposes:
• Home -Work
• Home -Shop
• Home -Other
• Home - Elementary/High School
• Home - University
• Other -Other
• Other -Work
The "Other" category includes social or entertainment related trips and
recreational trips.
2.4 2002 Mode Choice
Most mode choice (e.g., transit, etc.) issues are regional in nature, superseding
cities' boundaries. For this reason, the NBTM approach is to incorporate mode
choice through data obtained from the regional mode choice model. This data
may be used directly for minor adjustments to account for future system
refinements, which would then be reflected in zonal vehicle trip generation
adjustments. Regional mode choice survey data directly relevant to Newport
10
TABLE 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2002 TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS ..
PRODUCTIONS
/
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
57,568
88,618
- 31,050
0.65
Home Based School
11,424
8,730
2,694
1.31
Home Based Other2
125,826
107,619
18,207
1.17
Work Based Other
55,625
59,778
-4,153
0.93
Other -Other
91,946
90,492
1,454
1.02
TOTAL
1 342,3891
355,237
-12,848]77777777Ug
OVERALL TOTAL 697,626
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home - University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U: \UcJobs \00460 \Excel \[00460- 21.xls)T 10
11
Beach is presented to facilitate such minor adjustments and to inform the
decision - makers regarding the role of various modes of transportation to /from
and within the City of Newport Beach.
2.4.1 Home -Work Trip Mode Choice Data
The home -work trip mode choice data provided by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) to Urban Crossroads, Inc. included
mode choice data (travel method used) for home -work (either end in
Newport Beach) trips. The main mode choices fall into the following
categories:
• Drive alone
• Carpool
• Bus
• Railroad
• Ferry
• Taxi
• Motorcycle
• Bike
• Walked
The mode choice data has been grouped into qeographic areas. Within
Orange County, cities have been identified as adjacent to Newport Beach,
or generally located north of (North County) or south of (South County) the
City of Newport Beach. Adjacent cities include Costa Mesa, Huntington
Beach, Irvine, and Laguna Beach. The division between North County
and South County cities used for this analysis is the SR -55 Freeway.
Outside Orange County, cities /geographic areas have been grouped by
County.
Exhibits C and D depict the results of this analysis for Newport Beach
origin trips (residents) and Newport Beach destination trips (persons that
12
n Z
= W
L in
N
W
V
a
W
m
LAWi—
O
a
z
O
Lm
a
O
O
LAW
LU
V
0
Z
V
LU
Im
Q
m
sdul
13
:7 OC
N Q �
0 U y
O Cl) �
m >,
5
�v
0
c a
C � c
c 0
N C O
`m U
�T
N c
N �
O
� U
N �
O U
�T
c �
N U o
m
m
c �
c
O �
L o
�v
0
0
G T
O
O�
L °
U
`o
Z
C N
N
U
Q
`O L
C V
o m
Z m
�z
Q
07
C
x
v
a
m
14
W
O
o
O <
-j
0
O
0
CL
CL
M¢
w
I
LL,
z
<
0
u
z
0
Z
z
C)
<
Q
o
LU
>
LLI
CL
co
I-
W
CL
+
CL
0
2
0
z
F-- i
0
❑
❑
H
M
co c 0
V)
O
III
U
i
a
IZ
cc
CD
CD 0
CZ)
0
CD
C)
0 0 CD
0 CD
sdij i
14
W
O
work in Newport Beach), respectively. The majority of trips that have one
or both trip ends in Newport Beach are drive -alone automobile trips. The
second -most used mode for trips with only one end in Newport Beach is 2-
person carpool, while the second -most popular mode for Home -Work trips
with both ends in the City is non - motorized. Generally, travel to the City of
Newport Beach via transit is most often by North Orange County residents
who work in the City of Newport Beach. The second highest percentage of
workers that utilize transit to travel to the City of Newport Beach is from
adjacent cities. Public transportation accounts for less than 2% of all
home -work travel to and from the City of Newport Beach from all other
geographic areas within the SCAG region. The percentage is actually
higher for locations outside the SCAG region, most likely associated with
the use of John Wayne Airport to travel to and from the City of Newport
Beach for more distant destinations.
2.5 2002 Trip Distribution
Survey data was provided by SCAG related to the origins and destinations of
trips made to and from the City of Newport Beach. The trip distribution data was
collected in the form of trip diaries in 1991. These trip diaries are an actual log
complied by individual motorists of their daily trip activities. The trip distribution
data was organized into six (6) trip purposes for trips ending or beginning in
Newport Beach and summarized by geographic area at the other end of the trip.
Exhibit E summarizes the geographic data by adjacent cities, north Orange
County, south Orange County, and each other county in Southern California
represented in the dataset for trips originating in Newport Beach. As might be
expected, the highest totals are for trips with both ends within the City of Newport
Beach, followed by trips with one end in an adjacent city.
As shown on Exhibit E, 52% of the trips surveyed are contained within Newport
Beach and 80% of the trips originating in Newport Beach are contained entirely in
15
ll
00
C p
< Q
u
Z
V'f
W
0
>W
W
Z
V
W
CID
O
M
W
L
P
Z
O
Iri
I�
O
LL,
W
N
O
a
I=
I�
�O
O
S
cn
O
0
O
O
?
W:
ZE
S
F
W
IO
S
W
O
=
W
O
=
W
r
O
W
—
O
Y
O,
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 a o CD
N
sdl�l
16
@ T
7 C
C �
y O
> U
N C
o
U
O
c T
� c
Cl)�o
� U
N
Q O C
n U p
O
J C
N
C �
O � p
SOU
O T
`O o
0(-)
U N
3' L)
C
) U
(Q
a
Z
Newport Beach and the adjacent cities. Exhibit F depicts the overall trip purposes
summary for trips beginning in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other
(38 %), with a high number of Home -Work (20 %). The categories with the fewest
trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit G shows the City or County at
the other end of the trip for trips originating in Newport Beach. Areas closest to
Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
Exhibit H summarizes the geographic data by County (outside Orange County) or
portion of Orange County for trips destined for Newport Beach. The highest totals
are for trips with both ends in the City of Newport Beach (52 %), followed by trips
from an adjacent city (28 %). Exhibit I depicts the overall purposes for trips ending
in Newport Beach. Most trips are Home -Other (38 %), followed by Home -Work
(22 %). The fewest trips are Work at Home and Home -Shop. Exhibit J shows the
origin City or County for trips destined for Newport Beach. Areas closest to
Newport Beach have the most interactions with the City.
2.6 2002 Daily Traffic Conditions
The existing number of through lanes (lanes not designed to accommodate
turning movements only) within the primary study area are depicted on Exhibit K.
Daily traffic volume data for locations counted as part of this study effort were
collected in Spring /Fall of 2001/2002. Freeway data comes from the Caltrans
Publication, Traffic Volumes on State Highways Exhibit L presents the daily
traffic volumes, which have been used to validate the NBTM. Daily volume is the
first level of check/verification to insure that the model is predicting traffic
accurately. Daily traffic count data has been collected and /or compiled for 64
locations in the City of Newport Beach. Additional daily volume data reported by
the California Department of Transportation has been incorporated into the
NBTM update work effort. The SR -55 Freeway north of the SR -73 Freeway
carries the highest daily traffic volume (approximately 155,000 vehicles per day)
in the NBTM primary modeling area. The arterial roadways carrying the highest
traffic volume in the NBTM primary modeling area are Coast Highway and
17 el
EXHIBIT F
PU R POSE OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
WORK AT HOME
1%
'IC MODEL UPDATE, Newport Beach, Calirfornia .00460:15 URBAN
JO
18
EXHIBIT G
DESTINATIONS OF TRIPS ORIGINATING IN NEWPORT BEACH
Adjacen
281
North Orange Cou
11%
South Oran
4;
Lo:
2%
:m
1 o
Newport Beach
52%
21
C
C O C 00
p O O O
r
Q % J
J � Q ^] N
SdIJ i
lbQo
za
co �,
� c
c �
0 0
> U
a)
v 2:,
N c
`m
> o
U
0
C T
C � C
O C O
CO C O
� U
N
a�
m T
� c
c
Q o
N U
O G
J •�
_ G T
y � C
� C �
O @ O
u) O U
Q) T
C+7 C
C �
O @ O
Z p U
C N
m Q)
fQ
U
Q
`o
c
mo
Z �
1 ')
.r Y
20
V
6
W
LLI
W a
O O
w W
:2 2
o 0
Y
w
2
0
W
W�
O
w
S
0
Y
O
w
T-
0
2
O
S
~
® O
9
■
m
❑
C
C O C 00
p O O O
r
Q % J
J � Q ^] N
SdIJ i
lbQo
za
co �,
� c
c �
0 0
> U
a)
v 2:,
N c
`m
> o
U
0
C T
C � C
O C O
CO C O
� U
N
a�
m T
� c
c
Q o
N U
O G
J •�
_ G T
y � C
� C �
O @ O
u) O U
Q) T
C+7 C
C �
O @ O
Z p U
C N
m Q)
fQ
U
Q
`o
c
mo
Z �
1 ')
.r Y
20
V
6
W
PURPOSES OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
WORK AT HOME
1%
OTHER -WORK
17%
HOME -OTHER
38%
OTHER -OTHER
14%
HOME -WORK
22%
EXHIBIT J
ORIGINS OF TRIPS DESTINED FOR NEWPORT BEACH
Adjacent
280)
North Orange Cou
10%
South Oran,
4 °/
Los
3% 2%
'.H TRAFFIC MODEL UPDAT
22
Newport Beach
53%
J <j
� N
_ W
L
O
Z
Z
N
7<
W
V
W
m
1�
Q.
W
Z
s
�i
rsa
z
J
x
t�
O
rc
2
W O
O W
0 w D o
W
Z 2 °o
W =) -5z
tr Z 0 2
W n n u
.J acs
U Z
� Q
U LU
Q U
n O
O�
3-5-
m
n
n
n
'AV
aanN3a
in in
j
m
AV runs
m
IV mo
lS'3 �9 Lf(lUA9N r �
M.
I
ar 3emsi
v�
A.
0
Z
W
0
W
J
N
O
O
O
r
¢
0
5
W
a
wt
W
J
V
S
J
P
O
3
x
u
v
Id
V
LL
LL
m
r
x
v
w
m
r
o �(
z
/ �
Q
6
7
J
W
Id
V
LL
LL
m
r
x
v
w
m
r
o �(
z
MacArthur Boulevard. A daily traffic count of approximately 63,000 vehicles per
day was estimated on Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive
and on MacArthur Boulevard between Bison Avenue and Ford Road. Other
roadways carrying traffic volumes in excess of 50,000 vehicles per day (VPD)
include:
Newport Boulevard (maximum volume of 53,000 VPD south of Coast
Highway).
Coast Highway (53,000 VPD east of Newport Boulevard).
These links are highlighted because they represent the highest volume roadways in
Newport Beach. This does not automatically lead to deficiencies, but it will help to
identify areas where intersection deficiencies could lead to significant capacity
deficiencies.
Daily traffic counts (24 hour counts) were collected at 55 locations on the City's
roadway system. This data was collected in 15 minute intervals. The areawide
volumes were then analyzed to determine the peak characteristics for the study
area. The results of this analysis show that 8.67% of daily traffic occurs during the
AM peak hour, and 10.63% of daily traffic occurs in the PM peak hour. The peak
hour (time of highest relative volume) was determined within typical peak periods
(6 -9 AM and 3 -7 PM). For the entire primary study area, the AM peak hour begins
at 7:30 AM, and the PM peak hour begins at 4:45 PM.
Individual locations have various peak hour start times. Within Newport Beach, the
total trips in the peak traffic hour is approximately 19% of total daily trips. This is
higher than the typical value of 16 percent that Urban Crossroads staff has
observed in other studies in Orange.
2.7 2002 Traffic Source Analysis
The General Plan Update Committee (GPUC) requested that the traffic study
provide specific study of individual trip patterns to answer the question of how
25.
Ce
many trips are going through Newport Beach, without starting or stopping inside
the City. This was done in a study that is characterized as "Traffic Source
Analysis." For this study the consultant essentially followed cars as they
journeyed through the City. Traffic destinations for three locations were studied:
• Northbound Coast Highway, south of Newport Coast Drive
• Southbound Coast Highway, south of the Santa Ana River
• Southbound MacArthur Boulevard, north of Bonita Canyon Drive
Beginning at each of the three locations, 100 cars were followed until they left the
arterial system or the City of Newport Beach. For each vehicle followed, the data
includes start time (when the vehicle was at one of the above destinations), end
time (when the vehicle .left the City or the arterial system), destination
(termination of trip or crossing a cordon location), vehicle type (brief description
of the vehicle), and date. Analysts were directed to select vehicles from each
lane, and a variety of vehicle types.
As requested by City of Newport Beach staff, data was primarily collected during
the peak periods (from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:30 to 6:30 PM). At least 30%
of samples were taken within each of the AM and PM peak periods for each of
the three (3) traffic source locations.
The City of Newport Beach has been divided into fourteen (14) traffic analysis
districts, as previously shown on Exhibit B. For the purpose of this analysis,
districts 3 and 10 have been combined. Exhibit M shows through trip destinations
(cordon locations, depicted as letters on roadways exiting the City). Once a
vehicle has left the City of Newport Beach, it is considered an external trip and is
not further studied.
Exhibit N graphically depicts generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles
traveling northbound on Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive. Internal
traffic (with destinations in the City of Newport Beach) accounts for 64% of the
26 }x
mz
5f 0
W
Q
U
O
J
z
0
0
O
c
W
cn
U
w
Q
U
Q
w
CC)
H
O
n
w
z
27
�-
m��
X
= O
� V
00
V �.
m
Z LU
Z
O0
J �
� O
H H
W
LU
W
N
V
Y.
Li.
CC
w
PA
,j
6
3
z
vehicles studied. This percentage is slightly lower in the AM peak (60 %) and
higher in both the PM peak and off peak time frames. The top three traffic
districts attracting vehicles from this location are 13, 8, and 9. District 13 roughly
corresponds to Newport Coast West/ Corona Del Mar. District 8 is approximately
Newport Center. District 9 is Bayside /Balboa Island.
Through traffic from northbound Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive
travels primarily to cordons A, W, and U. Each of these cordons was the
destination of more than 5 of the 100 vehicles followed. Cordon A is Coast
Highway at the Santa Ana River and received seven percent (7 %) of the vehicles
studied. Cordon W is Newport Coast Drive northeast of the SR -73 freeway and
was the destination of seven percent (7 %) of vehicles involved. Cordon U (the
destination of six percent (6 %) of the vehicles followed is Bison Avenue northeast
of the SR -73 freeway (towards University of California, Irvine).
Survey results for southbound Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana River are
summarized on Exhibit O. Internal (City of Newport Beach) traffic comprises 66%
of the 100 trips analyzed. In the off -peak time frame, this percentage is mucli
lower, but the off -peak sample size is small (8 vehicles). Primary destinations
include traffic analysis districts 2, 8, 3/10, and 9. District 2 is Mariner's
Mile /Newport Heights. Newport Center is district 8. District 3/10 is Newport Bay
and the Balboa Peninsula, and district 9 is Bayside /Balboa Island.
Through traffic from the starting point on Coast Highway south of the Santa Ana
River primarily exits the City of Newport Beach either at cordon C (Superior
Boulevard north of 15th Street), or at cordon Y (Coast Highway south of Newport
Coast Drive). Cordon C captured eleven percent (11 %) of traffic studied, while
cordon Y was the destination of seven percent (7 %) of vehicles followed. All
other cordons had fewer than 5 of the 100 vehicles studied leaving.
Exhibit P shows generalized trip distribution patterns for vehicles studied on
southbound MacArthur Boulevard north of Bonita Canyon Drive. Almost 90% of
29
o �.
�a
m�
E=
W�
I--
IA
0
m
ii.
O
N
i-�
H
W
LU
N
V
Y..
LS.
7.
LAJ
a
LAM
0
r
0
H
C.
gEs
Wl
w
m
Z
t
N
tl
a
m � �
..+ Z
w O
� Z
� V
�a
v �
az
�o
mm
N L.
0
0
� Z
N
W
LU
Lii
i
N
V
W
Y.
Q
F�
31
WS
/ ?
traffic on this segment remains in the City of Newport Beach. Major destinations
include districts 8, 13, 9, and 12. District 8 (Newport Center) was the destination
of 37 vehicles, 32 total vehicles ended their trips in districts 13 and 9 (Newport
Coast West/Corona Del Mar and Bayside /Balboa Island, respectively). District
12 is Harbor View Hills /Newport Ridge (the destination of 11 vehicles).
During the peak hours, 11 of the 100 vehicles did travel through the City. Their
primary cordon destination was Y (Coast Highway south of Newport Coast Drive)
to which seven percent (7 %) of vehicles traveled.
None of the through - corridors studied are unusually impacted by through traffic.
The survey results indicate that less than 10% of the traffic on the corridors
surveyed is regional through - traffic. However, as might be expected, through-
traffic is greater on east -west corridors such as Coast Highway, than on north -
south routes, because the Pacific Ocean is a barrier to further through traffic
movement.
2.8 2002 Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Peak period and hour traffic count data has been obtained from a variety of
sources. Obtaining 2001/2002 data has been an emphasis of the existing
conditions effort. Peak period and hour turning movement traffic volume data have
been compiled or counted at a total of 62 intersections throughout the City of
Newport Beach, as shown on Exhibit Q. These locations were selected for analysis
by City staff because of their locations along key travel corridors within the
community. Additionally, it is important to note that while the overall daily volume as
compared to capacity is an important indicator of transportation system function,
intersection capacity can sometimes play a greater role when it comes to
constraints on the system.
Level of Service (LOS) is defined and described as follows:
32 `V
a %n
L- Z
Lp O
_-
x I-M
W ® S
J
�J
�d
Z a
�F
J�
O'
V
lai
LM
`U
o
m
R
33
z
O
5
O
z
Z
0
O p
V
z z
O O
GG
w w
� w w
Z ~ F
W z Z
o 0
W
-i •
U
LL Q
O u
C O
00
m
2 Tom'
m �P
m
V N
�
N
T
m
m
o h
id
- m
0
M31AAV9
�
o 0
15 HDNIB
>
C
= \
TV
lld HOdwVJ
Z
D N
N
AV NI15n1
o
¢
'AV VNV V1NVS
s
'AV3`JN"O
1SV3 ''. "Wd N
ss -Ns
1S3M 191MOdM3N
33
z
O
5
O
z
Z
0
O p
V
z z
O O
GG
w w
� w w
Z ~ F
W z Z
o 0
W
-i •
U
LL Q
O u
C O
00
m
2 Tom'
LOS A = 0.00 - 0.60 ICU: Low volumes, high speeds; speed not restricted by
other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles
waiting through more than one cycle.
LOS B = 0.61 — 0.70 ICU: Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other.
traffic; between one and ten percent of signal cycles
have one or more vehicles which wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
LOS C = 0.71 — 0.80: Operating speeds and maneuverability closely
controlled by other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent
of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which
wait through more than one signal cycle during peak
traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard.
LOS D = 0.81 — 0.90: Tolerable operation speeds; between 31 and 70
percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in
urban areas.
LOS E = 0.91 — 1.00: Capacity; the maximum traffic volumes an intersection
can accommodate; restricted speeds; between 71 and
100 percent of the signal cycles have one or more
vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods. .
The data collected /compiled was input into a turning movement analysis database.
For each location, inbound and outbound volumes were calculated, by each 'leg" or
intersection approach.
The number of lanes and their configuration has been collected at all 62 existing
intersections and is used to calculate existing (2002) intersection capacity utilization
values (ICUs). Table 5 summarizes the 2002 ICUs based on the AM and PM peak
hour intersection turning movement volumes and the intersection configuration.
34 q6
TABLE 5
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
SUMMARY
INTERSECTION (NS & EWW)
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
I LOS
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.67
B
0.57
A
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
D
0.811
D
4. Newport BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
A
0.66
B
5. Newport BI. & Via Lido
0.45
A
0.41
A
6- BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
C
0.79
C
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
D
0.93
E
8. Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
C
0.68
B
9. MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.62
B
0.77
C
10. MacArthur BI. & Birch St.
0.52
A
0.67
B
11. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.57
A
0.79
C
12. MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.40
A
0.731
C
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.94
E
0.83
D
14. Jamboree Rd. &Birch St.
0.82
D
0.61
B
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N)
0.78
C
0.93
E
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N)
0.67
B
0.63
B
17. Campus Dr./Irvine Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72
C
0.60
A
18. Birch St. & Bristol St. (S)
0.46
A
0.47
A
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr,
0.72
C
0.91
E
20. Irvine Av. & University Dr,
0.82
D
0.88
D
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.65
B
0.72
C
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.58
A
0:62
B
23. Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.66
B
0.64
B
24. Irvine Av. & WestcliffDr.
0.58
A
0.73
C
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.40
A
0.50
A
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.53
A
0.49
A
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
B
0.75
C
28. Bayside Dr. & Coast Hw,
0.68
B
0.69
B
29. MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
D
0.91
E
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N)
0.57
A
0.60
A
31. Bayview PI. & Bristol St. (S)
0.50
A
0.58
A
32. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (S)
0.75
C
0.73
C
33. Jamboree Rd. & Bayview Wy.
0.41
A
0.50
A
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. /University Dr.
0.62
B
0.65
B
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av,
0.46
A
0.54
A
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./Ford Rd.
0.70
B
0.661
B
37. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.66
B
0.881
D
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
A
0.59
A
39. Jamboree Rd. &Coast Hw.
0.70
B
0.74
C
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.34
A
0.35
A
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36
A
0.51
A
35 4�
It
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
NBTM EXISTING COUNT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU)
SUMMARY
INTERSECTION (NS & EW)
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
ICU
LOS
ICU
LOS
42. NewpM er Dr. &Coast Hw.
0.43
A
0.55
A
44. Avoc&San Miguel Dr.
0.37
A
0.72
C
45. Avoc&Coast Hw.
0.59
A
0.64
B
46. SR -7mps &Bison Av.
0.34
A
0.38
A
47. SR -7ps &Bison Av.
0.30
A
0.20
A
48. MacA. & Bison Av.
0.64
B
0.61
B
49. MacA. & Ford Rd./Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.72
C
0.90
D
50. MacAI. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.65
B
0.93
E
51. MacAI. & San Miguel Dr.
0.581
A
0.68
B
52. Coast Hw. & MacArthur BI.
0.61
B
0.72
C
53. SR -73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.561
A
0.45
A
54. SR -73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.321
A
0.41
A
55. San Miguel Dr. & Spyglass Hill Rd.
0.27
A
0.28
A
56. San Joaquin Hills Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.471
A
0.561
A
57. Coast Hw. & Goldenrod Av.
0.98
E
0.70
B
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.331
A
0.38
A
59. Coast Hw. & Marguerite Av.
0.83
D
0.82
D
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.42
A
0.29
A
61. Poppy Av. & Coast Hw.
0.63
B
0.67
B
62. Newport Coast Dr. & SR -73 NB Ramps
0.47
A
0.34
A
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd-
A
1 0.32
A
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.49
A
1 0.52
A
CAWINDOWS \Temporary Internet Files \OLK3275 \[00460- 21.xls]T 5
qF
N2
The following 7 intersections currently experience deficient (LOS "E" or worse)
peak hour operations under existing (2002) conditions:
• Riverside Avenue (NS) /Coast Highway (EW)
• Jamboree Road (NS) /Campus Drive (EW)
• Campus Drive (NS) /Bristol Street (N) (EW)
• Irvine Avenue (NS) /Mesa Drive (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /Jamboree Road (EW)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /San Joaquin Hills Road (EW)
• Goldenrod Avenue (NS) /Coast Highway (EW)
37 q 'f
3.0 CURRENTLY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
This chapter presents currently adopted General Plan Buildout Traffic Conditions. This
represents the amount of traffic which can be predicted if all entitlement expressed in
the current Land Use Element, and all the improvements identified in the Circulation
Element, were fully constructed. It also includes regional growth through the year 2025.
Data are compared to existing conditions to quantify growth.
3.1 General Plan Buildout Land Use Data
The General Plan Buildout land use data was provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc.
staff by the City of Newport Beach. Table 6 summarizes the overall General Plan
Buildout land uses for the City of Newport Beach. An overall comparison to
existing (2002) land use is also shown in Table 6. Land uses generally increase
for the City General Plan Buildout Scenario. Areas where the most anticipated
intensification in development are in the older, on- street commercial districts,
such as Mariners' Mile, Old Newport Boulevard, the Campus /Birch tract (near
John Wayne Airport), etc. The single most significant residential growth area is
Newport Coast/Ridge, although there are notable residential increases predicted
for older residential neighborhoods like Corona del Mar, Lido Isle, and the Balboa
Peninsula. There is only one .significant undeveloped property in the City's
planning area, Banning Ranch in western Newport Beach. Reductions in specific
uses (e.g., mobile homes, movie theaters) are caused by redevelopment in the
C ity.
3.2 General Plan Buildout Socioeconomic Data (SED)
General Plan buildout SED that has been converted from land use is
summarized in Table 7. Table 7 also contains a comparison of General Plan
Buildout SED to existing (2002) SED for the City of Newport Beach.
The total number of dwelling units are projected to increase by 5,452 units (16 %)
per the currently adopted General Plan. For total employment, an increase of
20,119 employees (33 %) is included in the currently adopted General Plan.
38 ' `?
TABLE 6
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT
LAND USE SUMMARY
NBTM
CODE
DESCRIPTION
UNITS
2002
QUANTITY
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROVIiTH
%GROWTH
1
Low Density Residential
DU
14,841
15,213
372
2.51 %!
2
Medium Density Residential
DU
12,939
17,723
4,784
36.97 %i
3
Apartment
DU
7,622
8,468
846
11.10 %I
4
Elderly Residential
DU
348
348
-
0.00 %I
5
Mobile Home
DU
894
749
-145
- 16.22 %'
6
Motel
ROOM
210
255
46
21.90%
7
Hotel
ROOM
2,745
2,799
54
1.97 %!,
9
Regional Commercial
TSF
1,259.000
1,633.850
1 374.850
29.77%
10
General Commercial
TSF
2,926.160
3.692.980
766.820
26.21%
11
Commercial /Recreation
ACRE
5.100
5.100
0.00%
13
Restaurant
TSF
640.520
850.900
210.380
32.85%
15
Fast Food Restaurant
TSF
78.031
94.540
16.509
21.16%
16
Auto Dealer /Sales
TSF
288.320
323.290
34.970
12.13%
17
Yacht Club
I TSF
54.580
73.060
18.480
33.86%
18
Health Club
TSF
63.500
100.940
37.440
58.96%
19
Tennis Club
CRT
60
60
-
0.00%
20
Marina
SLIP
1,055
1,055
0.00%
21
Theater
SEAT
5,489
5,475
-14
- 0.26°
22
Newport Dunes
ACRE
64.00
64.00
-
0.00%
23
General Office
TSF
10,900.190
11,760.423
860.233
7.89%
24
':Medical Office
TSF
761.459
895.420
133.961
17.59%
25
Research & Development
TSF
327.409
809.330
1 481.921
147.19%
26
Industrial
TSF
1,042.070
1,060.762
18.692
1.79%
27
Mini- Storage/Warehouse
TSF
199.750
199.750
-
0.00%
28
Pre-school/Day Care
TW
55.820
56.770
0.950
1,70%
29
Elementary/Private School
STU
4,399
4,455
56
1.27°
30
Junior /High School
STU
4,765
4,765
-
0.00%
31
Cultural /Learning Center
TSF
35.000
40.000
5.000
14.29%
32
Library
TSF
78.840
78.840
-
0.00%
33
Post Office
TSF
53.700
73.700
20.000
37.24%
34
Hospital 7777777T7KE
351
1,265
914
260.40%
35
Nursing/Cony. Home
BEDS
61 6
661
-
0.00%
36
Church
TSF
377.760
467.210
89.450
23.68%
37
Youth Ctr. /Serrice
TSF
149.560
155,410
5.850
3.91 ° /°
38
Park
ACRE
113.970
94.910
- 19.060
- 16.72%
39
Regional Park
ACRE
-
45.910
45.910
NIA
40
Go[( Course
ACRE
305.330
298.330
-7.000
- 2.29%
U: UcJobs +.00460",Excer:loo46e- 21.xis1T 5
39
TABLE 7
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LAND USE BASED
SOCIOECONOMIC DATA COMPARISON
VARIABLE
2002
QUANTITY I
BUILDOUT
QUANTITY
GROWTH
% GROWTH
Occupied Single Family Dwelling Units
13,842
14,250
408
3%
Occupied Multi - Family Dwelling Units
20,409
25,453
5,044
25 %'
Total Occupied Dwelling Units
34,251
39,703
5,452
16%
Group Quarters Population
661
661
0
0%
Population
75,817
87,886
12,069
16%
Employed Residents
44,379
51,268
6,889
16%
Retail Employee
10,198
12,675
2,477
24%
Service Employees
24,594
28,442
3,848
16%
Other Employees
36,246
40,040
3,794
10%
Total Employees
61,038
81,157
20,119
3306
Elem /High School Students
9,1641
9,220
56
1%
40
33 Buildout Trip Generation
Table 8 summarizes the overall trip generation for General Plan Buildout
conditions for the City of Newport Beach. The overall trip generation for the City
of Newport Beach is an estimated 860,673 daily vehicle trips. Table 9 compares
General Plan Buildout trip generation to existing. Total trip generation increases
by approximately 163,000 daily trips over existing (or 23 %). Regionally, total trip
generation (Post 2025) is projected to increase by 33 %.
3.4 Buildout Daily Traffic Conditions
Exhibit R shows General Plan Buildout through lanes on Newport Beach
roadways. This exhibit is based on information provided by City of Newport
Beach staff and the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element. The extension of
the SR -55 Freeway south of 17th Street is part of the assumed circulation system
as is the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners' Mile, the 19th Street
Bridge over the Santa Ana River, and the circulation system Master Plan for the
Banning Ranch area. Additionally, tolls have been retained on toll rQa4 to
provide a conservative worst -case scenario. -Idegionally, total vehicle miles of
travel are projected to increase by 45 %, reflecting the tendency for growth to
occur in outlying areas of the region.
Exhibit S summarizes the NBTM 3.1 refined General Plan Buildout daily traffic
volumes throughout the City of Newport Beach. The highest daily traffic volume
increase occurs on Coast Highway. Between Bayside Drive and Newport
Boulevard, traffic increases by 15,000 or more vehicles per day (VPD). This
increase is caused partly by land use increases in the Balboa area. The capacity
increase of 50% (4 lanes to 6 lanes) on Coast Highway west of Dover Drive makes
the route more desirable and also contributes to the volume increase. Finally, the
SR -55 Freeway extension makes this section of Coast Highway more desirable to
through traffic. This is reflected by the less substantial increase in volume on Coast
Highway west of Newport Boulevard (9,000 VPD increase). Volumes on Coast
41 Yw
TABLE 8
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT TRIP GENERATION
TRIP PURPOSE
PRODUCTIONS
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS -
ATTRACTIONS
PRODUCTIONS/
ATTRACTIONS
Home Based Work
70,469
103,146
- 32,677
0.68
Home Based School
14,125
8,845
5,280
1.60
Home Based Other'
167,202
133,461
33,741
1.25
Work Based Other
66,150
70,850
-4,700
0.93
Other- Other
113,964
112,461
1,503
1.01
TOTAL
431,910
428,763
3,147
1.01
OVERALL TOTAL 860,673
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home - University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U: \UcJobsi00460 \Excel \(00460- 21.xis1T 8
42
TABLE 9
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON
TRIP PURPOSE
DAILY TRIP ENDS
GROWTH
PERCENT
GROWTH
EXISTING
GENERAL PLAN
BUILDOUT
Home Based Work Productions'
57,568
70,469
12,901
22.41%
Home Based Work Attractions
88,618
103,146
14,528
16.39%
Home Based School Productions
11,424
14,125
2,701
23.64%
Home Based School Attractions
8,730
8,845
115
1.32%
Home Based Other Productians2
125,826
167,202
41,376
32.88%
Home Based Other Attractions
107,619
133,461
25,842
24.01%
Work Based Other Productions
55,625
66,150
10,5251
8.92%
Work Based Other Attractions
59,7781
70,850
11,0721
18.52%
Other - Other Productions
91,9461
113,964
22.0181
23.95%
Other - Other Attractions
90,4921
112,461
21,9691
24.28%
[TOTAL
342,389
431,9101
89,521
26.15%
TOTAL ATTRACTIONS
355,237
428,7631
73,5261
20.70%
OVERALL TOTAL
697,626
860,673
163,047
23.37%
Home -Work includes Home -Work and Home - University trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
Home -Other includes Home -Shop and Home -Other trips, consistent with OCTAM mode choice output.
U: \UcJcbs100460 \Excel +100460- 21.xls)T 9
43
Z"
� c•
I
Y
csv. ro srimw:a
ns rn rLM ••
nr sowwo
�wi �e ucenaH
44
0
nr
av
m Is
N
Ej
U)
W
z
a
J
CD
0
r-
LL
W
W
Z
W >
Z O 7
0
W
J e O D
U Z
IL Q
U W
aU
O
0
N
O
m
O
O
V
O
O
m
C
_O
m
U
e1 S
U
Q
W
m
N
O
Q
L
r•Ys
Cf)
><
LLI
Y.
LLM
LU
LU
45
LLJ
LU
_j
11
O
of
Highway throughout the study area generally increase, with the one exception
being west of 15th Street. The new Santa Ana River crossing of 19th Street draws
traffic away from Coast Highway. Volumes on Coast Highway in other areas
generally increase by 8,000- 12,000 VPD.
Traffic volumes on Newport Boulevard increase substantially in General Plan
buildout conditions. Land use increases in the coastal areas account for some of
the increase. Traffic is also drawn to Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport
Beach because of the SR -55 freeway extension. However, changes to the planned
circulation system Master Plan and /or the permitted level of intensification of land
uses could lead to different results in the long term.
Land use increases in the Newport Coast area cause Newport Coast Drive to have
large volume increases that grow approaching the SR -73 tollway. Increased traffic
from Bonita Canyon and Harbor View Hills /Newport Ridge cause volumes on
Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Bonita Canyon Drive to go up.
Increased capacity on Irvine Avenue south of Bristol Street draws traffic to Campus
Drive /Irvine Avenue.
3.5 Buildout Peak Hour Intersection Operations
The final data required to support the Buildout Scenario of the NBTM update
process was the intersection configuration of the 63 intersections selected for
analysis. This data was provided by City staff and was used to calculate currently
adopted General Plan Buildout intersection capacity utilization values (ICUs) at all
63 analysis intersections. Table 10 summarizes the General Plan Buildout ICUs
based on the AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes and
the intersection geometric data.
As shown in Table 10, ICU values generally increase in the General Plan buildout
conditions. The exceptions occur .where new parallel facilities are available, or
where an increase in lanes results in increased capacity. The 14 intersections with
ICU values greater than 0.90 (LOS "E" or worse) in either peak period are:
46
TABLE 10
NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
INTERSECTION NSlEW
AM
PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
I. Bluff Dr. & Coast Hw.
DNE
0,991
0.99
DNE
0.77
0.77
2. Superior Av. & Placentia Av.
0.67
0.65
-0.02
0.57
056
-0.01
3. Superior Av. & Coast Hw.
0.84
1.01
0.171
0.811
0.82
0.01
4. New on BI. & Hospital Rd.
0.54
0.73
0.191
0.66
0.90
0.24
5. New on BI. & Via Lido
0.45
0.54
0.09
0.41
0.49
0.08
6. Newport BI. & 32nd St.
0.73
0.71
-0.02
0.79
0.80
0.01
7. Riverside Av. & Coast Hw.
0.83
0.80
-0.03
0.93
1.11
0.18
8, Tustin Av. & Coast Hw.
0.80
0.78
-0.02
0.68
0.88
0.20
9. Mao,Anhur BI. & Campus Dr.
0.62
0.74
0.12
0.77
1.00
0.23
10. MacAnhur BI. & Birch St.
0.53
050
-0.02
0.67
0.66
-0.01
1 I. Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr.
0.57
0,65
O.OS1
0.79
0.841
0.05
12. \,Iac.Arthur BI. & Von Karman Av.
0.40
0.51
0.11
0.73
0.89
0.16
13. Jamboree Rd. & Campus Dr.
0.94
0.97
0.03
0,83
0.93
0.10
(4. Jamboree Rd. & Birch St.
0.82
0.93
0.111
0.61
0.72
0.11
15. Campus Dr. & Bristol St. (N)
0.718
0.92
0.14
0.93
0.98
0.05
16. Birch St. & Bristol St. (N)
0.6;
0.79
0.12
0.63
0.70
0.07
17. Campus Dr./Irvine .Av. & Bristol St. (S)
0.72
0.83
0.11
0.60
0.74
0.14
18. Birch St. &Bristol St. (S)
0.46
0.50
0.04
0,47
0.51
0.04
19. Irvine Av. & Mesa Dr.
0.72
- 0.60
-0.12
0.911
- .09
'_0. Irvine Av. & University Dr.
0.82
1.07
0.2 5
0.881
1.01
0.13
21. Irvine Av. & Santiago Dr.
0.65
058
-0.071
OJ2
0.62
-0.10
22. Irvine Av. & Highland Dr.
0.58
052
-0.06
0.62
0.57
-0.05
21 Irvine Av. & Dover Dr.
0.66
0.65
-0,011
0.64
0.62
-0.02
24. Irvine Av. Re Westcliff Dr.
0.58
0.50
-0.05
0.73
0.72
-0.01
25. Dover Dr. & Westcliff Dr.
0.40
0.28
-0.12
0.50
0.50
0.00
26. Dover Dr. & 16th St.
0.53
0.46
-0.07
0.49
0.45
-0.04
27. Dover Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.70
0.72
0.02
0.75
0.75
0.00
28. Bayside Dr. &Coast Hw. -
0.68
0.84
0.16
0.69
0.95
0.26
29.:blacAnhur BI. & Jamboree Rd.
0.88
0.91
0.03
0.91
0.971
0.06
30. Jamboree Rd. & Bristol St. (N)
057
0.63
0.06
0.60
0.68
0.08
I. Bavview PI. & Bristol St. (S)
050
0.57
0,0-,j
0.58
0.65
0.07
Jamboree Rd. &, Bristol St. (S)
0.75
0.82
0.071
0.73
0.82
0.09
. iambore e Rd. & Bavview RVv.
0.4;
0.45
0.04
0.50
0.61
0.11
34. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. %University Dr.
0.62
0.62
0.00
0.65
058
-0.07
35. Jamboree Rd. & Bison Av.
0.46
0. 14
-202
0.54
0.54
0.00
36. Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr.: Ford Rd.
0. 70
0.7J
0.04)
0.661
0.70
0.04
7. Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Fills Rd.
0.66
0.72
0.061
O.S81
0-92
104
47 ;f �`
TABLE 10 (CONTINUED)
NBTM BUILDOUT INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) SUMMARY
INTERSECTION NS /EW
AM PEAK HOUR
PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
EXISTING
COUNT
FUTURE
FORECAST
DELTA
38. Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr.
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.59
0.66
0.07
39. Jamboree Rd. & Coast Hw.
0.70
0.85
0.15
0.74
0.89
0.15
40. Santa Cruz Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.34
0.40
0.06
0.35
0.35
0.00
41. Santa Rosa Dr. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.36
0.38
0.02
0.51
0.67
0.16
42. Newport Center Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.43
054
0.11
0.55
0.64
0.09
44. Avocado Av. & San .'Aieuel Dr.
0.37
0.39
0.02
0.72
0.76
0.04
45. Avocado Av. & Coast Hw.
0.59
0.73
0.14
0.64
0.78
0.14
46. SR -73 NB Ramos & Bison Av.
0.34
0.52
0.18
0.38
0.42
0.04
47, SR -73 SB Ramps & Bison Av.
0.30
0.41
0.11
0.20
0.32
0.12
48. MacArthur Bl. & Bison Av.
0.64
0.75
0.11
0.61
0.75
0.14
49. iNlacArhtur Bl. & Ford Rd. /Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.72
0.75
0.03
0.90
1.06
0.16
50. MacArthur 131. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.65
0.72
0.07
0.93
0.97
0.04
51. MacArthur Bl. & San Miguel Dr.
0.58
0.62
0.04
0.68
0.70
0.02
52. Coast Hw. & MacArthur Bl.
0.61
0.71
0.10
0.72
0.81
0.09
53. SR-73 NB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.56
056
0.00
0.45
0.41
-0.04
54. SR -73 SB Ramps & Bonita Canyon Dr.
0.32
0.33
0.011
0.41
0.50
0.09
55. San iNiwel Dr. & S vglass Hill Rd.
0.27
0.29
0.02
0.28
0.35
0.07
56. San Joaquin Hills Rd. & San Miguel Dr.
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.56
0.66
0.10
57. Coast Hw. & Goldenrod Av.
0.98
1.07
0.09
0.70
0.77
0.07
58. Marguerite Av. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
033
0.41
0.08
0.35
0.50
0.12
59. Coast Hw. & ;vlarguerite Av.
0.83
0.93
0.10
0.82
0.93
0.11
60. Spyglass Hill Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd.
0.42
059
0.17
0.291
0.40
0.11
61. Poppy Av. &Coast Hw.
0.63
- 0.72
0.09
0.67
0.76
0.09
62. Newmrt Coast Dr. & SR -73 NB Ramps
0.47
0.54
0.07
0.34
0.41
0.07
64. Newport Coast Dr. & San Joa uin Hills Rd.
0.40
0.61
0.21
0.321
0.48
0.16
65. Newport Coast Dr. & Coast Hw.
0.49
0.61
0.12
0.52
0.65
0.13
�DNE = Does Not Exist
ti:,UcJo6S00�b0`fxcd'•100 =60 21.,41T 10
U:\ UcJobs \00460\Excel\[00460- 21.xls)T 10
�-,0
• Bluff Road (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Superior Avenue (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Riverside Drive (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /Campus Drive (EW) (PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS) /Campus Drive (EW) (AM /PM)
• Campus Drive (NS) /Bristol Street North (EW) (AM /PM)
• Irvine Avenue (NS) /University Avenue (EW) (AM /PM)
• Bayside Drive (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /Jamboree Road (EW) (AM /PM)
• Jamboree Road (NS) /San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /Ford Road /Bonita Canyon Drive (EW) (PM)
• MacArthur Boulevard (NS) /San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) (PM)
• Goldenrod (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (AM)
• Marguerite (NS) /Coast Highway (EW) (AM /PM)
It is- important to note that for both existing and build -out conditions, Intersection
Capacity Utilization ratio calculation reflect the functien of intersections for a very limited
amount of time throughout the day (the AM and PM peak hours, or 2 of the 24 hour time
period, and only for weekdays). Within the current data limitations, we are unable to
provide ICU calculations either as an average ICU, or for other, non -peak hours.
�f
..
Sent By: Hawkins
law
Offices;
M
E
M
O
To:
City
949 650 1181;
May -7 -0P 10:39AM; Page 2112
N D U M
Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
From: Natural Treatment gistbWDEIR Sub - Committee;
Environmental QualitylAffairs Citizens Advisory Committee
City of Newport Beach
Subject: IRWD's Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR ") regarding the
San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Program (the
"Project ")
Date: May 7, 2003
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR for the captioned Project.
As we indicated in our comments on the original NOP for the Project, we understand that the
City has already recommended the Project to various agencies. As before, nothing in these
comments detracts from that support; these comments simply address the REVISED NOP and
our comments on the scope of the EIR. As with our original comments, our goal is to assist in
improving, if necessary, thO4 hviront*n0l document and the Project.
•`.'L
These comments incor t , to our earlier comments on the Revised NOP as well as
our earlier comments on the original bd for the Project.
In addition, we offer the following comments on the DEIR for the Project:
1, Chapter 1.0: "Executive Summary:"
Section 1.2 discusses "Regional Setting" including drainage into San
Diego Creek. As we commented in connection with the First Notice of Preparation, the San
Diego Creek watershed is truncated: it:fails to consider and include the runoff from the John
Wayne Airport area and the Santa Anoclhi Channel. The DEIR continues this flawed
watershed delineation.
Section 1.5 discusses the unusual organization of the DEIR: it is at once a
Program DEIR as well as a Project DEIR. These distinctions are familiar to various agencies and
EIR consultants. They are not well known to the public. At the outset, the DEIR should explain
the differences and discuss why each is included in the captioned DEIR.
Moreover, this unusual.djichotomy creates confusion throughout the DEIR. As
discussed below, we remain unclear As fo the rationale for the Project level discussions. As
r
. �z
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; May 7-03 10:40AM; Page 3/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 2
May 7, 2003
discussed more fully below, the Project level discussions concern existing sites which maybe
included in the Project. The DEIR must explain: (1) the rationale for including such existing
sites in the Project since presumably such sites already advance Project goals; (2) the Project
the
features which ensure that the Project does not adversely affect the existing sites; and (3) to
extent that the Project adversely affects such sites, the mitigation proposed to eliminate or
moderate such impacts. Section 1.5 indidates that, "[s]ince these sites are existing, and no
physical disturbance is proposed, these sites were not evaluated for direct construction impacts."
However, the DEIR must analyze any indirect construction impacts, e.g. upstream construction
drains to increase downstream silt loads.
Section 1.7 discusses "Public Outreach." This section notes that the DEIR and
related documents are available on IRWD website. This is an important resource. However,
IRWD also provided the DEIR on compact disk. We attempted to load these disks.
Unfortunately, these disks crashed virtually every computer on which we attempted to load it.
Finally, the DEIR contains a multitude of acronyms. Yet the DEIR contains no
glossary or index of abbreviations. In order for the DEIR to be generally accessible to the public
as required by CEQA, IRWD should include a glossary, or table or index of abbreviations. For
instance, the DEIR uses the acronyms NPDES for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System and WQT wetlands for water quality treatment wetlands. The DEIR does not appear to
define such acronyms. Note that, although the DEIR uses the acronym NPDES from the
beginning, it only defines it in the middle of the document: page 3.1 -23.
2. Chapter 2.0: "`Plan' Description:"
The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental
document. As the County of Invo Court noted long ago,
"Only through an accurate view of the project may affected
outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures,
assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the 'no
project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An
accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of
an informative and legally sufficient EIR."
County of Invo v City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d I$5, 199. In addition, the CEQA
Guidelines section 15124 requires that an EIR describe the project "in a way that will be
meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers."
Discussion, Guidelines section 15124.
/r
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; May- 7- 0,q 10:40AM;
BQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 3
May 7, 2003
The DEIR states that:
',The purpose of the NTS Plan is to comprehensively plan, develop,
and implement a large -scale water quality treatment program
addressing pollutants affecting the Upper Newport Bay and Peters
Canyon Reservoir.
DEIR, page 2 -1. IRWD appears to concede that, under the existing conditions "pollutants
[affect] the Upper Newport Bay." The DEER goes further:
"The watershed scale of the proposed NTS Plan is intended to
respond to conditions within planning area drainages, both present
and future, and to carry out the watershed planning emphasis and
natural treatment systems Management Measures set forth in the
State Nonpoint Source Plan."
Page 4/12
DEIR, p. 2 -1 (emphasis supplied). The Project apparently attempts to address impacts of future
projects and conditions which are unspecified and unknown. The Project, er, Plan, cannot
mitigate or "respond to" future conditions, because neither IRWD nor other agencies are aware of
the nature and extent of such "future conditions." To the extent that the Project, er, Plan, is an
attempt to mitigate future impacts, the DEIR must identify those impacts, provide a detailed
enviroumental analy$ia of same and consider variaas alfernativeiyAo such impacts in ayidition to
the Project.
The .Project objectives include the following:
1. Assist the County and cities and others in meeting Total Maximum Daily
Loads ("TMDL ") and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
( "NPDES ") permit requirements.
2. Provide a comprehensive, regional, watershed -wide approach to clean up
storm runoff and dry weather flows from: a) existing land uses; and b)
future land uses.
3. Improve water quality in the San Diego Creek, Upper Newport Bay
Ecological Reserve, Newport Bay, Peters Canyon Reservoirs, and portions
of Santiago Creek.
4. Enhance habitat value of aquatic habitats located within the NCCP
Reserve.
The DEIR contains a detailed discussion of each objective. Probably, the most detailed
explanation occurs regarding Objective 2: clean up of flows for existing and future development.
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; May_z, -03 10:41AM; Page 5/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 4
May 7, 2003
The DEIR discusses the NPDES stormwater permitting scheme and its background. Presumably,
existing developments already meet these standards; future development will likely be required
to provide additional practices in order to comply with NPDES requirements. These
observations beg the question: what is the real purpose of the Project?
Further, to the extent that the Project attempts to address stomiwater and related
issues for future developments, the DEIR cannot guess at the nature and extent of such
development and its runoff characteristics. If the Project is to serve any real purpose relating to
these future projects, the DEIR must identify these future projects, discuss their flow
characteristics and impacts and provide a mechanism to mitigate such flows fully and
completely.
Section 2.3.1 discusses other agencies' subsequent use of the DEIR. The only
subsequent use discussed in the DEIR is other agencies use of the DEIR in implementing the
Project and/or constructing Project related facilities. The DEIR should be clear that this is the
only subsequent use. The DEM should specifically exclude from "subsequent use" future
projects which are not identified, discussed, analyzed, and if necessary, mitigated in the DEIR.
Section 2.3.2 addresses the Project's and the DEIR's relationship to other agencies
plans and regulatory requirements. The DEIR states that IRWD reviewed applicable planning
documents to determine "if the proposed wetlands and basins are compatible with other planned
regional facilities ...... We understand this to mean that the Project is compatible with various
land use plans including specific infrastructure improvements planned or proposed in various
areas throughout the watershed. This review does not address the nature and extent of future
projects and does not consider any potential runoff from such "future projects."
Further, this section discusses the United States Army Corps of Engineers' San
Diego Creek Special Area Management Plan ( "SAMP "). It appears that the SAMP may
substantially overlap the Project. The DEIR should explain the relationship between the two and
the impacts of one on the other. Farther, we understand that Corps' SAMP process is a public
process, The DEIR should discuss this process, and the Corps and IRWD should provide detailed
information regarding this process, its meetings and agendas.
Section 2.4.2 discusses the various Project facilities or wetlands. These include
off -line facilities which presumably (the DEIR never states) are located away from flood control
facilities, streams or creeks; in -line facilities which are located within existing flood control
facilities, streams or creeks; and mixed facilities which include aspects of the earlier facilities.
Section 2.4.3 addresses projected load reductions and water quality impacts. The
Project will apparently improve mild sediment loads but "is not designed to meet TMDL ....
Although the DEIR seems to indicate that the Project will address TMDL, it will not meet heavy
loads. However, if the Project facilities are improved, e.g. deepened, the Project may meet such
loads. The DEIR should discuss such alternatives.
lam'
Sent By: Hawkins Law offices; 949 650 1181; May -7 -0' 10:41AM; Page 6/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 5
May 7, 2003
Section 2.5 discusses the site determination. The DEIR fails to consider Project
objectives in site determination. Obviously, the objectives of the Project should dictate site
determination: the Project objectives are the touchstones of site determination. The DEER states
that the first criterion is availability. Of course, this means that the criterion is cost, not
effectiveness. Further, Section 2.5 contains a list of site criteria: far down the list is the
following:
"Is the drainage area a significant source of pollutants?"
The DEIR should explain why this criterion is not the primary consideration. The DEIR should
explain the rationale for the Project and its objectives.
Sections 2.6 and 2.7 discuss the Project sites: as indicated above, the DEIR is split
between program level analysis and project level analysis. Section 2.6 address the program level;
section 2.7 discusses project level analysis. Section 23 attempts to provide a complete project
level analysis for the twelve (12) sites analyzed at the project level analysis. The DEIR attempts
to provide the necessary project level analysis "to avoid the need for further environmental
review...." However, the purpose of the DEIR is to provide a watershed level analysis. To the
extent that the DEIR attempts to analyze the impacts of the Project, the DEIR and subsequent
documents must analyze the impacts of the future program level sites on the other sites.
Further, the project level analysis addresses three (3) existing sites: the San.
Joaquin Marsh site; Rattlesnake Reservoir; and Sand Canyon Reservoir. Of these three sites,
only one —the San Joaquin Marsh site— currently functions in the manner proposed by the Project.
The other two— the Rattlesnake and Sand Canyon Reservoirs — are reclaimed reservoir sites.
Section 23.10 addresses the San Joaquin Marsh enhancement. Although the DEIR includes five
(5) figures— Figures 2.7 -25, 26, 27a, 27b, and 28, the DEIR fails to discuss any enhancements.
The DEIR should be revised to explain the enhancements for the San Joaquin Marsh site.
Further, Section 2.7.8 also discusses the San Joaquin Marsh site. However, this
section fails to distinguish this site from that discussed in Section 2.7.10, Further, Section 2.7.8
discusses the improvements to this site. Among others,
"[T]he intent of the restoration and enhancement plan is to convert
habitat resources with lesser long term value to high long -term
conservation value to benefit [various protected species]."
DEIR, page 2-40. However, this means that the analysis for the creation of this existing site was
deficient: the DEIR should discuss this past analysis, its short falls and the rationale for the
enhancement in detail, If drainage is not a significant criterion, then the Project will fail.
Section 2.7.11 discusses the Rattlesnake Reservoir which is designated as Site No.
13. Importantly, the DEIR states:
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; _ 949 650 1181; May �,7 -03 10:42AM; Page 7/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 6
May 7, 2003
"The reservoir is currently used for storage of reclaimed water ....
No changes to the reservoir are envisioned as part of the NTS
plan."
DEIR, p. 2 -43. However, the DEIR fails to explain how the current use- a reclaimed water
reservoir- complies with Project goals. Indeed, this site fails to meet the Project objectives. The
DEIR must analyze this site for compliance with Project goals, discuss the reclaimed water use,
the additional capacity dedicated for Project goals, impacts to the Project upon discharge of
reclaimed water from.the Reservoir, and propose mitigation for the Project attributed to current
reclaimed water storage.
Likewise, Section 2.7.12 addresses the Sand Canyon Reservoir which is
designated as Site No. 39. Although we understand that this reservoir is currently "used for
storage of reclaimed water," the DEIR fails to recognize this current use. Further, as indicated
above, the Project proposes no change in operation. Id. As with the Rattlesnake Reservoir, the
DEIR should include additional analysis and mitigation.
Section 2.8.3 addresses operations and maintenance. Among other things, this
section discusses sediment and debris removal; Table 2.8-2 discusses various maintenance tasks
for the proposed sites. As indicated above, several sites are currently used for storage of
reclaimed water. Although Table 2.8 -2 fails to discuss maintenance and operation of the
reservoirs, the Project related operation and maintenance of such reservoirs likely will require
removal of additional sediment and debris which will require draining the reservoirs. Draining of
the reclaimed reservoirs likely will have additional impacts which the DEIR should analyze,
discuss and provide mitigation if necessary.
3 Chapter 3.0-. "`Plan' Facilities Program Level Environmental
Analysis:"
This Chapter begins with a discussion of program level analysis.
However, the DEIR fails to discuss and explain the various levels of analysis, e.g. program level
or proj ect level. Further, the DEIR notes that its program level analysis depends on previously
generated environmental analysis. The DEIR should contain a complete analysis: to the extent
that the DEIR depends upon other analysis, the DEIR should provide a reference and some
discussion about the incorporated analysis.
A. `Land Use /Planning and Land Use Compatibility:"
Section 3.1 attempts to describe the land use /planning and
community character of the watershed. As indicated above, the DEIR attempts to provide
stormwater capacity for existing and future uses. However, section 3.1 contains aminimal
discussion of General Plan requirements for portions of the watershed. However, such general
1„
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; May -7 -Oq 10:42AM; Page 8/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 7
May 7, 2003
plans cannot provide the specificity necessary for the Project. The DEIR should discuss in detail
future land use development and runoff for the future development of the watershed.
Moreover, this section includes a discussion of local plans as well as the General
Plan for the County of Orange. However, the DEIR discusses only recreational aspects of the
County's General Plan. Other aspects, e.g. residential land use, will likely affect the Project.
The DEIR should include such a discussion.
In addition, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no adverse impacts on
land use. However, NTS Site 56, which is proposed to be constructed in the fast three years, and
therefore, was analyzed at the project level, appears to be incompatible with the surrounding land
uses.
B. "Hydrology and Water Oual ty:"
Although this section discusses "Hydrology and Water Quality,"
the section only addresses "[t]he evaluation of potential water quality impacts .. DEIR, page .
3.2 -1. Although the DEIR includes a discussion of the hydrology of the watershed, the DEIR
should expressly state the elements of analysis.
This section also attempts to provide an environmental analysis for direct
construction impacts, and long term benefits and impacts. As indicated above, construction
impacts may be indirect. Since the Project concerns watershed development, construction at one
site may affect another site or other areas in the watershed. The DEIR should include an analysis
of indirect construction impacts.
The long term analysis concludes that the Project will remove targeted pollutants
from surface water flows and increase water quality. As indicated above, the Project includes
reclaimed water storage reservoirs. The DEIR fails to analyze the source of pollutants which the
reservoirs remove. To the extent that these reservoirs are part of the Project, the DEIR should
analyze the source of pollutants removed by such reservoirs.
More importantly, the DEIR should analyze the impacts of such reservoirs as
Proj ect features. After such analysis, the DEIR may conclude that such features are harmful to
the Project and its goals, and should be removed from the Project.
In addition, the DER concludes that the Project will have no impacts on
groundwater quality. However, the DEIR provides no support for such conclusion. The Project
will create wetlands which will attempt to remove pollutants. However, such removal occurs
only when these are removed from the facilities during maintenance. Because such removal will
occur only periodically, the pollutants may affect groundwater during the interim periods prior to
maintenance. Also, Project maintenance — removal of sediments and pollutants— will ensure that
surface water percolation to groundwater will be enhanced.
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; May -7 -03 1O:42AM;
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 8
May 7, 2003
Page 9/12
Further, the DEIR discusses hydrologic impacts. The focus of this analysis is loss
of surface water due to diversion, evaporation and seepage. However, the DEAR fails to address
any hydrologic impacts to groundwater: increased percolation may create rising groundwater
levels. The DEIR already acknowledges that the Project includes areas of perched groundwater
or high groundwater levels. Increased percolation will likely exacerbate these problems. The
DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such effects and, if necessary, propose adequate
mitigation.
C. "BioloAcal Resources:"
Section 3.3.1, Existing Conditions, page 3.3 -2 states that
"(b)iological resources within the San Diego Creek Watershed are governed by several regulatory
agencies and applicable statutes and guidelines for which they are responsible ..." Among the
statues and guidelines discussed in this section as having governing authority over impacts to the
biological resources within each NTS site is the Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), which
is currently being developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the San Diego Creek.
According to the DEAR, the SAMP is a "comprehensive aquatic resources plan to
achieve a balance between aquatic resource protection and reasonable economic development."
The DEIR also states that Corps "representatives have indicated that the NTS Plan is consistent
with the development of the aquatic reserve design and in furtherance of the goals and objectives
of the SAMP program." Further, the DEAR states that ARWD will seek authorization for
construction of the eighteen Local Facilities and one Regional Retrofit Facility, which are
planned for future development, under the SAMP program instead of the traditional Section 404
permitting process.
However, the standards for the SAMP program are still under development. If
those standards are to be used as governing authority over impacts to the biological resources
within each NTS site planned for future development, it is necessary to allow the SAMP
standards to be finalized before a determination can be made that the NTS Plan is consistent with
that program and, therefore, Corps permitting of the NTS sites would be governed by SAMP
instead of the traditional Section 404 permitting process.
4. Chapter 4.0: "Regional Retrofit Facilities Project Level
Environmental Analysis :"
The DEIR's project level analysis concerns the first phase facilities: the
three existing sites; and the nine regional retrofit sites. As with Chapter 3.0, this chapter fails to
discuss the project level analysis as opposed to the program level analysis.
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices;
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 9
May 7, 2003
A.
949 650 1181; May -7 -0? 10:43AM; Page 10/12
"Land Use/Planning and Land Use Compatability (sic):"
Site 56 is proposed to be located within a 9.5 -acre park which is
surrounded by single - family residential uses, an elementary school and a library. The 1.3 -acre
site would contain shallow and open water areas totaling 0.85 acre. Section 4.1.3, Environmental
Impacts Analysis, page 4.1 -19 states that "fencing is proposed to be located around the perimeter
of the wetlands to serve as a visual and physical access barrier" because of the close proximity of
the elementary school to Site 56.
However, Section 2.7.7, Proposed Site Design, Table 2.7 -7, Site Design Features,
page 2 -38 indicates that there will only be "fencing around pump wells." There is no discussion
of fencing around the shallow and open water areas to keep young children away from this
potential hazard. The Final EIR should provide more complete mitigation for this land use
compatibility impact.
In addition, NTS Sites 27 and 62 are proposed to be located within existing
mitigation areas. The environmental analysis for these sites should discuss the existing
previously- approved mitigation plan for each site, analyze the impacts, if any, of the NTS site
facilities on the previously - approved mitigation plans and, if necessary, provide mitigation.
B. "Water Qnality:"
Although Chapter 3.0 noted that IRWD did not adopt significance'
criterion, the DEIR includes significance criteria which include three criteria. As indicated above
in connection with the DEIR's program level analysis, the DE1R's project level analysis for the
existing sites should include water quality impacts of the reclaimed water storage reservoirs to
existing water quality and to the Project. As IRWD is aware, drainage from these reservoirs
likely will adversely affect water quality in the watershed downstream of the sites.
5. Chapter 5.0: "Cumulative Impacts :"
The Introduction to this section discusses the Guidelines cumulative
impacts definitions including the definition of "probable future impacts." The DEIR concludes
that, as a result of recent court decisions, the cumulative impacts analysis is limited. However,
the DEIR attempts to analyze Project impacts including existing land use and drainage as well as
future land use and drainage. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis does extend to the future
drainage and land use. The DEIR should be revised to include such analysis.
As to cumulative impacts on water quality and hydrology, the DEIR provides no
analysis of cumulative hydrologic impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include some
discussion of such cumulative impacts.
Sent By: Hawkins Law Offices; 949 650 1181; MaV -7 -03 10:43AM; Page 11/12
EQAC
City of Newport Beach
Page 10
May 7, 2003
Further, the DER contains no discussion of the cumulative impacts of the
reclaimed water storage reservoirs and the ultimate buildout of the reclaimed system. The DEIR
should be revised to include such an analysis.
6. Chapter 6.0: "Alternatives:"
The DE1R's alternatives analysis proceeds on the project and program
level. On the project level, the DEIR considers and rejects several sites as incompatible or
having significant environmental impacts. Among others, the DEIR considered a site, Site 14,
near the MCAS Tustin but removed the site at the request of the City of Tustin. The DEIR
reasons: "Inasmuch as this was a program level site and that any future development of the
MCAS property will need to comply with ... permit requirements issued by the Santa Ana
RWQCB," the site was removed. However, this rationale does not differentiate this site from
any other site: regardless of the proposed location of the program level sites, each and every
development in their vicinity must meet the RWQCB's requirements. The DEIR should explain
in detail the rationale for removing any program level site.
As to various treatment alternatives, the DEIR considers three: (1) diversion of
low flow to the Orange County Sanitation District's facilities; (2) construction of a new treatment
plant for low flows at the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant site; and (3) construction four
facilities for treatment of low flows. The DEIR rejects each for similar reasons: cost and
expense; loss of the low flows; and additional impacts due to additional construction. However,
the DEIR does not discuss the impacts of low flows on the Project and on Project maintenance.
Low flows may be a substantial problem for any alternative because these may increase costs and
mitigation may create additional impacts. The DEIR should discuss these issues in detail and
provide a reasoned analysis for the preferred alternative.
Also, the DEIR considers a no project alternative as well as replacing Project sites
which are in -line with flood control channels with sites off -line of such channels. The latter
issue is important. The DEIR concludes that changing the in -line sites to off -line sites would
achieve the objectives of the Project and would not require additional permits for
implementation. As discussed below, the in -line sites create a potential impact regarding
flooding and flood control resources. Given this potential impact, the DEIR should consider,
analyze and provide a reasoned conclusion regarding whether the Project's use of in -line sites is
preferable to the off -line alternative.
7. fhapter 7.0: "Long Term Environmental Effects:"
Section 7.1 addresses growth inducing impacts. The DEIR concludes that
the Project will be growth accommodating because it may serve to mitigate drainage impacts to
existing and planned projects. However, this section also notes that the area is urbanized or
approved for urbanization; thus the Project will not be growth. inducing.
Sent By: Hawkins Law offices;
949 650 1181; May -7 -03 10:44AM; Page 12/12
May 7, ZOS�
However, the Project will induce growth by providing mitigation for development
runoff. The DEIR should be revised to analyze such impact and, if necessary, provide mitigation.
8. Chapter 8.0: Chater "Effects Found Not to be Significant"
Not to be Significant:"
This chapter discusses several resources on which the Project will have no
significant impacts. Among others, the DEIR notes that flood control impacts will be less than
significant.
However, the Project includes several in -line facilities. The presence of such
facilities in flood control channels requires some environmental analysis. The DEIR should
include such analysis, identify impacts, if any, and, if necessary, provide necessary mitigation.
-r
Welcome to the City of Newport Beach!
Page 1 of 1
City Council Departments City Web Sites Jobs
Council Home Paye
-- ..- -..�__ _...
Agendas &Minutes > 'All Agendas Minutes & Reocrts
Boards and Commissions Arrts Commission
City Charter & Municipal Code Board of Library Trustees . :
Council Policy Manual Coastal /Bay Water Quality
3PAC Member Selection Council
Ordinances _& Resolutions Economic Development Com
Environmental Quality Affairs Coma
mittee
General Plan Adwsory- ,
eneral Plan Update
General Pjan.Upddte.Scopin g
-Harbor Commission
Newport CoastAdvisory Com � l
Newsi EVents General Info ` - - 1.. —1
(Parks Beaches & Rocreation z. i
city of newport beach, ca!ifornia - 3300 newpi
littp://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/home.htm
mitteee
�G
05/07/2003
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee Agendas Page l of l
Environmental Quality ;:Affairs
Agendas Committee
Prior Years
The following Environmental Quality Affairs Committee Agendas and Minutes Packets are available:
Agendas
ag02- 24-
01- 13- 03.11t
a O03.htm 317- 03.htm
Minutes
mi Ol- 13- 03.htm mi 03- 17- 03.htm nu 02- 24-03.htm
Program Last Updated: March 19, 2003 scone
l
http: / /www.ci ty.newport- beach. ca.0 slASPIEnvironmentalQu alityA ffairsComnutteeAgen d... 05/07/2003
Welcome to the City of Newport Beach!
Page 1 of 1
City Council Departments City Web Sites Jobs
,Organization Chart
Administramre Services >
News /Events
;City Attorney
City Manager
'Fire
General Services >„
(Human Resources
;Library Services
Planning
Police�m
Public Works
R nrrnnsinn R Cnninr finrvi
Utilities
city of newport beach, california
L
Virtual FAQs
beach. califor..
http: / /www. city .newport- beach.ca.us /home.htin 05/07/2003
Planning Department
Page 1 of 1
Planning Department
- PLANNING DEPARTMENT --
The function of the Planning Department is to promote and enhance the well -being of residents, visitors, property owners,
and businesses of the City of Newport Beach. The department accomplishes its mission through programs that encourage
high quality development as well as maintenance and revitalization of existing neighborhoods. The Planning Department
consists of two divisions: Planting and Economic Development.
Planning
Economic Development
Environmental _Quality__Affairs,_Committee
Last Updated: May 01, 2003
I
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca.us /PLN /Planning.html 05/07/2003
EQAC Statement of Purpose
Page 1 of 2
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
[EQAC]
PURPOSE
Composed of citizens, the Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee [EQAC] has
grown from its origins in 1987 when its focus was anti - litter campaigns, recycling, and beatification.
In 1998, its membership was expanded to allow for more inclusion of residents' opinions, as a balance
to the successful and productive business based advisory committee known as the Economic
Development Committee (EDC).
Today, the EQAC is an active advisory committee, providing information directly to the City Council.
Its members review Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) on projects being reviewed by the City or
other agencies that may impact Newport Beach. That has included to date housing projects, office
buildings and hotel projects.
Two members of the City Council, currently Steve Bromberg (Balboa Island) and Richard Nichols
(Corona del Mar), attend meetings. Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood is the staff liaison member.
Minutes are taken and are available on this website. Click Aneuda and _Minutes.
EQAC (often abbreviated verbally as "e- quack ") has over the past few years reviewed EIRs for the
Conexant expansion, the Kell building Project, the proposed hotel and conference facility at Newport
Dunes, the Cannery Lofts project, the Church of Latter Day Saints Temple, the San Joaquin Reservoir,
and the El Toro Airport. The committee receives presentations from City staff as requested, as well as
from various volunteer organizations, e.g. Surfrider Foundation, and consultants with expertise in
current issues.
EQAC _RESOLUTION
MEMBERSHIP
Representing Council districts, homeowners associations, with expertise from professional backgrounds
including land use planning, architecture, and the law, City Council metnbers nominate three (3) citizens
to serve on EQAC who, after completion of an application, are approved by City Council. A
representative of the Economic Development Committee (EDC) is a member, and conversely, the
chairman of EQAC is a member of EDC.
The chairman is appointed by the mayor and serves at the mayor's discretion. Click here for
Committee Members.
HOW TO GET INVOLVED and MEETING TIME
If you are interested in an appointment to EQAC, contact the City Clerk's office (949- 644 -3005)
e,
http: / /www. city. newport- beach.ca,us /EQAC /EQAC %20Welcome.htm 05/07/2003
EQAC Statement of Purpose
Page 2 of 2
and request an application. Once submitted, an application is kept on file for two years and used by the
City Council as openings occur.
EQAC meets on the third Monday evening of each month in the Newport Beach Police Department
auditorium, at 7:00 PM. The public is welcome. To confirm dates and location, telephone Niki
Kallikounis, Planning Department Assistant at 949 - 644 -3225.
�0
http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /EQAC/EQAC %20Welcome.htm 05/07/2003
YOUTH COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS CITIZENS
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Page 1 of 4
AUTHORIZATION: The Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
(Committee) established by Resolution
No. 87 -14, adopted on January 12, 1987; amended by Resolution
No. 88 -105, adopted October 24, 1988 and blanket Resolution No.
90 -123. Committee restructured by adoption of Resolution No. 98-
17, adopted on February 23, 1998 (repeals all other resolutions).
Membership revised by adoption of Resolution No. 98 -60 on
August 24, 1998 (amends Res. 98 -17). Appointment of officers
clarified by adoption of Resolution No. 2000 -10 on January 25,
2000. Membership, Rules, and Purpose and Responsibilities
revised by adoption of Resolution No. 2000 -90 on October 24, 2000.
Membership revised by adoption of Resolution No. 2001 -61 on July
10, 2001. Revised by adoption of Resolution No. 2001 -73 on August
14, 2001. Membership provisions amended by adoption of
Resolution No. 2003 -18 on March 25, 2003.
MEMBERSHIP: A. Two (2) Council Members.
B. The Chair (or Chair's designee) of the Economic
Development Committee.
C. Chairperson of Committee shall be a citizen (at large)
appointed by the MayQr.
D. Seven (7) members, one from each City Council district,
nominated by the District Council Member
and confirmed by the City Council. If a Council Member
chooses, he /she may appoint a person who does not reside
in his /her District. If a Council Member does not fill a
vacancy within sixty (60) days, the Committee shall
recommend two (2) candidates for the City Council's
consideration. Candidates recommended by the Committee
need not reside in the District in which there is a vacancy.
E. Seven (7) citizens at large, one nominated by each City
Council Member and confirmed by the City
Council. At the request of a Council Member, of if a Council
Member does not fill a vacancy within sixty
(60) days, the Committee shall recommend two (2)
candidates for the City Council's consideration.
F. Four (4) members who are on the board of directors of
homeowners or community associations, appointed by the
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ Boardmanual lEnvironmentalQtialityComm.htm 05/07/2003
YOUTH COUNCIL
Page 2 of 4
City Council from two (2) recommendations from the Committee
for each member submitted by the Committee
G. Three (3) members who have knowledge of CEQA
administration or environmental issues of concern to
Newport Beach (e.g., water quality, airport noise, traffic),
appointed by the City Council from two (2)
recommendations from the Committee for each member
submitted by the Committee.
Staff: Assistant City Manager or Designee
TERM: District and at -large members shall have terms that coincide with
the terms of the Council Members nominating them.
Association and special expertise members shall have terms of four
(4) years, and may serve no more than two (2)
consecutive terms. All members shall serve at the pleasure of the
City Council.
RULES: A. All members, other than Council Members, shall have one
(1) vote on the Committee.
B. The officers of said Committee shall be comprised of a
Chairperson and Vice - chairperson. The Chairperson shall be
appointed by the Mayor and the Vice - chairperson shall be
elected by the Committee.
C. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the currently
appointed members of the Committee, not counting the
Council Members.
D. If a member is absent from three (3) consecutive meetings,
this fact shall be reported to the Mayor so that replacement
of the appointee can be considered.
E. Reports and recommendations from the Committee shall be
made to staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council.
Committee comments on projects by other agencies shall be
distributed to such agencies only after the comments are
approved by the City Council, or the City Manager if City
Council approval is not practicable.
F. Any publications of the Committee shall require
authorization from the City Council.
G. Any letter written by a member of the Committee that
Y,
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ Boardmanu ,illEnvironmentalQualityComm.htm 05/07/2003
YOUTH COUNCIL Page 3 of 4
represents the position of the Committee, or stating any recommendation
made, or action taken by the Committee, shall be authorized
by the Committee during a duly noticed public meeting. In
the event the Committee has, at a duly noticed public
meeting, delegated the responsibility for any task to a
Subcommittee, the Subcommittee may authorize one or
more of its members to perform that task and subject to the
Rules applicable to the Committee, prepare and submit
comments and /or state the position of the Committee.
H. The Committee, or a Subcommittee designated by the
Committee shall interview each candidate or prospective
member before recommending that candidate to the City
Council. If the Committee is unable to recommend two
candidates for any specific membership, the Committee may
recommend, and the City Council may appoint, only one
candidate for membership.
PURPOSE &
RESPONSIBILITIES: A. To review and submit comments during the public review
period (upon publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP)
and /or the Notice of Completion (NOC)) with respect to any
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the City.
B. To review and, subject to the approval of the City Council or
City Manager, submit, on behalf of the City, comments on
any NOP or NOC for an EIR prepared by another public
agency for a Project that has the potential to cause gignificant
adverse environmental impacts in the City of Newport
Beach.
C. If requested by the City Council or the City Manager, review
and submit comments on any environmental document,
including a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact
Statement, prepared by the City or any other public agency
for projects that could have a significant adverse
environmental impact on the City of Newport Beach. The
Committee may review and submit comments on any
negative declaration prepared by the City for any project
that is not subject to the review and /or approval of any
other Board, Commission or Committee without first
receiving a request from the City Council or City Manager.
D. To request the City Manager to schedule presentations from
City staff relative to activities with the potential to adversely
impact the environment.
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/ Boardinanual /EnvironmentalQua]ityComm.htm 05/07/2003
YOUTH COUNCIL Page 4 of 4
E. To request the City Manager and /or City Council to
schedule a presentation from members of the Committee to
the City Council relative to any action of the Committee or
any activity that the Committee has determined could have a
significant effect on Newport Beach.
F. To receive, review, and transmit to the City's community
associations (COAs) and homeowners associations (HOAs)
information relative to projects that have the potential to
have a significant adverse impact on the association(s).
G. To receive the City Manager's weekly newsletter (1 copy).
H. To recommend to the City Manager subject matter and key
questions for inclusion in the City's quarterly newsletter to
residents.
q
http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca. usBoardmanua l /EnvironmentalQualityComm.htm 05/07/2003
EQAC Roster
Page 1 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Steven Bromberg, Mayor
949 - 640 -2001
Richard A. Nichols
nbcouncil„ rainch.ols..i,nfo,
CHAIRMAN
Robert Hawkins
CITY STAFF MEMBERS
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
(949) 644 -3222 Tel.
(949) 644 -3020 Fax
CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
District 1
Louis Von Dyl
Tod Ridgeway, Mayor Pro Tem
District 2
Jim Miller
Gary Proctor
District 3
Vacant
Don Webb
Richard Rivett
District 4
http: / /www.city.tiewport- beach .ca.us /EQAC/EQAC %20roster.htm 05/07/2003
EQAC Roster. Page 2 of 3
Gary Adams II
Gary Borquez
District 5
Brent Cooper
Steven Bromberg, Mayor
District 6
Nancy Raney
Gary Proctor
Laura Dietz
Richard Nichols
District 7
Dolores Otting
John Heffernan
AT LARGE MEMBERS
District 1
Gary Borquez
Tod Ridgeway, Mayor Pro Tem
District 2
Nancy Raney
Gary Proctor
District 3
Christopher Welsh
Don Webb
District 4
Phillip Lugar
Gary Adams
District 5
Martge Pantzar
Steven Bromberg, Mayor
District 6
Cris Trapp
Richard Nichols
District 7
Thomas Eastmond
John Heffernan
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Barry Allen
Tom Hyans
Elaine Linhoff
http: //www. city. newport- beacli .ca.us /EQAC/EQAC%a2Oroster.litm 05/07/2003
Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTISE
Barry Eaton, EQAC Vice Chair
Jennifer Winn
Ray Halowski
EDC REPRESENTATIVE
Carol Hoffman
h www.city.newport- beach. ca. us/EQAC/EQAC%20roster.htm J'
0/07/2003
0 0 C 0 a 9 0 nmz) 0 00 --D Q Q 0 0 4
Ole "ID AN
.... ........ . . .......
Of G (D 0 G 0: 10 01 oc) 0 a D, o .0 o a ;�) 0 0
0 01C G 10 4 0
ocoos)(nocoo-o'-
C
0 0,
0 c G (DO 0. 0 0 0 01 C) 0 0 0, 0 0 tD'o.0 0 7) o
Ooc000D000000000000'-)ODOOD300040
0 :00 J. °0000
oc
eocvoo