Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-2 - Adopting Addendum No. ER2020-003 to the 2006 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Report and the 2008-2014 City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project LRESOLUTION NO. 2021-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. ER2020-003 TO THE 2006 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND THE 2008-2014 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN PROJECT LOCATED AT 4400 VON KARMAN AVENUE (PA2020- 061) WHEREAS, an application was filed by TPG (KCN) Acquisition, LLC. ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 4400 Von Karman Avenue, generally bounded by Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, legally described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant is requesting approval for the development of 312 apartment units atop an 825 -space parking structure, a separate 284 -space free standing parking structure, an approximately one -acre public park, and reconfiguration of existing surface parking lots serving existing office buildings ("Project") which requires the following approvals from the City: • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (PD2020-001) ("PCDP Amendment") - An amendment to Planned Community Development Plan #15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) for the creation of a residential overlay zone and a park overlay zone to allow for residential use and a public park within the Koll Center Newport Professional and Business Office Site B ("Office Site B"); • Major Site Development Review (SD2020-006) ("SD") - A site development review in accordance with the amended Koll Center Newport Planned Community and Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") for the construction of the Project; • Traffic Study (TS2020-001) ("TS") - A traffic study pursuant to Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the NBMC, which is required for projects that generate in excess of 300 new average daily trip; • Lot Line Adjustment (LA2020-002) ("LA") - To adjust the lot lines of two (2) underlying parcels that comprise the Project; Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 2 of 8 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AH2020-003) ("AHIP") -A program specifying how the Project meets the City's affordable housing requirements, in exchange for a request of 20 percent increase in density and meets the criteria for a development concession related to the mix of affordable unit types pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonuses) and Government Code Section 65915 et seq.; • Development Agreement (DA2020-002) ("Development Agreement") - An agreement between the Applicant and the City, which would provide vested rights to develop the Project, while also providing negotiated public benefits; and • Addendum No. ER2020-003 to the 2006 General Plan Update Program Environmental Impact Reports and the 2008-2014 City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration ("Addendum") - Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Addendum was prepared to address the environmental impacts of the Project; WHEREAS, the Property is designated MU -H2 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 2) by the City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan") Land Use Element and located within the Airport Business Area, and the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan ("ICDP") which allocates a maximum of 260 residential units to be developed on the Property; WHEREAS, the Property is currently located within the PC -15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community Office Site B) Zoning District; WHEREAS, the Project is not located in the coastal zone; therefore, amending the Local Coastal Program or a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, a telephonic public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 5, 2020, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Government Code Section 54950 et seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act"), and Chapter 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 3 of 8 WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2020-040 by a unanimous vote (4 ayes, 0 nays) recommending approval of the Project, and land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; WHEREAS, due to the proposed amendment to the Property's zoning regulations, California Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires the City to refer the Project to the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") for a determination of the Project's consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") for John Wayne Airport; WHEREAS, on November 19, 2020, the ALUC found the Project to be consistent with the AELUP for John Wayne Airport; WHEREAS, telephonic public meetings were held by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation ("PB&R") Commission on December 1, 2020 and January 25, 2021, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearings were given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and by providing written notice to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Project; WHEREAS, the PB&R Commission determined that the proposed amenities to be provided within the proposed public park for the Project are practical, useable and feasible for the general public, and provided additional recommendations to the City Council. WHEREAS, at the January 12, 2021 City Council meeting, the City Council continued the public hearing to January 26, 2021. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act; and WHEREAS, the continued public hearing was held telephonically by the City Council on January 26, 2021, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, due to the Declaration of a State Emergency and Proclamation of Local Emergency related to COVID-19. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), the Ralph M. Brown Act, and Chapters 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), 15.45 (Development Agreements), 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments), 20.56 (Planned Community District Procedures), and 20.62 (Public Hearings) of the NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 4 of 8 Section 1: On July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-75, thereby certifying the adequacy and completeness of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the 2006 General Plan Update (SCH No. 2006011119). The 2006 General Plan Update EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", was prepared in compliance with CEQA as set forth in the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq, and its implementing State regulations set forth in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines") and City Council Policy K-3. Additionally, in accordance with Section 15168(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared the EIR as a Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR") that analyzed the potential impacts of a citywide land use plan, and the goals and policies of ten General Plan elements. Section 2: The City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2007-79 and 2012-62, on December 11, 2007 and July 24, 2012, respectively, approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the 2006 General Plan Update PEIR which are attached hereto as Exhibits "C" and "D" and incorporated herein by reference to analyze changes to the development intensities within the North Newport Center Planned Community ("NNCPC") Development Plan. No analysis specific to the Property was included in Addenda Nos. 1 and 2. Section 3: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-78 on September 8, 2020, approving Addendum No. 3 (ER2020-002), which is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by reference, to the 2006 General Plan Update PEIR to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation of the Newport Airport Village project located at 4341, 4361, and 4501 Birch Street; 4320, 4340, 4360, 4400, 4500, 4520, 4540, 4570, 4600 and 4630 Campus Drive; and 4525, 4533, and 4647 MacArthur Boulevard, from AO (Airport Office and Supporting Uses) to MU -H2 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 2) and to amend Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations) to add Anomaly No. 86 to allow for the development of 329 dwelling units, exclusive of any permitted density bonus, and 297,572 square feet of commercial uses. No analysis of the Property was included in Addendum No. 3. Section 4: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-107 on November 22, 2011, approving the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update and its Initial Study/Negative Declaration under CEQA, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 5: Pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR is required unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 5 of 8 a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; ii. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Section 6: The Project consists of the remaining 260 additive units allocated essentially at the same location as identified in the ICDP and allowed by MU -H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal 2) General Plan Land Use designation with a maximum allotment of 2,200 residential units. The Project has a net developable residential area of 5.9 acres, which includes the project site of 4.51 acres and the free-standing parking area of 1.39 acres. The net density of the Project is 44 units per acre consistent with allowable density range of 30 to 50 units per net acre provided by General Plan Land Use Policies. The net density does not include the 20 -percent density increase (52 units) that is allowed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915 et seq. and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the NBMC in exchange for the 5 -percent or 13 units set aside for affordable housing. Altogether, the Project has an overall density of 53 units per net acre. As the Project is allocated from the remaining portion of 2,200 units which has already been considered Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 6 of 8 and analyzed by the PEIR, an Addendum was prepared pursuant to Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or Negative) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 7: The following environmental topics were analyzed for the Project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The Addendum includes analysis of new topics that were not included in the PEIR, Addenda Nos. 1 and 2, or the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. Specifically, the Addendum includes a new energy section and a new wildfire section. These additional analyses are appropriate for inclusion in the Addendum, but none result in new or increased significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The recommended conditions of approval include additional project amenity details (e.g., park programming such as a unisex bathroom and five dedicated one-hour parking spaces), and design details (e.g., clarification that the residential structure height limit is 71 not 75 feet and lighting requirements for pedestrian pathways and parking decks). These construction and operation of conditions of approval do not change the Project considered in the Addendum in any manner that would cause any significant new or worse impacts than those considered in the Addendum. Section 8: On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project (inclusive of recommended conditions of approval) will not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the PEIR for the 2006 General Plan Update (SCH No. 20066011119), Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the PEIR and/or the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update. The Addendum confirms and provides substantial evidence that the potential impacts associated with this Project would either be the same or less than those described in the PEIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the PEIR and/or the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update as mitigated. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project would be undertaken that would result in , new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the PEIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the PEIR and/or the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to the previously adopted PEIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the PEIR and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008- 2014 Housing Element Update is the appropriate environmental document for the Project. Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 7 of 8 In taking action to approve any of the requested applications for the Project, the data presented in the PEIR, Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the PEIR and the Initial Study/Negative Declaration to the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update as augmented by the Addendum for this Project, are considered as part of the record. Section 9: Addendum No. ER2020-003 is hereby adopted by the City Council, including the Response to Comments attached hereto as Exhibit H. The Addendum and related and referenced documentation, constitute the administrative record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Section 10: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Section 11: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 12: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Resolution No. 2021-2 Page 8 of 8 Section 13: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2021. ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Aar6n C. Harp City Attorney V Bra e Mayor Attachments: Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: 2006 General Plan Update EIR (PEIR) Exhibit C: Addendum No.1 (North Newport Center) Exhibit D: Addendum No. 2 (North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment) Exhibit E: Addendum No. 3 (Newport Airport Village - ER2020-002) Exhibit F: 2008-2014 City of Newport Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Exhibit G: Addendum No. 4 (Residences at 4400 Von Karman — ER2020-003) Exhibit H: Response to Comments Exhibit "A" Legal Description PARCEL 1: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO.91-155AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK266, PAGES 16 THROUGH 22 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF NORTH 49021'34" WEST 584.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 41005'02" WEST 54.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04016'29" EAST 257.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85043'31" WEST 685.70 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 1.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VON KARMAN AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO 91-155; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 06°59'31" WEST 296.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 549.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY 90.98 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09029'40" TO THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL LABELED N.A.P. OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF "NORTH 49021'34" WEST 204.00 FEET"; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID N.A.P. PARCEL AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 49021'34" EAST 274.72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40°38'26" EAST 156.94 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL LABELED N.A.P. OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF "NORTH 49021'34" EAST 204.44 FEET"; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID N.A.P. PARCEL AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 49°21'34" EAST 166.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40038'26" EAST 284.73 FEET TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 49°21'34' EAST 157.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 4.51 ACRES, MORE OF LESS. PARCEL 2: THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155 AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK266, PAGES 16 THROUGH 22 OF PARCEL MAPS, TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 82-713 AS SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK 181, PAGES 13 THROUGH 19 OF PARCEL MAPS, BOTH IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING ATTHE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE THEREOF NORTH 49021'34" WEST 584.54 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 41"05'02" WEST 54.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04016'29" EAST 257.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85°43'31" WEST 685.70 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 1.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF VON KARMAN AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO 91-155; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 06059'31" WEST 296.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 549.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE NORTHEASTERLY 90.98 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09029'40" TO THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL LABELED N.A.P. OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF "NORTH 49021'34" WEST 204.00 FEET"; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID N.A.P. PARCEL AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 49021'34" EAST 274.72 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40°38'26" EAST 156.94 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL LABELED N.A.P. OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 91-155 HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF "NORTH 49021'34" EAST 204.44 FEET"; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID N.A.P. PARCEL AND ITS NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION THROUGH THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 49°21'34" EAST 166.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 40°38'26" EAST 284.73 FEET TO SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 49°21'34' EAST 157.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING: 20.09 ACRES, MORE OF LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL COVENANTS, RIGHTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF RECORD. Exhibit "B" The 2006 General Plan Update EIR (PEIR) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-impact-repor 10-24 Exhibit "C" Addendum No. 1 (North Newport Center) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/qovernment/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-impact-repor 10-25 ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Prepared by: City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 November 2007 Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe Section1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of Addendum............................................................................1-1 1.2 Previous Environmental Documentation and discretionary actions ........ 1-2 Section 2.0 Project Description..............................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location......................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Characteristics............................................................................2-1 2.2.1 North Newport Center PC Text...................................................2-1 2.2.2 Transfer of Development Rights.................................................2-3 2.2.3 Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan (TPO Approval)...................................................................2-3 2.2.4 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP)........................2-4 2.2.5 Development Agreement............................................................2-4 2.2.6 Discretionary Actions..................................................................2-4 Section 3.0 Environmental Analysis......................................................................................3-1 3.1 Aesthetics...............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Agricultural Resources............................................................................3-4 3.3 Air Quality...............................................................................................3-4 3.4 Biological Resources..............................................................................3-8 3.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................3-10 3.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources................................................3-12 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................3-14 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................3-17 3.9 Land Use and Planning........................................................................3-20 3.10 Noise....................................................................................................3-24 3.11 Population and Housing........................................................................3-27 3.12 Public Services.....................................................................................3-28 3.13 Recreation and Open Space................................................................3-31 3.14 Transportation/Traffic............................................................................3-33 3.15 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................3-45 F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc i Table of C Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLES Table Page 1 Development Area Summary .........................................................................................2-3 2 Trip Generation Summary............................................................................................3-35 3 One Percent Analysis...................................................................................................3-36 4 ICU Summary...............................................................................................................3-40 5 Converted Uses...........................................................................................................3-42 EXHIBITS Exhibit Follows Page 1 Local Vicinity Map..........................................................................................................2-2 2 Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, San Joaquin Boundaries...................................2-2 3 Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations.................................................................2-2 F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc Table of C Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM This document, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), constitutes an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Screencheck No. 2006011119 certified on July 25, 2006. This Addendum was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq. CEQA Guidelines §15164(a) states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162(a), a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 1-1 Introductic Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR The proposed North Newport Center Project includes the following City actions to implement the 2006 General Plan: 1. Approval of a zoning amendment to adopt the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (herein referred to as the North Newport Center PC Text), including the reclassification of property to the Planned Community (PC) District and amendment to two existing Planned Community Development Plans; 2. Approval of a transfer of development rights, pursuant to General Plan policy, to convert unbuilt hotel entitlement to office entitlement and to relocate this entitlement and existing office and commercial development from Block 600 to Block 500; 3. Approval of a traffic study of the North Newport Center Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (herein referred to as the TPO approval); 4. Approval of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (herein referred to as the AHIP) pursuant to the 2006 General Plan Housing Element; and 5. Approval of a Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company Concerning North Newport Center (herein referred to as the Development Agreement) pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45, Development Agreements The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the potential differences between the impacts evaluated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final EIR, hereafter referred to as the General Plan EIR, and those that would be associated with the North Newport Center Project. As described in detail herein, there are no new significant impacts resulting from these changes nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. The potential impacts associated with these proposed changes would either be the same or less than the anticipated levels ascribed in the certified General Plan EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which future development projects subject to the 2006 General Plan and PC Text would be undertaken. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15164, this Addendum to the certified General Plan Final EIR is the appropriate environmental documentation for the North Newport Center PC Text. Pursuant to §15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) is the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. Newport Beach has the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. In taking action on any of the approvals outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, the City, as the lead agency and decision making body, must consider the whole of the data presented in the General Plan EIR and this Addendum to the General Plan EIR. 1.2 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The General Plan EIR was certified adequately addressing the potential City of Newport Beach, inclusive of Plaza (North Newport Center). The actions being addressed as part addressed in Section 2.0, Project by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin ocation of North Newport Center, approvals granted, and )f this Addendum to the General Plan EIR are further )escription. The adopted 2006 General Plan placed the F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 1-2 Introductic Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR following designations on the four sub -areas included in the Project and analyzed full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Fashion Island Regional Commercial (CR) Block 500 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) Block 600 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) San Joaquin Plaza Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) When a project is large and complex, such as a General Plan update, and will be implemented over a multi-year period, a Program EIR enables the lead agency to approve the overall program. When individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency is then required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were adequately analyzed in the Program EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15162, the lead agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR. The State CEQA Guidelines §15168(a) defines a Program EIR as: ...an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. The State CEQA Guidelines §15168(c)(2) states: (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. As previously noted, CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) states that a subsequent EIR is not necessary in the absence of the following: (1) substantial changes to the project, (2) substantial changes to the project circumstances, or (3) new information of substantial importance. Use of a Program EIR for the update of the General Plan afforded the City many advantages that would not be realized if projects had been evaluated on an action -by -action basis. These advantages are outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15168(b), which states: "The Program EIR can: (1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case- by-case analysis, (3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 1-3 Introductic Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program - wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and (5) Allow reduction in paperwork." Page 1-1 of the General Plan EIR states: "This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines... This EIR will review the existing conditions of the City of Newport Beach and the Planning Area, analyze potential environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, identify policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identify additional mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update." Page 1-4 of the General Plan EIR states: "This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with future development resulting from implementation of the proposed General Plan Update, and also addresses appropriate and feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts." Page 1-5 states: "The proposed General Plan Update will serve as a comprehensive document that will guide future potential growth and development within the City ... The EIR will analyze all aspects of the proposed General Plan Update to determine whether any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment with regards to the environmental issues [identified in the EIR]." As such, the General Plan Final EIR assessed potential impacts associated with the implementation of land uses set forth in the General Plan, including land use changes due to full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza under the General Plan Update. Page 3-15 of the General Plan EIR states: "The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units." The Draft EIR for the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update analyzed 600 housing units in Newport Center, which includes Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Through Planning Commission and City Council hearings the 600 housing units were reduced to a maximum of 450 units. This reduction is reflected in Volume 1A -Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR Changes and Responses to Comments). The 2006 General Plan also documented the approval of these 450 residential units for Newport Center.a Of the 450 units permitted in Newport Center by the adopted 2006 General Plan, 430 units are incorporated into this proposed PC Text Amendment. Previous Discretionary Actions The following City of Newport Beach Ordinances and Resolutions related to development of the four sub -areas are listed below and incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof: Fashion Island Planned Community Development Plan (adopted November 23, 1987) Amendment No. 632, Ordinance No. 87-45, November 23, 1987 Amendment No. 699; Resolution No. 90-7, February 12, 1990 Amendment No. 701, Resolution No. 91-22, March 11, 1991 Amendment No. 811, Resolution No. 94-102, November 14, 1994 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, Table LU -2, pages 3-18 to 3-20. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 1-4 Introductic Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Amendment No. 825, Resolution No. 95-115, October 9, 1995 Amendment No. 889, Ordinance No. 99-27, November 8, 1999 PD 2002-002, Ordinance No. 2003-001, January 28, 2003 Block 500 Amendment No. 827, Ordinance No. 95-32, August 28, 1995 San Joaquin Plaza Ordinance No. 1649, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on December 22, 1975 (Amendment No. 455) Amendment No. 1: March 12, 1979, P.C. Amendment No. 527; Resolution No. 9517 Amendment No. 2: November 23, 1987, P.C. Amendment No. 653; Resolution No. 87-164 Amendment No. 3: January 13, 1992, P.C. Amendment No. 729; Resolution No. 92-5 Amendment No. 4: April 27, 1992, P.C. Amendment No. 755; Resolution No. 92-33 Amendment No. 5: October 9, 1995, P.C. Amendment No. 825, Resolution No. 95-115 Amendment No. 6: March 22, 2005, Code Amendment No. 2004-013; Resolution No. 1656, Ordinance 2005-3 Block 600 Ordinance No. 1719, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on March 28, 1977 (Amendment No. 483) Ordinance No. 92-45, adopted by the City of Newport Beach on November 9, 1992 (Amendment No. 771) GPA 97-3 (D), adopted by the City of Newport Beach on June 22, 1998 (Resolution No. 98- 48) F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 1-5 Introductic Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are located in Newport Center in the City of Newport Beach, California. As depicted in Exhibit 1, Newport Center is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast, MacArthur Boulevard to the southeast, Jamboree Road to the northwest, and Coast Highway to the southwest. Fashion Island is an approximate 75 -acre regional shopping center located in the center of Newport Center; Newport Center Drive is a ring road that connects to a roadway system providing access to the various blocks that form Newport Center. Block 500 (approximately 15 acres) is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast, an internal access road and Avocado Avenue to the south, Newport Center Drive to the southwest, and Santa Rosa Drive to the west. Block 600 (approximately 25 acres) is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northeast, Santa Rosa Drive to the southeast, Newport Center Drive to the southwest, and Santa Cruz Drive to the west. San Joaquin Plaza (approximately 23 acres) is generally bound by San Joaquin Hills Road to the northwest, San Clemente Drive to the south, Santa Cruz Drive to the east, and Santa Barbara Drive and internal access roads to the west. The four sites are depicted on Exhibit 2. The areas surrounding Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are developed. To the north of Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza across San Joaquin Hills Road, land uses include residential and a golf course within The Big Canyon Planned Community (PC 8). Uses to the south of Fashion Island are predominately commercial. To the south of Block 500 are medical and commercial office uses. To the south of San Joaquin Plaza are multi -family residential and commercial office uses. To the west are commercial uses, residential uses, the Marriott Hotel, and the Newport Beach Country Club. To the east, across MacArthur Boulevard are residential uses. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 2.2.1 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PC TEXT The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code allows a "Planned Community District" to address land use designation and regulations in Planned Communities. The proposed project is the adoption of the North Newport Center PC Text, which incorporates Fashion Island, Block 600, and portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (Applicant) into a single Planned Community District. Concurrently, the existing Block 500 PC Text and the San Joaquin Plaza PC Text would be amended to remove identified portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza from their respective Planned Community Districts, and the Newport Beach Zoning Code would be amended to remove Block 600 from the Administrative Professional Financial zoning district. The purposes of a Planned Community District, as stated in the Municipal Code are as follows: 20.35.10 Specific Purposes The PC district is intended to: A. To provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-1 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning; B. To allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while insuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent and provisions of this Code; C. To include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan, through the adoption of a development plan and text materials which set forth land use relationships and development standards. The PC Text has been prepared to implement and be consistent with the adopted 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) and City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final EIR (General Plan EIR). The proposed PC Text reflects the uses and designations permitted under the 2006 General Plan. No changes to the existing 2006 General Plan land use designations are required. The existing General Plan land uses designations for the four sub- areas are as follows: Fashion Island Regional Commercial (CR) Block 500 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) Block 600 Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) San Joaquin Plaza Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS) The existing zoning designations for the four sub -areas are as follows. Adoption of the North Newport Center PC Text would incorporate Fashion Island, Block 600, and portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (Applicant) to create the North Newport Center PC Text. The existing and proposed zoning designations are shown on Exhibit 3. Fashion Island Planned Community (PC -35 Fashion Island) Block 500 Planned Community (PC -46 Block 500) Block 600 Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF); Open Space (OS) San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community (PC -19 San Joaquin Plaza) As identified on Table 1, the proposed amendment to the PC Text would incorporate the intensities set forth in the adopted 2006 General Plan. Future implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza would not allow for any increase in development intensities beyond that permitted by the General Plan for these sub -areas. The PC Text identifies the permitted land uses and development standards that will be used to guide future development. As previously noted, Fashion Island is a regional shopping center located in the center of the larger Newport Center area. The proposed PC Text envisions Fashion Island to incorporate uses including retail, restaurants, bars, theater/nightclubs and services. The proposed PC Text provides that Blocks 500 and 600 and San Joaquin Plaza may be developed as a regional mixed use center incorporating administrative, professional, and financial uses together with hotel and residential uses and retail and other commercial uses. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-2 Environm( V, y 1 k 'aia hb 5- �- x :+• 4Y _:, ti- lock - u "fir -. - '''. Z. - ti - � r' �•� � � �r San Joaquin y}���`.:�rr..�•: -,._r �'��- - +��,: �, �'" ;9� ars � - x i `•� �','-�°}� r. 3 :hof,` '!^}!'_'.•.^ !. '�.. ,',3"�3` 1-td°�. � ~rm._;' •�. � .,. X04 .�rJ� �'`Sh• 1• � �f • • - _ Fashion Island _ �Block;500. ..{ . ri:3. .�., IL , ter '?r�Y•4J •'4. i ,.Y'' rr, ::. v"xy.ry.i - T'.t r��# Aika � p�IM '" Newport Bay - _ � �:'�� '� �`` -� ,' ;� - •��� -%'. 4 ' � 6", i� ' '•'� ' "� � - k���,,�•�s-s• L',^�� 9S.y, :+� j'4. .. }•. �� �tj4h..�k 'i Project Location ME Local Vicinity Exhibit 1 North Newport Center Addendum N `"-<�e 1,500 750 0 1,500 s Feet R:/Projects/Newport/J011 /Gmphics/Ex1 _LV_110907.pdf '� PC -56 PC -56 SANTA CRUZ DR. IDS - PC -56 a CL � 9pG PC -56 { �s PC -56 SANTA ROSA DR- -PG-3& PC-56 PC -56 PC -56 } G .,PC -56 N �^ a a nw x UW ap' AqC' �NO a z TQ� a gsr��c� � �q o� v OS - Open Space APF -Administrative, Professional, Financiai PC -56 - Fashion Island Planned Community text- Proposed Zoning text - Current Zoning #ext- Proposed to be changed Source: CAA Planning 2007 Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations Exhibit 3 North Newport Center Addendum R:/Projects/Newport/J011/Graphics/Ex3 Zone 110907.pdf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT AREA SUMMARY 2.2.2 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS The 2006 General Plan also allows a transfer of development rights within Newport Center in accordance with the following Land Use Element policy: LU 6.14.3 Transfers of Development Rights Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. As part of the Project, The Irvine Company, herein referred to as Applicant, is proposing to transfer a portion of the existing development rights from Block 600 to Block 500. The transfer includes the conversion of 165 unbuilt hotel rooms to office space, and the transfer of this entitlement to Block 500. It also includes the removal of the following existing uses from Block 600, and transfer of this entitlement to Block 500: 17,300 square feet (sf) of health club, 16,444 sf of restaurant, and 8,289 sf of office. Up to 72,000 sf of the transferred development rights could be used for a new City Hall in Block 500. 2.2.3 PHASED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TPO APPROVAL) The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.6.2. A traffic study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project. This mitigation is that the Applicant will construct a third eastbound turn lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Consistent with the TPO, this improvement will be completed early in the development phasing (i.e., before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building [other than a parking structure]) constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later than 60 months from the operative date of the Development Agreement. In addition, the Applicant will work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-3 Environm( San Joaquin Fashion Island Block 500 Block 600 Plaza Land Use (75 acres) (15.29 acres) (25 acres) (23.2 acres) Total Regional 1,619,525 sf 0 0 0 1,619,525 sf Commercial Movie Theatre 1,700 seats 1,700 seats (27,500 sf) (27,500 sf) Hotel (a) (b) 425 rooms (b) (b) 490 rooms Residential 0 (c) (c) (c) 430 du Office/Commercial 0 285,142 sf 1,001,634 sf 1 337,261 sf 1 1,746,979 sf sf: square feet du: dwelling unit a Hotel rooms are permitted in Fashion Island through the transfer of available square footage. b 65 hotel rooms may be relocated in either Block 500, Block 600, or San Joaquin Plaza. In no case shall the total number of hotel rooms in the Fashion Island/Block 500/Block 600/San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community exceed 490. c. Residential units are permitted in Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. In no case shall the total number of dwelling units exceed 430. 2.2.2 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS The 2006 General Plan also allows a transfer of development rights within Newport Center in accordance with the following Land Use Element policy: LU 6.14.3 Transfers of Development Rights Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. As part of the Project, The Irvine Company, herein referred to as Applicant, is proposing to transfer a portion of the existing development rights from Block 600 to Block 500. The transfer includes the conversion of 165 unbuilt hotel rooms to office space, and the transfer of this entitlement to Block 500. It also includes the removal of the following existing uses from Block 600, and transfer of this entitlement to Block 500: 17,300 square feet (sf) of health club, 16,444 sf of restaurant, and 8,289 sf of office. Up to 72,000 sf of the transferred development rights could be used for a new City Hall in Block 500. 2.2.3 PHASED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN (TPO APPROVAL) The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.6.2. A traffic study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project. This mitigation is that the Applicant will construct a third eastbound turn lane at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. Consistent with the TPO, this improvement will be completed early in the development phasing (i.e., before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building [other than a parking structure]) constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later than 60 months from the operative date of the Development Agreement. In addition, the Applicant will work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-3 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR North Newport Center area, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element, including widening of Avocado Avenue between San Miguel Drive and San Nicolas Drive, dedication of public right-of-way and enhancement of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and installation of traffic signals on Newport Center Drive. 2.2.4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (AHIP) The 2006 General Plan Housing Element requires an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) for any development including more than 50 dwelling units. The North Newport Center AHIP describes how the Applicant would provide affordable housing to meet the Housing Element goal of 15 percent. The Applicant may build new affordable units, restrict income and rent levels for existing apartments in the vicinity of North Newport Center, or a combination of these methods. The exact number of units may vary, depending on the income levels served, and all units must be affordable for a period of 30 years. 2.2.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT As a part of the project, a Development Agreement is proposed between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company. Key provisions of the proposed Development Agreement are as follows. • Cancellation of Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement and Bonita Canyon Annexation and Development Agreement • Vesting of North Newport Center development rights for 20 years • Payment of in -lieu park fees for 430 residential units, including early payment of a portion of fees as matching grant for OASIS Senior Center • Payment of public benefit fee to fund construction of new City Hall building or other municipal purpose • Circulation enhancements in the North Newport Center area • Four-year option for the City to purchase a site in Block 500 for City Hall as well as the use of 375 parking spaces. • Dedication of the site north of San Miguel Drive, west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of San Joaquin Hills Road and east of Avocado Avenue for open space, if a new City Hall is constructed on a site in Newport Center other than Block 500 • Limit on future increases in development fees • Limit on future amendments to Municipal Code pertaining to development of the North Newport Center property 2.2.6 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The City of Newport Beach, as the lead agency for the Project, would rely on the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program Final EIR and this Addendum as the primary environmental documentation for the approval of the discretionary actions discussed below. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-4 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Approval of the Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR: The North Newport Center Project requires the acceptance of the environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, as well as certification that the information contained in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR and this Addendum was considered in the final decisions on the Project. Approval of the Planned Community Development Plan and Design Regulations Amendment No. PD2007-003 as the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan and Design Regulations: The Project includes the adoption of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan to incorporate Fashion Island, Block 600, and portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company into one PC District, and to provide consistency between the 2006 General Plan and the zoning designation for the four sub -areas of North Newport Center. Additionally, the Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza PC Texts would be modified to remove areas to be included in the North Newport Center PC Text. • Code Amendment CA2007-007: An amendment to Municipal Code is required to change the zoning classification of Block 600 from Administrative Financial Professional (APF) to Planned Community (PC) District and the open space corner lots in Block 500 and Block 600 from the Open Space (OS) District to the Planned Community (PC) District. • Approval of Transfer of Development Rights: The project includes the transfer of development rights from Block 600 to Block 500 pursuant to General Plan policy. The transfer of development rights requires approval of the City Council. • Traffic Study No. TS2007-001: In accordance with Municipal Code Title 15, Chapter 15.40, the project is a Comprehensive Phased Land Use Development and Circulation System Improvement Plan as all phases of construction are not anticipated to be completed within 60 months of approval and the project is subject to a Development Agreement. As such, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance study has been prepared. • North Newport Center Planned Community Affordable Housing Implementation Plan: An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan is required by the 2006 General Plan Housing Element, and is included in the Project. • Development Agreement No. DA2007-002: The Development Agreement between the City and Applicant would vest development rights and establish public benefits to the City. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 2-5 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The analysis in this document will evaluate if the potential impacts associated with the subsequent approvals outlined in Section 2.0, Project Description, are substantially the same as those addressed in City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether Project implementation would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. If the comparative analysis identifies that there would be no change in impact from that identified in the General Plan EIR, a determination of "No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis" has been made. This analysis provides the City of Newport Beach with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan EIR was certified require additional environmental review or preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 3.1 AESTHETICS The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on aesthetic/visual quality if it would result in any of the following: • Have a substantial adverse effect a scenic vista • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Aesthetic and visual impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Have a Substantial Adverse Effect a Scenic Vista Page 4.1-6 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR (General Plan EIR) identifies that there are no officially designated scenic highways within the City. As such, Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are not designated as scenic vistas or located within a scenic preservation zone. Page 4.1-9 of the General Plan EIR identifies a public coastal view is located along Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive east to west extending to Farallon Drive/Granville Drive, the beginning of which is located approximately 0.45 miles south of Block 600 and at the southern edge of Fashion Island. The General Plan EIR states that "...existing and future development would be regulated by the F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-1 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR proposed General Plan Update policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant." Substantially Damage Scenic Resources, Including, but not Limited to, Trees, Rock Outcroppings, and Historic Buildings within a State Scenic Highway The General Plan EIR identifies that there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City. State Route 1 (Coast Highway) is eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. Coast Highway is not contiguous to the Project. The General Plan EIR further states "Consequently, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact." Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and Its Surroundings The General Plan EIR identifies Newport Center/Fashion Island as an area of high overall visual quality (see page 4.1-18). It further states "In these areas, new development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to fit into the existing visual setting. Policy LU 1.1 requires that new development `maintain and enhance' existing development." Policy LU 1.1 states: Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds (See page 4.1-24) Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are within the City's high-rise height limitation zone. Fashion Island height limits range from 40 feet to 125 feet as detailed in Section 5d. Development within Block 500 and Block 600 is permitted up to 375 feet high. The height limit for San Joaquin Plaza is 65 feet. Fashion Island is currently developed with retail, entertainment, services and supporting uses that serve local and regional residents. Block 500 is developed with general office and medical uses. Block 600 is currently developed with high- rise office and hotel buildings. San Joaquin Plaza contains business and professional office uses. Full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza would be required to comply with the City's high-rise height limitations, compliment the height of existing buildings in Newport Center, and not create a significant shadow, or shading, impact. Shading describes the effect of shadows cast on adjacent areas by proposed structures. The proposed PC Text requires a that shade and shadow study be prepared for any structure over 200 feet in height that has the potential to affect the residential area located north of San Joaquin Hills Road (Big Canyon). The purpose of the study is to ensure that new development will not result in added shade and shadow to the residential area beyond existing conditions for more than three hours between the hours of 9 AM and 3 PM Pacific Standard Time, or for more than four hours between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific Daylight Time. The General Plan EIR notes that the 2006 General Plan includes policies associated with aesthetic improvements such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and design standards for architecture and lighting. Future development projects in North Newport Center would be required to conform to these General Plan standards as well as standards set forth in the PC Text and its Design Regulations. The General Plan EIR states "Thus, the visual character would change as development intensity increased, but the impacts would not be considered F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-2 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR significantly adverse.... Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would have a less -than - significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas." (See page 4.1-19) Create a New Source of Substantial Light or Glare, Which Would Adversely Affect Day or Nighttime Views in the Area The General Plan EIR notes that the city is primarily built out and currently has significant amounts of ambient light. It further notes that new development could create new sources of light and glare from uses such as exterior building lighting, parking lots and structures, reflective building surfaces, and vehicular headlines. Sources of light and glare could affect adjacent sensitive land uses generally considered to be undeveloped land and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial uses. The 2006 General Plan includes policies to address potential nighttime lighting impacts. These include policies to prevent lighting spillage onto adjacent properties while other policies allow the integration of land uses with requirements for addressing lighting for land use compatibility. The General Plan EIR states "Therefore, with implementation of the above-mentioned policies, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover would be les than significant." (See page 4.1-22) The proposed Planned Community Development Plan and Design Regulations also contain lighting provisions to implement these General Plan policies. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following condition is included in the North Newport Center PC Text relating shade and shadow: Prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure over 200 feet in height that has the potential to shade residential areas north of San Joaquin Hills Road, a shade study shall be prepared by the Applicant and submitted to the City. The shade study shall demonstrate that the new development will not add shade to the designated residential areas beyond existing conditions for more than three hours between the hours of 9 AM and 3 PM Pacific Standard Time, or for more than four hours between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific Daylight Time. The shade study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the Planning Director shall determine conformance with the standards identified herein as part of the plan review process. Level of Sianificance After Mitiaation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR states "...all other project impacts associates with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update."2 Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR 3.2 PURSUANT TO SECTION 15162 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES, THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HAS DETERMINED, ON THE BASIS OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE WHOLE RECORD, THAT THE NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PROJECT DOES NOT PROPOSE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE 2 Visual impacts associated with Banning Ranch were found to be unavoidable. Banning Ranch is not a part of the North Newport Center Project. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-3 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR PROJECT; NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES WOULD OCCUR WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MAJOR REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR DUE TO THE INVOLVEMENT OF NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE SEVERITY OF PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS; AND NO NEW INFORMATION OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPORTANCE HAS BEEN REVEALED SINCE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN EIR.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES The General Plan EIR identifies that the topic of Agricultural Resources was focused out because the City of Newport Beach contains no designated farmland by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, s no land designated Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of implementation of the 2006 General Plan, no sites in the City are zoned for agricultural use, and no sites would be affected by a Williamson Act contract. (See page 6-4) 3.3 AIR QUALITY The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air quality impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for Which the Project Is In Non -Attainment Under An Applicable Federal Or State Ambient Air Quality Standard The General Plan EIR identifies that projects that are consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) are those whose use and activities are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the 3 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping Program, Important Farmland in California 2004 Map (2004) F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-4 Environmf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR development of the AQMP. Because the growth projections assumed for buildout of the 2006 General Plan are higher than what would have been assumed in the AQMP, the "...proposed General Plan Update would not be consistent with the AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed.... this impact would be significant." This was identified as a project and cumulative unavoidable impact. As previously identified in Table 1 of this Addendum, total development (existing and future) for Fashion Island is 1,619,525 sf of regional commercial uses and 1,000 movie theatre seats; hotel uses are permitted through a transfer of development rights. Total development (existing and future) for Block 600 is 1,001,634 sf of office/commercial and 425 hotel rooms. Total office/commercial development is 285,142 sf for Block 500 and 337,261 sf for San Joaquin Plaza. In addition, 430 residential units and 65 hotel rooms may be developed in Blocks 500 or 600 or San Joaquin Plaza. Through the transfer of development rights included in the Project, the entitlement for 165 new hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of office/commercial use allocated to Block 600 is to be transferred to Block 500 for the development of 205,161 sf of office/commercial use in Block 500.The Project does not propose any new land uses, nor any additional intensity of development, not previously permitted and contemplated in the 2006 General Plan for the four sub -areas. As such, the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation The General Plan EIR identifies that construction related emissions could be mitigated but would be expected to remain significant and unavoidable. Future development in North Newport Center consistent with the assumptions of the 2006 General Plan may involve excavation, grading operations, building construction, and demolition of existing structures and pavement. All development will be required to comply with standard construction practices as set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook, including best management practices (BMPs) for the control of emissions. BMPs include control of fugitive dust through watering exposed surfaces, covering exposed ground, and sweeping streets. Additional measures involve construction traffic emission control including ensuring all vehicles and equipment are operating efficiently. It is anticipated that standard control measures would reduce potential impacts of air emissions and odors. Page 4.2-13 of the General Plan EIR states: "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in construction emissions that would contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation." The General Plan EIR evaluated the effects of full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza on air quality and accounted for construction impacts. The General Plan EIR concluded that despite implementation of General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5, which would help to reduce construction -related air quality impacts, the development contemplated in the General Plan would result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-5 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR The General Plan notes that the implementation of General Plan land uses is not expected to expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. This impact was determined to be less than significant for all uses in the City. As such, this conclusion would also be applicable to the North Newport Center Project. Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People Odors can occur from construction activities related to the operation of construction vehicles and the application of architectural coatings. Odors can also occur from operation of uses such as restaurants, manufacturing facilities, etc. The General Plan EIR notes uses such as restaurants are typically required to have ventilation systems; trash receptacles are required by City and Health Department regulations. The General Plan EIR states that "Consequently, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant." (See page 4.2-17). No land uses or activities would be permitted in the North Newport Center District that would result in changes in the conclusions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Climate Change The proposed North Newport Center Project serves to implement the principal goals of the 2006 General Plan. These goals and policies include the following :4 • A successful mixed-use district that integrates an economic and commercial center serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. • Provide the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2. • Provide the opportunity for an additional anchor tenant, other retail, and/or entertainment and supporting uses that complement, are integrated with, and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. • Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. • Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. • Encourage that new development in Fashion equivalent or higher design quality than existing promenades by encouraging retail expansion visibility to the promenades and provides an experience. 4 Ibid., pages 3-97 to 3-98. Island complement and be of buildings. Reinforce the existing that enhances the storefront enjoyable retail and pedestrian F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-6 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Full implementation of entitlements for Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza consistent with the 2006 General Plan will assist the City in achieving its General Plan goals. Regarding long- term air quality impacts, the General Plan EIR states that the nature of Newport Center has the capacity to contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled because the project area promotes a mixed-use, pedestrian -friendly district.5 The Project is not expected to result in any climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions beyond the impacts of the development set forth in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of future development in the City, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed above, the Project would not generate any new air quality impacts not already identified in the General Plan EIR. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. With respect to global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, no "new information of substantial importance" on climate change is now available that was not known and could not have been known when the City approved the General Plan EIR in 2006. For example, in 1979, the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. The State of California adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Consideration of strategies to control emissions of greenhouse gases which may contribute in some manner to global climate change is under consideration at all regulatory levels; however, there is no one agency responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, and there are no established standards to evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the most common greenhouse gas emissions are from vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption. These issues have been addressed in General Plan EIR. Analyses prepared for or by California State Agencies on climate change issues do not provide for the provision of specific measures to incorporate into particular projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, except for generalized recommendations about such matters as encouraging jobs/housing proximity. The California Energy Commission recently explained that accessibility and mixed use are two factors that reduce vehicles trips, which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in California.6 The Project's incremental contribution to any cumulative global climate change impact is mitigated by various characteristics of the Project that serve to render its contribution less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main concerns raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would serve to potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase those vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project would allow for City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.2-12. s California Energy Commission, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals, Draft, June 26, 2007, pages 7, 17-19. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-7 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR in -fill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips. Mitiaation Proaram Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact of increased population on implementation of the AQMP; to reduce cumulative impacts associated with construction emissions; or to reduce operational activities. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or the CDFG or USFWS • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-8 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Biological resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Have a Substantial Adverse Effect, Either Directly or Indirectly Through Habitat Modifications, On Any Species Identified as a Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, or the CDFG or USFWS Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Any Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Identified in Local or Regional Plans, Policies, Regulations or By the CDFG or USFWS Have a Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined By Section 404 Of The Clean Water Act (Including, But Not Limited To, Marsh, Vernal Pool, Coastal, Etc.) Through Direct Removal, Filling, Hydrological Interruption, or Other Means Interfere Substantially With the Movement of Any Native Resident or Migratory Fish or Wildlife Species or With Established Native Resident or Migratory Wildlife Corridors, or Impede the Use of Native Wildlife Nursery Sites Conflict with Any Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources, Such As a Tree Preservation Policy or Ordinance Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are located within Newport Center, a built urban environment. Landscaped areas within Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza include non-native landscape materials including turf, trees, and plants. No wetlands or riparian habitat community exist in the sub -areas. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified by the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a species for concern because the site has been developed for the past 40 years and contains no habitat suitable for wildlife. Landscaping may be removed as a result of future development. The General Plan EIR notes that development could result in the removal of mature trees that may be used as perching and nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors. The General Plan EIR identifies mitigation associated with this potential impact and states "With compliance with these policies, impacts would be less than significant...." The County of Orange Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) surveyed and mapped habitat vegetation and species throughout the County, including the four sub -areas. No candidate, sensitive or special status species were F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-9 Environmf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR identified in the vicinity of the site.' Additionally, North Newport Center is identified as having no conservation value and is not included in the NCCP or HCP. The General Plan EIR analyzes the potential biological effects associated with buildout of the 2006 General Plan, including Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. These sites would be required to comply with applicable 2006 General Plan policies regarding biological resources. Pages 4.3-22, 4.3-24, and 4.3-27 of the Biological Resources Analysis in the General Plan EIR address development in Newport Center, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Page 4.3-27 identifies that that the 2006 General Plan policies ensure that build -out consistent with the General Plan would not impact native, resident, or migratory wildlife species or corridors. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would mitigate biological resources impacts to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it would result in any of the following: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries" 7 U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, EIR, and EIS -County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion, May 1996. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-10 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Cultural resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource as Defined In Section 15064.5 The four sub -areas of the North Newport Center PC District are not identified as a historic area or an area containing historical resources by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The Project would not result in any adverse physical or aesthetic effects to any building, structure, or object having historical, cultural, or religious significance. As such, no historic resources would be impacted by the Project. Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of an Archaeological Resource Pursuant To Section 15064.5 Disturb Any Human Remains, Including Those Interred Outside of Formal Cemeteries The General Plan EIR notes that ground -disturbing activities can damage or destroy archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources. The 2006 General Plan contains policies to ensure the protection of such resources. The General Plan EIR states that "...implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies would ensure that impacts to archaeological and Native American cultural resources would be less than significant...." (See page 4.4-16) The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Directly or Indirectly Destroy a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site or Unique Geologic Feature Paleontological resources may be present in fossil -bearing soils and rock formations below the ground surface. Ground -disturbing activities in these soils and formations have the potential to damage or destroy these resources. The General Plan EIR states that compliance with General Plan policies "...would reduce this impact to a less -than -significant level by ensuring that paleontological resources would be subject to scientific recovery and evaluation..." (See page 4.4-17) The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-11 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, and human remains could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.6 GEOLOGY. SOILS. AND MINERAL RESOURCES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant impact if the project would: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving - Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault - Strong seismic ground shaking - Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction - Landslides • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of top soil • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State • Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-12 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Summary Analvsis Expose People or Structures to Potential Substantial Adverse Effects, Including the Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death Involving the Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault, Strong Ground Shaking, Seismic -Related Ground Failure, or Landslides The General Plan EIR notes that there are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City; no impact would result. Policies are provided in the 2006 General Plan to ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized. Moderate to large earthquakes would cause ground shaking in Newport Center, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Compliance with regulations and policies of the General Plan EIR would "...ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less -than - significant level." With respect to seismic -related ground failure, none of Newport Center is in an identified liquefaction area. Result In Substantial Soil Erosion or the Loss of Top Soil With respect to top soil, the General Plan EIR notes that most of the City is built out and top soil is not an issue. With respect to soil erosion, shoreline areas and coastal bluffs are highly susceptible to erosion from wave action and stream erosion. The four sub -areas are not located near the coast or bluff areas. All demolition and construction activities are required to comply with the California Building Code and other regional and local regulations (e.g., State Water Resources Control Board provisions) that require the implementation of measures to reduce soil erosion. The General Plan EIR identifies that potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Be Located on Expansive Soil, as Defined In Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), Creating Substantial Risks to Life or Property The General Plan EIR considered buildout of the City, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza in its geology analysis. Page 4.5-13 of the General Plan EIR discusses the General Plan Update's concentration of development in areas including Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza, and notes that the impact is considered less than significant. All four sub -areas have been subject to development which has required the analysis of soil conditions. With respect to soil characteristics, the certified Final EIR for the Island Hotel (formerly Four Seasons), dated October 21, 1983, discussed geology and soils in Newport Center. The Final EIR states that Newport Center is: ...part of an uplifted marine terrace of Pleistocene age. The marine terrace soils are composed essentially of weakly cemented to loose sands and silty sands which in parts of Newport Center reach a depth of as much as 50 feet. The upper one to two feet of this material have weathered to form a moderately expansive, clayey soil. The Pleistocene sediments are underlain by clay shales, clay siltstones, and sandstones of Miocene age, Monterey Formation. Because policies of the General Plan require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units, the General Plan EIR found that the potential impact was less than significant. The Uniform Building Code and California Building Code include regulations governing F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-13 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR seismically resistant construction and construction to protect people and property from construction and building hazards. Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource That Would Be Of Value to the Region and the Residents of the State Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource Recovery Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of value to the region or the State. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to geology and soils could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No mineral resources were identified. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact to the public or the environment through hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in any of the following: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-14 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment • For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hazards and hazardous material -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Create a Significant Hazard to the Public or the Environment through the Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Emit Hazardous Emissions or Handle Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials, Substances, or Waste within One -Quarter Mile of an Existing or Proposed School Be Located on a Site Which Is Included On A List Of Hazardous Materials Site Compiled Pursuant To Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a Result, Would Create a Significant Hazard To The Public Or The Environment Impair Implementation Of or Physically Interfere With an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan The General Plan EIR acknowledges that implementation of the 2006 General Plan land uses would result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. The General Plan also notes that construction activities can result in the exposure of hazardous materials (e.g., lead-based paint and asbestos). The City contains sites that have been identified as being contaminated by the release of hazardous substances into the soil; sites containing leaking underground storage tanks; and large and small generators of hazardous materials. The General Plan EIR notes that projects are required to comply with existing regulations and General Plan policies to protect construction workers and the public. Potential impacts were determined to be less than significant. Future development in North Newport Center could require the demolition of structures. Demolition and construction activities on the four sub -areas would also be subject to compliance with these regulations and policies. The Island Hotel (formerly Four Seasons) in Block 600 is listed as having a leaking underground storage tank (LUST).$ A remediation plan has been submitted to the Orange County Local Ibid., Table 4.6-5. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-15 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Oversight Program (Local Lead Agency) and to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. The conclusion of this effort is pending. The contaminant identified is diesel fuel. None of the leaks that have been reported in the City have impacted a drinking source of groundwater. As with all development in the City, the Project must comply with existing regulations and General Plan policies regarding hazardous materials. General Plan Policy S 7.3 educates residents and businesses about reducing or eliminating their use of hazardous materials. Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials and comply with applicable law. The General Plan EIR notes that increased population and development could result in congested traffic conditions. The 2006 General Plan identifies policies to ensure that the city's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and ensures that emergency service personnel are knowledgeable of the relevant response plans for the City. Such information is also distributed through the community. General Plan policies for handling emergencies would reduce hazardous materials impacts due to growth to a less than significant level. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk of Loss, Injury or Death Involving Wildland Fires, Including Where Wildlands Are Adjacent To Urbanized Areas or Where Residences Are Intermixed With Wildlands North Newport Center is not susceptible to wildland fires; the four sub -areas are completely surrounded by existing urban development. For a Project Located Within an Airport Land Use Plan, or Where Such a Plan has Not Been Developed, Within Two Miles Of a Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Result In a Safety Hazard For People Residing Or Working In The Project Area The four sub -areas are identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. However, the AELUP requires that zone changes for consistent agencies be referred to the ALUC for a determination prior to City action. Therefore, the zone change has been forwarded to the ALUC, and a hearing is scheduled prior to public hearings before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone. Within this zone, notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction or alteration to any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or alteration of a building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard must be obtained from the FAA. A determination of No Hazard is the FAA's independent finding that a proposed structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation. The PC Text requires that any structure above 200 feet will be forwarded to the FAA for their independent analysis. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following conditions are included in the North Newport Center PC Text relating the adherence to the AELUP and FAA restrictions: F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-16 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR For development of structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level at a development site, applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA (FAA Form 7460-1). Following the FAA's Aeronautical Study of a project, the project must comply with conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA. Subsequent to the FAA findings, the City shall refer the project to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County for consistency analysis. 2. No buildings within the Fashion Island/Block 500/Block 600/San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community area should penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 imaginary obstruction surface for John Wayne Airport. 3. Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA (Form 7460-1) for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level. Level of Sianificance After Mitiaation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to hazards and hazardous materials relevant to the Project could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality, as well as the City's storm drain system, if it would result in any of the following: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-17 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality • Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map • Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows • Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam • Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow" EIR No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hydrology and water quality impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality The General Plan EIR notes that the implementation of development set forth in the 2006 General Plan could result in an increase in pollutants in storm water and wastewater. However, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated with compliance with regulations including but not limited to the State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit and preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Permit and regulation compliance would be required for future development projects within Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code ensures compliance with federal water quality standards. The Municipal Code also regulates grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control. All construction and development must comply with applicable federal, State, and City laws. Also, General Plan Update policies "would reduce the risk of water degradation from the operation of new developments to the maximum extent practicable."9 The impact of development under the General Plan Update would be less than significant. As identified in the General Plan EIR, Policy NR 3.16 Street Drainage Systems states "Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize 9 Ibid., page 4.7-32. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-18 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR impacts to water bodies."10 General Plan Policy LU 2.8, Adequate Infrastructure, states "Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on)." The General Plan EIR concludes that impacts are less than significant. General Plan Update Policies "would ensure that new development can be adequately supported by utilities such as storm drainage infrastructure. 02 Impacts are less than significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially With Groundwater Recharge Such That There Would Be A Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of the Local Groundwater Table The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the General Plan could create additional impervious surfaces which could interfere with groundwater recharge. The General Plan EIR goes on to note that, however, intensification of development would not affect groundwater recharge. As the four sub -areas are currently developed, there would be no substantive change in the amount of impervious surfaces. The EIR finds that "new development would not substantially affect groundwater recharge. Potential impacts to groundwater recharge would be less than significant." 13 The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Require or Result In the Construction and/or Expansion of New Storm Drain Infrastructure That Would Cause Significant Environmental Effects On a citywide basis, the General Plan EIR notes that buildout may require the expansion of storm drains or the construction of new storm drain infrastructure. The existing site drainage has been designed to handle run off from existing structures on the four sub -areas. As future site- specific development is proposed, drainage plans will be developed. The General Plan EIR contains policies that ensure that new development can be adequately supported by utilities such as storm drain infrastructure. The General Plan EIR states "It is not anticipated that this construction of necessary storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts separate from the General Plan Update." (See page 4.7-37) The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially Alter The Existing Drainage Pattern Of The Site Or Area, Including Through The Alteration of The Course Of A Stream Or River, Or Substantially Increase The Rate Or Amount Of Surface Runoff In A Manner Which Would Result In Flooding On- Or Off -Site Place Housing within a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area as Mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or Other Flood Hazard Delineation Map 10 Ibid., page 4.14-45. 11 Ibid., page 4.14-34. 12 Ibid., page 4.7-36. 13 Ibid., page 4.7-33. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-19 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Place Within a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area Structures Which Would Impede or Redirect Flows Expose People or Structures to A Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving Flooding, Including Flooding As A Result Of A Levee or Dam Expose People or Structures to Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow While the General Plan EIR identifies areas of the City that would be vulnerable to flooding and coastal wave systems, the Project is not located in a flood hazard zone 14 nor is it proximate to the Pacific Ocean. No impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to hydrology and water quality could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states: "Implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on land use and planning if it would result in any of the following: • Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses Physically divides an established community • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect 14 Ibid., Figure 4.7-3 Flood Zones. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-20 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analvsis Intensify Development within the Planning Area that Creates Incompatibilities with Adjacent Land Uses Conflict with any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy, Or Regulation Of An Agency With Jurisdiction Over The Project (Including, But Not Limited To The General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program, Or Zoning Ordinance) Adopted For The Purpose Of Avoiding Or Mitigating An Environmental Effect The General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses may result in new uses and structures at an increased intensity that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. These incompatibilities can result from factors including differences in scale of development, noise and traffic levels, and hours of operation. Conflicts can also occur where mixed use development occurs. Newport Center/Fashion Island is a location in the City identified for mixed use development. The General Plan EIR describes this area as: Newport Center/Fashion Island is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, hotel, and residential uses in a master planned mixed use development. Fashion Island, a regional shopping center, forms the nucleus of Newport Center, and is framed by this mixture of office, entertainment, and residential. New land uses in this subarea include additional commercial uses (approximately 430,000 square feet), approximately 600 multi -family residential units [reduced to 450 units in Final Program EIR] and approximately 250 additional hotel rooms. Residential units have existed in this area since the 1970's, and increased through the 1990s. No conflicts of use between the residential and commercial uses have existed previously in this area, as evidenced by the lack of complaints by area residents. Goals and policies contained in the proposed General Plan Update would serve to promote a mixed use, pedestrian -friendly district for this subarea that would continue commercial and residential uses. Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts. Goals contained in the proposed General Plan Update related to mixed use development (Goal 5.3) specifically articulate that such development should promote compatibility among uses. General Plan Policy LU 5.3.1 calls for the consideration of compatibility issues in project design of mixed use development. Thus, mixed use development under the proposed General Plan Update would be, by design, compatible with adjacent non-residential uses. 15 As previously noted in this Addendum, Fashion Island is a regional commercial center with retail uses, restaurants, bars, and theater/nightclubs. Block 500 includes office, administrative, professional, and financial uses. Block 600 includes hotel, office, administrative, professional and financial uses, and accessory uses. San Joaquin Plaza includes business and professional 15 Ibid., page 4.8-11. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-21 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR office uses. In addition to these four sub -areas, Newport Center includes the following sub- areas and land uses: Block Land Use 100 administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses 200 administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses 300 administrative and professional offices, limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses 400 medical -related offices, short-term convalescent and long-term care services, professional offices, retail and other similar uses. 700 regional commercial office and multi -family residential 800 regional commercial office and multi -family residential 900 multi -family housing, visitor serving land uses Land uses outside of Newport Center include single-family and multi -family residences and a golf course in Big Canyon located north of Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza and across San Joaquin Hills Road. Single-family and multi -family residences and general commercial land uses are located east of Newport Center across MacArthur Boulevard. Parks/recreational land uses and single-family residences are located south of Newport Center, across Coast Highway. Open space, single-family residences, visitor -serving commercial and parks/recreational land uses are located west of Newport Center, across Jamboree Road. The General Plan land use designation for Fashion Island is Regional Commercial (CR). Page 3-13 of the 2006 General Plan states that the CR designation "...is intended to provide retail, entertainment, service, and supporting uses that serve local and regional residents." The land use designations for Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are Mixed Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) and Open Space (OS). As identified in the 2006 General Plan, "The MU -H3 designation applies to properties located in Newport Center. It provides for the horizontal intermixing of regional commercial office hotel, multi -family residential and ancillary commercial uses."16 Page 3-16 of the 2006 General Plan states that the OS designation "...is intended to provide areas for a range of public and private uses to protect, maintain, and enhance the community's natural resources." As a part of the proposed project, Block 600 would be rezoned from Administrative, Professional, and Financial (APF) and Open Space (OS) to Planned Community (PC). The North Newport Center PC Text would be adopted to incorporate Fashion Island, Block 600, and portions of Block 500 and San Joaquin Plaza owned by the Applicant into a single Planned Community District. The PC Text would reflect the land uses permitted for these sub -areas under the 2006 General Plan. The General Plan EIR states the following with respect to changes in land use for Newport Center and Fashion Island under the General Plan Update: The Plan allows for expanded retail opportunities at Fashion Island, including an additional anchor department store and ancillary shops, another hotel or additions to existing hotels, and 600 additional housing units [reduced to 450 in Final 16 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, page 3-15. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-22 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Program EIR]... Plan policies encourage improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities connecting the area's diverse districts. 17 Areas where mixed use development is currently located (e.g., Balboa Peninsula, Mariners' Mile and Newport Center/Fashion Island), would be allowed to develop with more mixed use ... In many locations, the addition of uses similar to existing uses would occur. For instance, additional retail facilities would be permitted in the Fashion Island/Newport Center Area... Where additional development that is the same as or similar to existing development could occur, these uses would be compatible. 18 As previously addressed, the four sub -areas are identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. However, the AELUP requires that zone changes for consistent agencies be referred to the ALUC for a determination prior to City action. Therefore, the zone change has been forwarded to the ALUC, and a hearing is scheduled prior to public hearings before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. As noted, the General Plan EIR does not identify land use incompatibilities for Newport Center, inclusive of the four sub -areas of the Project. The Project is proposed to provide for zoning consistent with the 2006 General Plan land use designations for the four sub -areas. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Physically Divides an Established Community The General Plan EIR notes that the 2006 General Plan allows for "...limited infill development in select subareas within the City ... These types of proposed development would not divide established communities. Impacts would be less than significant." (See 4.8-16) With respect to the Project, future development in the four sub -areas would not require the extension of roadways or other development features through developed areas that could physically divide the established community. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan As previously addressed, North Newport Center is identified as having no conservation value and is not included in the NCCP or HCP. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. 17 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page 3-15. 18 Ibid., page 4.8-9. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-23 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Level of Sianificance After Mitiaation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to land use impacts pertaining to the Project could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.10 NOISE The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states "...implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse noise impact if it would result in any of the following: • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Noise impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-24 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Summary Analvsis Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels In Excess Of Standards Established In the Local General Plan or Noise Ordinance, or Applicable Standards of Other Agencies A Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity Above Levels Existing Without The Project The General Plan EIR identifies that locations throughout the City would experience changes in noise levels as a result of increased motor vehicles and development. Where existing land uses would be exposed to noise levels exceeding the City's noise standards as a result of future growth, the General Plan EIR identifies this as a significant impact. (See 4.9-22) Figure 4.9-5 of the General Plan EIR identifies that the four sub -areas would be located within 60 CNEL to 65 CNEL future noise contours. These noise contours do not account for any intervening structures or other noise -attenuating features. Additionally, measures for noise attenuation where needed to comply with the City's noise standards are available and include the use of walls, berms, building insulation, double paned windows, etc. Traffic -related noise in the project vicinity has the potential to impact the four sub -areas. The General Plan EIR accounts for noise impacts due to new development under the General Plan Update. The EIR states that new development, "...would result from adoption of the proposed General Plan and regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the proposed General Plan policies, especially those associated with Goal N-2 (Transportation Noise) would reduce this impact."19 The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels The General Plan EIR notes that vibration levels during construction that would exceed 72 vibration decibels (VdB) are considered significant. Such an impact would be specific to a construction site and would be dependent on the types of construction equipment in use and proximity to sensitive receptors and uses. Where construction activities that generate high levels of vibration could not be buffered from sensitive receptors and/or uses by approximately 150 feet, the General Plan EIR identifies that a significant impact would occur. With respect to the four sub -areas, there is a potential for such construction activities to occur under these conditions. As such, consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, such an impact would be significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. A Substantial Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long term. Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. 19 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.9-42. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-25 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Generally, construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment (including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators) and construction activities can reach high levels. The greatest construction noise levels are typically generated by heavy construction equipment. The City's Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from the noise level limits during specific hours of the day. Noise -generating construction activities are permitted during the hours between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM Monday through Friday, between 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or federal holidays. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance is considered to result in no significant short-term noise impacts. For A Project Within An Airport Land Use Plan, Or Where Such A Plan Has Not Been Adopted, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Exposure Of People Residing Or Working In The Project Area To Excessive Noise Levels As previously noted, Newport Center, inclusive of the four sub -areas, is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. However, the site is not within the either the AELUP 60 or 65 CNEL Noise Contour, and flight operations would not contribute significantly to the overall existing noise exposure on the site. No significant impacts on persons residing or working in the project area are anticipated as a result of project implementation because land use within the planning area boundaries of the AELUP must conform to noise standards, safety, and height restriction standards. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to noise impacts related to John Wayne Airport and construction activities could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Groundborne construction vibrations and long-term exposure to increased noise levels were identified to remain significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-26 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR 3.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states "...implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on population and housing if it would result in any of the following: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure) • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Population and housing impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Induce Substantial Population Growth in Proposing New Homes and Businesses) Extension of Roads or Other Infrastructure) an Area, Either Directly (For Example, By or Indirectly (For Example, Through the The General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. On a citywide basis, residential development would increase the number of units by 9,549 units (24 percent) over 2002 residential unit counts with a related population increase of 20,912 residents. These increases would exceed the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections. On a citywide basis, the City's projected population growth was considered significant. On a cumulative basis (countywide), the General Plan EIR noted that "...the proposed project would not result in substantial population growth beyond projections, and would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly." (See pages 4.10-5 and -6) Buildout of the 2006 General Plan was found to have a less than significant cumulative contribution to growth in the County. (See pages 4.10-6 and -7) The General Plan EIR analysis was based on a project with 600 units in Newport Center. The adopted 2006 General Plan allows for the development of 450 residential units within the MU - H3 designation.20 Of the 450 units, 430 units are proposed for the North Newport PC District. Residential uses are permitted in Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The Project does not include a request for site-specific development, including any residential development. As such, the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 20 City of Newport Beach, General Plan, July 25, 2006, page 3-97. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-27 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere Displace Substantial Numbers of People, Necessitating the Construction of Replacement Housing Elsewhere The General Plan EIR states that the 2006 General Plan would not displace a substantial number of existing homes or residents and that no impact would occur. Development on the four sub -areas would not require the displacement of any existing homes or residents. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program No policies were identified in the 2006 General Plan to reduce the substantial increase in growth in the City. Measures were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with resource impacts with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.12 PUBLIC SERVICES The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It identifies that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on public services if it would result in any of the following: • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, or schools or libraries; the need for new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, or schools or libraries; the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public service impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-28 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Summary Analysis Result in Substantial Adverse Environmental Impacts Associated with the Provision of New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Protection Facilities, or Schools or Libraries; the Need For New or Physically Altered Fire or Police Protection Facilities, or Schools or Libraries; The Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, in Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios, Response Times, And Other Performance Objectives Fire Protection Fire stations are located throughout the City to provide prompt assistance to area residents. Each fire station operates within a specific district that comprises the immediate geographical area around the station. As identified on page 4.11-3 of the General Plan EIR, Station 3 serves Newport Center. Station 3 has the following equipment and manpower: one Fire Chief; one fire engine with one Captain, one Engineer, and one Firefighter; one ladder truck with one Captain, one Engineer, and one Firefighter; and one paramedic van with two Firefighter Paramedics. The General Plan EIR states that in 2004, "eight fire stations serving the City of Newport Beach responded to a total of 8,863 incidents, which results in an average of about 1,107 incidents per station... These numbers are well within the number of calls recommended by the Insurance Service Office (ISO) when rating a community for fire insurance rates. Specifically, the ISO recommends that a second company be put in service in a fire station if that station receives more than 2,500 calls per year." The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could increase the demand for fire protection services which could result in the need for additional fire facilities. Policies of the General Plan require that adequate infrastructure be provided with new development. As such, the General Plan EIR found that compliance with applicable regulations and policies of the 2006 General Plan would ensure that project -specific and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. All new development that would occur under the 2006 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services, including adequate fire access, fire flows, and number of hydrants. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Police Protection The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could increase the demand for police protection services which could result in the need for additional police facilities. The General Plan EIR states that, "The NBPD provides local police services to the City of Newport Beach. Centrally located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, the NBPD provides services in crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services such as traffic control ."21 The EIR also states that the City of Newport Beach currently maintains an acceptable level of service and there are currently no immediate or near -future plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory. Impacts to police services as a result of General Plan build -out would be less than significant because the "General Plan Update contains policies to ensure that adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development. For example, Policy LU 2.8 ensures that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's Public Services should be accommodated. Compliance with 21 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page 4.11-13. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-29 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR this policy would ensure that adequate service ratios are maintained."22 Therefore, adequate service ratios are currently being provided and would be maintained as a result of General Plan policies. As such, the General Plan EIR found that compliance with applicable regulations and policies of the 2006 General Plan would ensure that project -specific and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Schools The Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan EIR identifies that the School District serves the majority of the City and has 32 public schools including 22 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 5 high schools, 2 alternative education centers, and 1 adult school. There are also several private schools in the City or local area that are available to the City's residents for educational services. According to NMUSD administrators, current school capacity is adequate. NMUSD does not currently identify any projected needs. The General Plan EIR states: In the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in the construction of approximately 14,215 dwelling units over existing conditions within the City. The increase in dwelling units would increase enrollment in the local schools serving Newport Beach. Using California Department of Finance population projections, and assuming that approximately 20 percent of the potential increase in population would represent children attending grades K through 12, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an enrollment increase of approximately 6,230 students (3,115 elementary school students, 1,557 students for middle schools, and 1,558 high school students ).23 The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan would likely result in the construction of new school facilities for NMUSD; these impacts would be less than significant on a project and cumulative basis.24 The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Library Facilities The Newport Beach Public Library provides library services and resources to the City of Newport Beach. The Central Library, which occupies four acres on Avocado Avenue near Newport Center, is a 15,305 square foot building that serves as a school library as well as a public library. As stated in the General Plan EIR, Upon full build -out of the proposed General Plan Update, the population in the Planning Area would increase by 31,131. This increase in residents would increase the demand for library services and facilities. Policy LU 2.8 of the proposed General Plan Update would help ensure that adequate library facilities 22 Ibid., page 4.11-16. 23 Ibid., page 4.11-23. 24 Ibid., page 4.11-24. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-30 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR are provided to the City's residents and that public services can adequately support new development... Due to the growing need for electronic resources, former service standards (e.g., a certain number of volumes per thousand residents) are no longer appropriate when assessing the needs of the NBPL. Therefore, increased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space.25 The General Plan EIR identifies that the increase in population associated with the 2006 General Plan, inclusive of uses in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza, would not result in a significant impact to library services. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to public services would be less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.13 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states that"... implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on parks and recreational facilities if it would result in any of the following: • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant 25 Ibid., page 4.11-28. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-31 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Park and recreational facility impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Increase the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational Facilities Such That Substantial Physical Deterioration of the Facility Would Occur or Be Accelerated Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities That Might Have an Adverse Physical Effect on the Environment Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts Associated With the Provision of New or Physically Altered Government Services, Need for New or Physically Altered Government Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts, in Order to Maintain Acceptable Service Ratios or Other Performance Objectives for Parks The General Plan EIR identifies that the City has a deficiency of approximately 38.8 acres of park acreage, with 7 of 12 service areas experiencing a deficit of recreational acreage. Newport Center is in Service Area 9 and has 19 acres of existing parks, an excess of 8.1 acres of parks over the City standard of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. Page 4.12-3 of the General Plan EIR identifies that a planned park in Newport Center "would help alleviate the citywide park deficit" although Newport Center has a park surplus. The Back Bay View Park was completed in 2005, and a new passive park, Newport Center Park, is planned for development. The General Plan EIR states that "the construction and enhancement of park and recreational facilities and implementation of the goals and policies proposed in the General Plan would ensure that increased demand and use resulting from an increase in citywide population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities.,' 26 The General Plan EIR notes the open space benefits that the Applicant has provided through the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). Page 4.12-4 states: Some of the City's parks and open space areas consist of dedicated lands through the Circulation and Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA). This agreement is between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company, and has allowed building entitlements for The Irvine Company in exchange for payments for circulation projects, an interest free loan, and land for open space and potential senior housing sites for the City. The amount of open space land dedication was substantially more than what would have been required under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. Six sites have been dedicated under CIOSA in Newport Beach, and include: Back Bay View Park, Newport Center Park (formerly Newport Village), Newporter Knoll, Freeway Reservation, Upper Castaways, and Harbor Cove. Another site, located at Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard, has been offered for 26 Ibid., page 4.12-15. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-32 Environmf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR dedication and will be dedicated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for final CIOSA project. The Applicant did not implement all of the development that was allowed pursuant to CIOSA, and provided more park and open space dedication than required for the development that was completed. Through the Development Agreement, the Project includes cancellation of CIOSA. The demand for park facilities that would have resulted from unbuilt entitlement in CIOSA would not be realized. As with new development projects throughout the City, future development in the four sub -areas would be required to comply with the 2006 General Plan Update policies on open space. Through the Development Agreement, the Project includes the payment of park in -lieu fees for 430 residential units, with half the total amount ($5,600,000) to be paid earlier than required. The General Plan EIR finds that compliance with General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts to parks and recreational facilities. These policies include the requirement that future development dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, and require the use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Update Policies R1.1 and R2.1).27 General Plan Policy R 1.10 includes three planned parks in West Newport, Newport Center, and Newport Coast. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. 3.14 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It states that"... implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation or circulation if it would result in any of the following: 27 Ibid., page 4.12-17. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-33 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) • Result in inadequate emergency access • Result in inadequate parking capacity • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Transportation impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Cause an Increase in Traffic Which is Substantial in Relation to the Existing Traffic Load and Capacity of The Street System (i.e., Result In A Substantial Increase in Either the Number of Vehicle Trips, the Volume to Capacity Ratio on Roads, or Congestion at Intersections) The General Plan EIR identifies that implementation of the 2006 General Plan could result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity on roadways, and congestion at intersections when compared to existing conditions in the City. Deficiencies could also occur at freeway segments and ramps. Volume 1A of the General Plan Final EIR identifies that the traffic study accounts for use of currently unused development entitlements. On page 4.13-1 of the General Plan EIR, the traffic analysis assumes buildout of the City, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza, consistent with the 2006 General Plan. However, improvements are identified in the General Plan Circulation Element to mitigate citywide impacts to a level that is considered less than significant. However, the City's roadway system must also accommodate regional cumulative vehicular traffic. With improvements identified in the Circulation Element, cumulative impacts to intersection operations can be mitigated to a less than significant level. However, the City's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with freeway segments and ramps would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project is not expected to be completed within 60 months of approval, and it includes a circulation improvement plan, explained in detail in the Development Agreement. The Project therefore qualifies as a Phased Land Use Development and Circulation Improvement Plan F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-34 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Municipal Code §15.40.030.6.2. A traffic study has been prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and "feasible mitigation" (consistent with the 2006 General Plan Circulation Element) is part of the Project. The following provides a summary of the North Newport Center Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2007. The study is included in its entirety as Appendix A. The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic study included the analysis of 40 intersections in the City including 5 intersections on Newport Center Drive using the City's required TPO procedure. This procedure includes both a one percent test and, where necessary, an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis. Consistent with the City's TPO analysis guidelines, the Project is analyzed under short-range conditions (existing volumes plus a regional growth factor and approved projects) without and with cumulative projects (i.e., projects reasonably expected to be complete within one year after project completion which are located within the City of Newport Beach or its Sphere of Influence). Trip Generation Distribution and Analysis. The applicable trip rates and incremental trip generation for the Project is presented in Table 2. The increase in traffic includes a credit for the removal of existing uses. The Project is forecast to generate a net increase over existing of 348 trips in the AM peak hour, 311 trips in the PM peak hour, and 2,399 daily trips. TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total TRIP RATES (ITE) Residential DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Quality Restaurant TSF 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 89.95 Shopping Center TSF 0.19 0.12 0.31 0.77 0.84 1.61 16.79 Office (Regression Eq)' TSF 0.95 0.13 1.08 0.19 0.93 1.12 7.07 Health Club TSF 0.51 0.70 1.21 2.07 1.98 4.05 32.93 TRIP GENERATION Existing Uses to be Removed Block 600 Quality Restaurant 16.4 TSF 11 2 13 83 41 123 1,479 Office 8.3 TSF 8 1 9 2 8 10 59 Health Club 17.3 TSF 9 12 21 36 34 70 570 Total Credit -28 -15 -43 -121 -83 -203 -2,108 Proposed Uses Block 500 Office 205.2 TSF 195 27 222 39 191 230 1,451 Block 600 Residential 430 DU 26 120 146 103 60 163 1,797 Fashion Island Shopping Center 75.0 TSF 14 9 23 58 63 121 1,259 Total Proposed Trips 235 156 391 200 314 514 4,507 NET INCREASE 207 141 348 79 231 311 2,399 Trip rates per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equations to the existing (408 TSF) and proposed future (614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rates based on the square footage increment (206 TSF). F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-35 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2007 For trip distribution, an internal capture rate of 10 percent was used for residential and retail uses. This rate was determined based on ITE's recommended procedure and is consistent with the City's General Plan EIR traffic study, which used a 10 percent capture rate for mixed use areas. For the office space, a five percent internal capture rate was used. A separate trip assignment was prepared for each of the three separate uses (retail/shopping center, residential, and office) in the Project. These assignments, shown by individual uses in Figures A-1 through A-3 in Appendix A, are as follows: 1. North on MacArthur Boulevard 20-40 percent 2. North on Jamboree Road 15-30 percent 3. West on Coast Highway 15-30 percent 4. East on Coast Highway 10 percent One Percent Analysis. The results of the TPO One Percent Analysis are presented in Table 3. This analysis identifies the intersections where the Project adds one percent or more to the background peak hour volume, in which case a more vigorous capacity analysis is performed. Opening year for the Project is assumed to be 2009; therefore, the project year for this analysis is 2010. Table 3 identifies that 39 traffic study area intersections have increases of one percent or greater of existing -plus -approved or existing -plus -approved -plus -cumulative volumes during the AM or PM peak hour. As a result, further analysis is required and a peak hour ICU analysis was conducted for the 39 locations. TABLE 3 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-36 Environmf Intersection AM Peak Hour Project Volumes Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes NB SB EB WB w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 1. MacArthur & Campus 8 20 0 0 No No 2. MacArthur & Birch 8 20 20 0 No No 3. MacArthur & Von Karman 8 20 0 0 No No 4. Jamboree & Campus 8 20 0 0 Yes Yes 5. Jamboree & Birch 8 20 0 0 Yes Yes 6. MacArthur & Jamboree 8 20 8 20 No No 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) 0 0 32 0 No No 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) 29 20 0 0 No No 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) 26 20 31 0 No No 10. Jamboree & Bayview 30 52 0 0 No No 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/University 35 52 0 0 No No 12. Jamboree & Bison 42 53 0 1 No No 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 42 54 0 0 No No 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0 54 0 42 No No 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 1 0 0 17 No No 16. Jamboree & Coast Highway 0 17 30 15 No No 17. MacArthur & Bison 33 61 6 21 No No 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon 39 80 0 0 No No 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 1 0 1 82 1 40 0 1 No No F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-36 Environmf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 3 (Continued) ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Intersection NB AM Peak Hour Project Volumes SB EB WB Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 20. MacArthur & San Miguel 1 0 11 7 No No 21. MacArthur & Coast Highway 0 11 2 19 No No 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 35 0 54 7 No No 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 36 0 49 4 No No 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills 0 9 0 0 No No 25. Avocado & San Miguel 49 8 10 9 No No 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 11 18 No No 27. Newport & Coast Highway 0 10 11 18 No No 28. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 22 26 No No 29. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 22 26 No No 30. Dover/Bayshore & Coast Highway 0 9 22 32 No No 31. Bayside & Coast Highway 0 0 31 32 No No 32. Newport Center & Coast Highway 0 9 29 1 No No 33. Avocado & Coast Highway 0 7 28 18 No No 34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway 0 0 14 19 No No 35. Marguerite & Coast Highway 0 0 14 19 No No 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 0 0 2 1 No No 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center 1 2 0 0 No No 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 6 30 0 0 No No 39. Newport Center & San Miguel 3 17 2 0 No No 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center 0 1 0 10 No No Intersection NB PM Peak Hour Project Volumes SB EB WB Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 1. MacArthur & Campus 21 6 0 0 No No 2. MacArthur & Birch 21 6 0 0 No No 3. MacArthur & Von Karman 21 6 0 0 No No 4. Jamboree & Campus 21 6 0 0 Yes Yes 5. Jamboree & Birch 21 6 0 0 No No 6. MacArthur & Jamboree 21 6 21 6 No No 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) 0 0 18 0 Yes Yes 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) 58 6 0 0 No No 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) 28 6 15 0 No No 10. Jamboree & Bayview 57 25 0 0 No No 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/University 59 25 0 2 No No 12. Jamboree & Bison 62 27 0 5 No No 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 62 32 0 0 No No 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0 32 0 62 No No 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 6 0 0 5 Yes Yes 16. Jamboree & Coast Highway 0 5 13 31 No No 17. MacArthur & Bison 84 21 3 11 No No 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon 86 28 0 2 No No 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 0 30 87 0 No No 20. MacArthur & San Miguel 4 0 9 0 Yes Yes F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-37 Environmf Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 3 (Continued) ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS ICU Analysis. The results of the ICU analysis are presented in Table 4. A significant project impact is defined as an increase of 0.01 or more in the ICU value at an intersection that reaches LOS E or F. Examination of the results shows that the Project would result in a significant impact at three locations under existing -plus -approved -plus -cumulative conditions. These three locations with their respective with -project ICU values are: Intersection Intersection Project Increment AM Peak Hour Project Volumes Project Increment Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes NB SB EB WB w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 21. MacArthur & Coast Highway 0 3 15 2 Yes Yes 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 14 0 32 48 No No 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 59 0 10 14 No No 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills 6 0 0 0 Yes Yes 25. Avocado & San Miguel 10 58 1 0 No No 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 8 15 Yes Yes 27. Newport & Coast Highway 0 4 8 15 Yes Yes 28. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 13 27 Yes Yes 29. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 13 27 No Yes 30. Dover/Bayshore & Coast Highway 0 1 13 37 No Yes 31. Bayside & Coast Highway 0 0 13 37 No No 32. Newport Center & Coast Highway 0 0 7 17 Yes Yes 33. Avocado & Coast Highway 0 48 2 0 No No 34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway 0 0 18 2 Yes Yes 35. Marguerite & Coast Highway 0 0 18 2 No Yes 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 0 0 9 9 No No 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center 9 9 0 0 No No 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 26 15 0 0 No No 39. Newport Center & San Miguel 10 0 16 0 No No 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center 1 9 0 0 No No Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., 2007 ICU Analysis. The results of the ICU analysis are presented in Table 4. A significant project impact is defined as an increase of 0.01 or more in the ICU value at an intersection that reaches LOS E or F. Examination of the results shows that the Project would result in a significant impact at three locations under existing -plus -approved -plus -cumulative conditions. These three locations with their respective with -project ICU values are: Intersection AM Project Increment PM Project Increment 19. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road 0.73 0.040 0.93 0.027 34. Goldenrod Avenue and Coast Highway 0.91 0.006 0.85 0.005 34. Marguerite Avenue and Coast Highway 1 0.98 1 0.006 1 0.92 1 0.006 In summary, the Project would cause three traffic study area locations to exceed the TPO standard of LOS D. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The Project would also allow for the transfer of some existing and entitled uses in Block 600 and replace it with office uses in Block 500. As part of the proposed transfer of uses, the Applicant and the City wish to reserve 72,000 sf of the office use for a possible new City Hall in Block 500. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-38 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR The transfer of development rights within Newport Center is allowed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 provided the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. A Trip Transfer Study was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. in November 2007 to examine the conversion and transfer of the entitled uses into equivalent office uses on the basis of a PM peak hour trip generation equivalency basis. The study is summarized below and included in Appendix A. The transfer would allow for existing uses including a health club, restaurant, and office as well as remaining, but as yet unused entitlement for hotel uses in Block 600, with office use in Block 500. Existing uses in Block 600 equal 42,036 sf of office, restaurant and, health club uses. The unused entitlement in Block 600 is 195 hotel rooms. These entitled uses in Block 600 could be replaced in Block 500 with office use, 72,000 sf of which may be used for a new City Hall. The analysis is based upon use of the worst-case PM peak hour trip rates. Rates for the analysis were taken from the ITE 7t" Edition Trip Generation publication. The trips generated by the uses proposed to be eliminated are presented in Table 5. As indicated, the uses included as the basis of the proposed transfer are projected to generate 339 PM peak hour trips. A potential new City Hall of 72,000 sf would generate 108 peak hour trips (based on a rate of 1.5 trips per 1,000 square feet [TSF]) leaving 231 trips, which can be allocated toward other uses. These 231 PM peak hour trips equate to 206,000± sf of office use based on a trip rate of 1.12 trips/TSF. The Project consists of 205,161 sf of office space in Block 500. Therefore, the total PM peak hour trip generation associated with the converted uses proposed for Block 500 would be 338 trips. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-39 Environm( Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 4 ICU SUMMARY Location Existing Existing + Growth + Approved Existing + Growth + Approved + Project Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1. MacArthur & Campus .50 .74 .51 .74 .51 .74 .53 .74 1 .53 .74 2. MacArthur & Birch .62 .75 .64 .77 .64 .77 .67 .79 .67 .79 3. MacArthur & Von Karman .32 .74 .33 .76 .33 .76 .38 .80 .38 .81 5. Jamboree & Birch .56 .64 .58 .67 .58 .67 .60 .70 .60 .71 6. MacArthur & Jamboree .68 .76 .71 .79 .71 .80 .78 .85 .78 .86 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) .57 .66 .59 .67 .59 .67 .59 .67 .59 .67 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) .57 .53 .58 .56 .59 .56 .59 .59 .60 .59 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) .66 .67 .68 .70 .68 .71 .70 .74 .70 .75 10. Jamboree & Bayview .36 .51 .38 .54 .39 .54 .40 .56 .41 .57 11. Jamboree & University .57 .59 .60 .63 .61 .63 .64 .69 .64 .69 12. Jamboree & Bison .50 .56 .52 .60 .53 .61 .57 .64 .58 .65 13. Jamboree & Ford .65 .69 .68 .73 .69 .74 .72 .80 .73 .81 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .57 .58 .60 .63 .61 .64 .64 .67 .65 .68 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .49 .70 .51 .73 .52 .73 .55 .77 .56 .77 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy .66 .69 .69 .74 .69 .75 .77 .89 .77 .89 17. MacArthur & Bison .60 .66 .61 .67 .62 .68 .64 .71 .65 .71 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn .72 .78 .73 .79 .74 .81 .78 .86 .78 .87 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .65 .82 .67 .85 .69 .87 .71 .90 .73 .93* 20. MacArthur & San Miguel .44 .71 .44 .73 .45 .73 .47 .77 .47 .77 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy .71 .64 .73 .66 .74 .66 .84 .79 .85 .79 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .29 .28 .29 .28 .31 .29 .29 .28 .32 .30 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .31 .44 .32 .46 .34 .47 .35 .50 .37 .51 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills .38 .61 .38 .62 .38 .62 .40 .65 .40 .65 25. Avocado & San Miguel .48 .76 .48 .77 .51 .78 .48 .78 .52 .79 26. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy .70 .72 .73 .79 .73 .79 .75 .86 .75 .86 27. Newport & Coast Hwy .77 .68 .80 .73 .80 .73 .82 .77 .83 .77 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy .73 .79 .79 .84 .79 .85 .82 .88 .82 .89 FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-40 Environmental Analysis Addendum to City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 4 (Continued) ICU SUMMARY FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-41 Environmental Analysis Existing + Growth + Existing + Growth + Existing + Growth Existing + Growth + Approved + Approved + Existing + Approved Approved + Project Cumulative Cumulative + Project Location AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy .73 .59 .79 .63 .80 .63 .82 .69 1 .83 .70 30. Dover & Coast Hwy .67 .74 .70 .79 .71 .79 .73 .84 .74 .85 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy .73 .64 .79 .72 .79 .73 .81 .76 .82 .77 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .36 .53 .37 .55 .37 .55 .46 .62 .46 .62 33. Avocado & Coast Hwy .49 .60 .50 .62 .53 .62 .60 .72 .62 .73 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy .73 .68 .75 .70 .76 .71 .91 .87 .92* .87 35. Marguerite & Coast Hwy .79 .73 .81 .75 .82 .76 .97 .91 .98 .92* 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .14 .23 .14 .23 .14 .23 .14 .23 .14 .23 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .12 .21 .12 .21 .12 .22 .12 .21 .12 .22 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .15 .25 .15 .25 .16 .24 .16 .26 .16 .26 39. Newport Center & San Miguel .22 .41 .22 .41 .22 .41 .22 .42 .23 .42 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center .22 .43 .22 .43 .22 .43 .22 .43 .22 .43 * Indicates significant project impact Level of service ranges: .00-60 .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D 91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2007. FAUSERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-41 Environmental Analysis Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR TABLE 5 CONVERTED USES In summary, the currently entitled uses in Block 600 (i.e., 195 hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of health club, retail, and office uses) proposed for transfer to Block 500 equate to 339 PM peak hour trips. These 339 trips would match the amount of PM peak hour trips projected to be generated by a new 72,000 sf City Hall plus another 205,161 sf of office use. Therefore, the proposed transfer of development rights would not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exceed, Either Individually or Cumulatively, a Level of Service Standard Established By the County Congestion Management Agency for Designated Roads or Highways The General Plan EIR identifies that all Congestion Management Plan arterials in the City would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS E or better) with implementation of the 2006 General Plan. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result In A Change In Air Traffic Patterns, Including Either An Increase In Traffic Levels Or A Change In Locations That Results In Substantial Safety Risks As previously addressed in this Addendum, the four sub -areas are in the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport. The ALUC has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone. Within this zone, notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction or alteration to any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or alteration of a building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-42 Environm( PM PM Use (Entitled in Block 600) Peak Hour Rate Peak Trips Hotel (195 Rooms) — Unbuilt Entitlement 0.70 (ITE 310)' 136 Family Fitness (17,300b sf) — Existing 4.05 (ITE 492)c 70 Palm Gardens (16,447b sf) — Existing 7.49 (ITE 931)d 123 Eliminated Office (6,789b sf) — Existing 1.12 (ITE 710)' 8 Eliminated Office (1,500 sf) — Existing 1.12 (ITE 710)' 2 Total 339 Use (Proposed in Block 500) Office (205,161 sf) 1.12 (ITE 710)' 230 City Hall (72,000 sf) 1.50 (ITE 750)' 108 Total 338 a Hotel (rates applied for each occupied room) b Per building permit information c Health Club (rates per TSF) d Quality Restaurant (rates per TSF) e Trip rate per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equation to the existing (408 TSF) and proposed future (614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rate based on the square footage increment (206 TSF) f Closest ITE rate (in both function and magnitude) to match the GP assumption for City Hall trip generation. Source: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2007 In summary, the currently entitled uses in Block 600 (i.e., 195 hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of health club, retail, and office uses) proposed for transfer to Block 500 equate to 339 PM peak hour trips. These 339 trips would match the amount of PM peak hour trips projected to be generated by a new 72,000 sf City Hall plus another 205,161 sf of office use. Therefore, the proposed transfer of development rights would not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exceed, Either Individually or Cumulatively, a Level of Service Standard Established By the County Congestion Management Agency for Designated Roads or Highways The General Plan EIR identifies that all Congestion Management Plan arterials in the City would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS E or better) with implementation of the 2006 General Plan. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result In A Change In Air Traffic Patterns, Including Either An Increase In Traffic Levels Or A Change In Locations That Results In Substantial Safety Risks As previously addressed in this Addendum, the four sub -areas are in the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport. The ALUC has found the City of Newport Beach to be a consistent agency with the AELUP. Additionally, the four sub -areas are within the AELUP Height Restriction Zone. Within this zone, notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for construction or alteration to any building more than 200 feet above ground level. Prior to construction or alteration of a building more than 200 feet above ground level a Determination of No Hazard F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-42 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR must be obtained from the FAA. A determination of No Hazard is the FAA's independent finding that a proposed structure will not pose a hazard to air navigation. The PC Text requires that any structure above 200 feet will be forwarded to the FAA for their independent analysis. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As set forth in the General Plan EIR, impacts to John Wayne Airport operations with implementation of the 2006 General Plan are less than significant. Substantially Increase Hazards Due To A Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves Or Dangerous Intersections) Or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment) The General Plan EIR notes that site-specific projects are not addressed in the 2006 General Plan. As such, it would speculative to determine if any particular project would be designed in a manner to cause safety hazards. The General Plan EIR does identify that none of the circulation improvements identified in the EIR would introduce safety hazards and would not result in significant impacts. With respect to the four sub -areas, as currently developed areas, it is expected that future development consistent with the 2006 General Plan would use the existing roadway system and as such would not cause safety hazards. Any traffic improvements for the Project are consistent with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR, and as noted above, would not result in significant impacts. . The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in Inadequate Emergency Access As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan EIR notes that increased population and development could result in congested traffic conditions. The 2006 General Plan identifies policies to ensure that the city's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and ensures that emergency service personnel are knowledgeable of the relevant response plans for the City. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that traffic impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result In Inadequate Parking Capacity The General Plan EIR does not identify Newport Center as an area of the City with limited parking availability. The North Newport Center Project, as with other projects in the City, would be required to comply with parking requirements identified in the City's Municipal Code. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with Adopted Policies, Plans, Or Programs Supporting Alternative Transportation (e.g., Bus Turnouts, Bicycle Racks) The 2006 General Plan Circulation Element includes policies related to transportation systems management, transportation demand management, etc. These policies encourage alternative modes of transportation. The General Plan EIR notes that implementation of the 2006 General Plan will not result in significant impacts. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-43 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. The following mitigation would also be required for the Project: At MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the Applicant shall construct a third eastbound left -turn lane. The intersection would operate at LOS D with the recommended improvement. This improvement is consistent with the General Plan. Consistent with the TPO, this improvement will be completed early in the development phasing (i.e., before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first building [other than a parking structure]) constructed as part of the Project, but in no event later than 60 months from the operative date of the Development Agreement. 2. The Applicant shall work with the City on design and development of circulation enhancements in the North Newport Center area, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element, including widening of Avocado Avenue between San Miguel Drive and San Nicolas Drive, dedication of public right-of-way and enhancement of San Miguel Drive between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, and installation of traffic signals on Newport Center Drive. Level of Significance After Mitigation At the two other impacted intersections (Goldenrod Avenue at Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue at Coast Highway), there are no feasible improvements available, a fact which has been recognized and accepted in the 2006 General Plan and General Plan EIR which accepts LOS E at these two intersections. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that traffic impacts related to intersections, Congestion Management Plan arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking would be less than significant with mitigation. No feasible mitigation has been identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce impacts to freeway mainlines and ramps; this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-44 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR 3.15 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR. It identifies that implementation of the proposed General Plan Update may have a significant adverse impact on utilities and service systems if it would result in any of the following: • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply or wastewater facilities, or new energy or natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board • Would the project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs • Would the project fail to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Utility and service system impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analvsis Require or Result in the Construction and/or Expansion of Water Supply or Wastewater Facilities, or New Energy or Natural Gas Production or Transmission Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available To Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements and Resources, or Are New and Expanded Entitlements Needed Water Supply and Treatment The General Plan EIR notes that buildout of the 2006 General Plan could require the construction of new and/or expanded water treatment plants or water conveyance systems, and that water demand may exceed existing water entitlements. Three sources provide water service to the City of Newport Beach: the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD). Water supplied by the City is purchased from two sources. Groundwater is purchased from the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water is purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The water supply assessment conducted for the General Plan EIR assumed full buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses, inclusive of Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Page 4.14-20 of the General Plan EIR states: MWDOC, the City's provider of imported water, IRWD, and Mesa have each indicated they can accommodate the additional demand from the proposed General Plan Update in addition to future growth assumed in the respective F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-45 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR UWMPs [Urban Water Management Plans]. In addition, the implementation of conservation measures would be required on a project -specific basis and water shortage contingency plans would further reduce additional water demand. Finally, future development is required to adhere to Section 10910 of the California Water Code. Therefore, the cumulative impact to water supply would be less than significant. In addition to MWDOC, IRWD and Mesa, OCWD projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach .28 The General Plan EIR concluded that there is sufficient water supply to meet the needs of the City. The General Plan EIR also addressed potential affects of new development on groundwater supplies and concluded that impacts will be less than significant due to conservation policies in the 2006 General Plan. The City's Water Supply Plan accounted for the demand associated with buildout of the 2006 General Plan land uses. The 2006 General Plan includes policies to conserve water and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply. Citywide, projects inclusive of development in the four sub -areas are required to comply with the City's fair share requirements and with General Plan Update policies on water conservation. Compliance makes impacts less than significant. The General Plan EIR states: "...any request for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site-specific evaluation of the existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements."29 General Plan Update goals and policies promote water conservation and limit water consumption. As such, impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR states that Additional development accommodated under the proposed General Plan Update would increase water use within the City, thus increasing the need for water treatment services... [the Metropolitan Water District] MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030 ... any request for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site-specific evaluation of the existing water system's capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements.so Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant because General Plan Update Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. As such, adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all development assumed in the 2006 General Plan, inclusive of the four sub -areas. The General Plan EIR finds that "...because future development under the proposed General Plan Update would be required to adhere to existing regulations and the proposed policies identified above, no impact would result." (See 4.14-30) The Project 28 Ibid., page 4.14-8. 29 Ibid., page 4.14-17. 30 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update, July 26, 2006, page 4.14-17. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-46 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) provides natural gas service for the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan EIR states: Any expansion of service necessitated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be in accordance with SCGC's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Because the natural gas demand projected for the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed available or planned supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would result.31 The Project is expected not to have a significant impact on natural gas supplies because natural gas demand projected for General Plan buildout, inclusive of the four sub -areas, would not exceed available or planned supply and because new infrastructure would not be needed to serve the four sub -areas. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements of the Applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Require or Result in the Construction and/or Expansion of Water Supply or Wastewater Facilities, or New Energy or Natural Gas Production or Transmission Facilities, the Construction of Which Could Cause Significant Environmental Impacts Have Sufficient Water Supplies Available To Serve the Project from Existing Entitlements and Resources, or Are New and Expanded Entitlements Needed Sewer Systems Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The General Plan EIR identifies that a majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2; flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar Freeway (State Rout 73) are pumped to Plant No. 1. The General Plan EIR states: ...policies under the proposed General Plan Update require the renovation of all older sewer pump stations and the installation of new plumbing according to most recent standards, and implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update policies requires adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents. Therefore, impacts to the wastewater treatment facilities associated with increased growth in the City would be less than significant.32 31 Ibid., page 4.14-50. 32 Ibid., page 4.14-32. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-47 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Impacts from implementation of the 2006 General Plan, inclusive of the Project, are expected to have a less than significant impact to sewer systems because implementation of the Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan, in conjunction with General Plan policies relating to sewer systems, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Would the Project be Served by a Landfill with Insufficient Permitted Capacity to Accommodate the Project's Solid Waste Disposal Needs Would the Project Fail to Comply With Applicable Federal, State, and Local Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste Solid Waste Disposal As noted in the General Plan EIR, the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill serves the City, and states: The increase in solid waste generated by the development under the proposed General Plan Update would not exceed capacity of the landfill. In addition, AB 939 mandates the reduction of solid waste disposal in landfills. Consequently, this analysis assumes a worst-case scenario, as it is anticipated that at least approximately 50 percent of the estimated increase in solid waste generation could be diverted (or approximately 10,830 tons/year). Therefore, the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased development within the City under the proposed General Plan Update.ss Citywide buildout under the 2006 General Plan assumptions would not have an impact on solid waste generation or disposal at the Bowerman Landfill. However, on a cumulative basis, the General Plan EIR "without approved specific plans for substantial expansion of the landfill facilities that serve the County, solid waste generation from approved and foreseeable cumulative projects in the project area vicinity would exacerbate regional landfill capacity issues in the future." 34 Cumulative impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. The Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in Fashion Island, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that all utility and service system impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the exception of cumulative impacts to landfill capacity; this impact remains significant and unavoidable. 33 Ibid., page 4.14-44. 34 Ibid., page 4.14-45. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs-2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-48 Environm( Addendum to Citv of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR Finding of Consistency With General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the North Newport Center Project does not propose substantial changes to the project; no substantial changes would occur which would require major revisions to the General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed since the certification of the General Plan EIR. F:\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2007\PA2007-151\2007-12-11 CC\Draft Addendum -1 1 1907.doc 3-49 Environm( APPENDIX A TRAFFIC STUDIES FINAL City of Newport Beach NORTH NEWPORT CENTER TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC STUDY Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714) 667-0496 November 6, 2007 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC STUDY A project comprised of 430 residential dwelling units in Block 600, 205,161 square feet (sf) of office space in Block 500, and 75,000 sf of retail shopping center space in Fashion Island is proposed within Newport Center. In addition, a total of 42,036 sf of existing office, restaurant, and health club uses will be removed from Block 600. ANALYSIS A Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic study was conducted for the proposed project. A total of 40 intersections within the City including five intersections on Newport Center Drive (the interior ring road around Fashion Island) were examined using the City's required TPO procedure. This procedure includes both a one percent test and, where necessary, an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis. Consistent with the City's TPO analysis guidelines, the project is analyzed under short-range conditions (existing volumes plus a regional growth factor and approved projects) without and with cumulative projects (i.e., projects reasonably expected to be complete within one year after project completion which are located within the City of Newport Beach or its sphere of influence). Trip Generation Distribution and Analysis The applicable trip rates and incremental trip generation for the proposed project is presented in Table 1. The increase in traffic includes a credit for the proposed removals of existing uses. The proposed project is forecast to generate a net increase over existing of 348 trips in the AM peak hour, 311 trips in the PM peak hour, and 2,399 trips daily. For trip distribution, an internal capture rate of 10 percent was utilized for the residential and retail uses. This rate was determined based on ITE's recommended procedure (see calculations in Appendix) and is consistent with the City's General Plan traffic study, which also utilizes 10 percent for mixed use areas. For the office space, a five percent internal capture rate was utilized. North Newport Center 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc North Newport Center 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Table 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out I Total In Out Total TRIP RATES (ITE) Residential DU 0.06 0.28 0.34 0.24 0.14 0.38 4.18 Quality Restaurant TSF 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 89.95 Shopping Center TSF 0.19 0.12 0.31 0.77 0.84 1.61 16.79 Office (Regression Eq)* TSF 0.95 0.13 1.08 0.19 0.93 1.12 7.07 Health Club TSF 0.51 0.70 1.21 2.07 1.98 4.05 32.93 TRIP GENERATION Existing Uses to be Removed Block 600 Quality Restaurant 16.4 TSF 11 2 13 83 41 123 1,479 Office 8.3 TSF 8 1 9 2 8 10 59 Health Club 17.3 TSF 9 12 21 36 34 70 570 Total Credit -28 -15 -43 -121 -83 -203 -2,108 Proposed Uses Block 500 Office 205.2 TSF 195 27 222 39 191 230 1,451 Block 600 Residential 430 DU 26 120 146 103 60 163 1,797 Fashion Island Shopping Ctr 75.0 TSF 14 9 23 58 63 121 1,259 Total Proposed Tris 235 156 391 200 314 514 4,507 NET INCREASE 207 141 348 79 231 311 2,399 * Trip rates per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equations to the existing (408 TSF) and proposed future (614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rates based on the square footage increment (206 TSF). North Newport Center 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc A separate trip assignment was prepared for each of the three separate uses (retail/shopping center, residential, and office) in the proposed project. These assignments, shown by individual uses in Figures A-1 through A-3 in the Appendix, are basically as follows: 1. North on MacArthur Boulevard 20-40 percent 2. North on Jamboree Road 15-30 percent 3. West on Coast Highway 15-30 percent 4. East on Coast Highway 10 percent One Percent Analysis The results of the TPO One Percent Analysis are listed in Table 2. This analysis identifies the intersections where the project adds one percent or more to the background peak hour volume, in which case a more vigorous capacity analysis is performed. Opening year for the project is assumed to be 2009; therefore, the project year for this analysis is 2010. Examination of Table 2 reveals that 39 study intersections showed increases of one percent or greater of existing -plus -approved or existing -plus - approved -plus -cumulative volumes during the AM or PM peak hour. As a result, further analysis is required and a peak hour ICU analysis was conducted for the 39 locations. ICU Analysis The results of the ICU analysis are presented in Table 3. A significant project impact is defined as an increase of .01 or more in the ICU value at an intersection that reaches LOS "E" or "F". Examination of the results shows that the project causes a significant impact at three locations under existing -plus -approved -plus -cumulative conditions. These three locations with their respective with - project ICU values are: Intersection AM Project Increment PM Project Increment 19. MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road .73 .040 .93 .027 34. Goldenrod Avenue and Coast Highway .91 .006 .85 .005 34. Marguerite Avenue and Coast Highway .98 .006 .92 .006 North Newport Center 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Table 2 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Intersection NB AM Peak Hour Project Volumes SB EB WB Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 1. MacArthur & Campus 8 20 0 0 No No 2. MacArthur & Birch 8 20 20 0 No No 3. MacArthur & Von Karman 8 20 0 0 No No 4. Jamboree & Campus 8 20 0 0 Yes Yes 5. Jamboree & Birch 8 20 0 0 Yes Yes 6. MacArthur & Jamboree 8 20 8 20 No No 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) 0 0 32 0 No No 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) 29 20 0 0 No No 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) 26 20 31 0 No No 10. Jamboree & Bayview 30 52 0 0 No No 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Universi 35 52 0 0 No No 12. Jamboree & Bison 42 53 0 1 No No 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 42 54 0 0 No No 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0 54 0 42 No No 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 1 0 0 17 No No 16. Jamboree & Coast Highway 0 17 30 15 No No 17. MacArthur & Bison 33 61 6 21 No No 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon 39 80 0 0 No No 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 0 82 40 0 No No 20. MacArthur & San Miguel 1 0 11 7 No No 21. MacArthur & Coast Highway 0 11 2 19 No No 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 35 0 54 7 No No 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 36 0 49 4 No No 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills 0 9 0 0 No No 25. Avocado & San Miguel 49 8 10 9 No No 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 11 18 No No 27. Newport & Coast Highway 0 10 11 18 No No 28. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 22 26 No No 29. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 22 26 No No 30. Dover/Ba shore & Coast Highway 0 9 22 32 No No 31. Bayside & Coast Highway 0 0 31 32 No No 32. Newport Center & Coast Highway 0 9 29 1 No No 33. Avocado & Coast Highway 0 7 28 18 No No 34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway 0 0 14 19 No No 35. Marguerite & Coast Highway 0 0 14 19 No No 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 0 0 2 1 No No 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center 1 2 0 0 No No 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 6 30 0 0 No No 39. Newport Center & San Miguel 3 17 2 0 No No 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center 0 1 0 10 No No Cont. North Newport Center 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Table 2 (Cont.) SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS Intersection NB PM Peak Hour Project Volumes SB EB WB Less Than 1% of Peak Hour Volumes w/o Cumulative w/Cumulative 1. MacArthur & Campus 21 6 0 0 No No 2. MacArthur & Birch 21 6 0 0 No No 3. MacArthur & Von Karman 21 6 0 0 No No 4. Jamboree & Campus 21 6 0 0 Yes Yes 5. Jamboree & Birch 21 6 0 0 No No 6. MacArthur & Jamboree 21 6 21 6 No No 7. Bayview & Bristol South EB 0 0 18 0 Yes Yes 8. Jamboree & Bristol North WB 58 6 0 0 No No 9. Jamboree & Bristol South EB 28 6 15 0 No No 10. Jamboree & Bayview 57 25 0 0 No No 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Universi 59 25 0 2 No No 12. Jamboree & Bison 62 27 0 5 No No 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 62 32 0 0 No No 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0 32 0 62 No No 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 6 0 0 5 Yes Yes 16. Jamboree & Coast Highway 0 5 13 31 No No 17. MacArthur & Bison 84 21 3 11 No No 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon 86 28 0 2 No No 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 0 30 87 0 No No 20. MacArthur & San Miguel 4 0 9 0 Yes Yes 21. MacArthur & Coast Highway 0 3 15 2 Yes Yes 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 14 0 32 48 No No 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 59 0 10 14 No No 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills 6 0 0 0 Yes Yes 25. Avocado & San Miguel 10 58 1 0 No No 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 0 8 15 Yes Yes 27. Newport & Coast Highway 0 4 8 15 Yes Yes 28. Riverside & Coast Highway 0 0 13 27 Yes Yes 29. Tustin & Coast Highway 0 0 13 27 No Yes 30. Dover/Ba shore & Coast Highway 0 1 13 37 No Yes 31. Bayside & Coast Highway 0 0 13 37 No No 32. Newport Center & Coast Highway 0 0 7 17 Yes Yes 33. Avocado & Coast Highway 0 48 2 0 No No 34. Goldenrod & Coast Highway 0 0 18 2 Yes Yes 35. Marguerite & Coast Highway 0 0 18 2 No Yes 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 0 0 9 9 No No 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center 9 9 0 0 No No 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 26 15 0 0 No No 39. Newport Center & San Miguel 10 0 16 0 No No 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center 1 9 0 0 No No North Newport Center 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Location 1. MacArthur & Campus 2. MacArthur & Birch 3. MacArthur & Von Karman 5. Jamboree & Birch 6. MacArthur & Jamboree 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) 10. Jamboree & Bayview 11. Jamboree & University 12. Jamboree & Bison 13. Jamboree & Ford 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 17. MacArthur & Bison 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 20. MacArthur & San Miguel 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills 25. Avocado & San Miguel 26. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy 27. Newport & Coast Hwy 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy AM .50 .62 .32 .56 .68 .57 .57 .66 .36 .57 .50 .65 .57 .49 .66 .60 .72 .65 .44 .71 .29 .31 .38 .48 .70 .77 .73 .73 PM .74 .75 .74 .64 .76 .66 .53 .67 .51 .59 .56 .69 .58 .70 .69 .66 .78 .82 .71 .64 .28 .44 .61 .76 .72 .68 .79 .59 Table 3 ICU SUMMARY Existing + Growth + Annroved AM PM .51 .74 .64 .77 .33 .76 .58 .67 .71 .79 .59 .67 .58 .56 .68 .70 .38 .54 .60 .63 .52 .60 .68 .73 .60 .63 .51 .73 .69 .74 .61 .67 .73 .79 .67 .85 .44 .73 .73 .66 .29 .28 .32 .46 .38 .62 .48 .77 .73 .79 .80 .73 .79 .84 .79 .63 Existing + Growth + Annroved + Proiect AM PM .51 .74 .64 .77 .33 .76 .58 .67 .71 .80 .59 .67 .59 .56 .68 .71 .39 .54 .61 .63 .53 .61 .69 .74 .61 .64 .52 .73 .69 .75 .62 .68 .74 .81 .69 .87 .45 .73 .74 .66 .31 .29 .34 .47 .38 .62 .51 .78 .73 .79 .80 .73 .79 .85 .80 .63 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PM .53 .74 .67 .79 .38 .80 .60 .70 .78 .85 .59 .67 .59 .59 .70 .74 .40 .56 .64 .69 .57 .64 .72 .80 .64 .67 .55 .77 .77 .89 .64 .71 .78 .86 .71 .90 .47 .77 .84 .79 .29 .28 .35 .50 .40 .65 .48 .78 .75 .86 .82 .77 .82 .88 .82 .69 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Pro'eci AM PM .53 .74 .67 .79 .38 .81 .60 .71 .78 .86 .59 .67 .60 .59 .70 .75 .41 .57 .64 .69 .58 .65 .73 .81 .65 .68 .56 .77 .77 .89 .65 .71 .78 .87 .73 .93* .47 .77 .85 .79 .32 .30 .37 .51 .40 .65 .52 .79 .75 .86 .83 .77 .82 .89 .83 .70 Cont. North Newport Center 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Table 3 (cont) ICU SUMMARY Location AM PM 30. Dover & Coast H .67 .74 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy .73 .64 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .36 .53 33. Avocado & Coast H .49 .60 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy .73 .68 35. Marguerite & Coast H .79 .73 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .14 .23 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .12 .21 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .15 .25 39. Newport Center & San Miguel .22 .41 40. Fashion Island & Newport Center .22 .43 * Indicates significant project impact Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Existing + Growth + Aunroved AM PM .70 .79 .79 .72 .37 .55 .50 .62 .75 .70 .81 .75 .14 .23 .12 .21 .15 .25 .22 .41 .22 .43 Existing + Growth + Aunroved + Proiect AM PM .71 .79 .79 .73 .37 .55 .53 .62 .76 .71 .82 .76 .14 .23 .12 .22 .16 .24 .22 .41 .22 .43 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PM .73 .84 .81 .76 .46 .62 .60 .72 .91 .87 .97 .91 .14 .23 .12 .21 .16 .26 .22 .42 .22 .43 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Pro'eci AM PM .74 .85 .82 .77 .46 .62 .62 .73 .92* .87 .98 .92* .14 .23 .12 .22 .16 .26 .23 .42 .22 .43 North Newport Center 7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc CONCLUSION In summary, it is concluded that the project causes three study locations to exceed the TPO standard of LOS "D". At MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road, the addition of a third eastbound left -turn lane is recommended as mitigation. The intersection will operate at LOS "D" with the recommended improvement. This improvement is consistent with the General Plan. At the two other impacted intersections (Goldenrod Avenue at Coast Highway and Marguerite Avenue at Coast Highway), there are no feasible improvements available, a fact which has been recognized and accepted in the General Plan which accepts LOS "E" at these two intersections. The intersections along Newport Center Drive currently operate at LOS "A" during the AM and PM peak hours. With the addition of project traffic, these intersections will continue to operate at LOS "A" North Newport Center 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc APPENDIX A North Newport Center A-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Table A-1 APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY Approved Projects Fashion Island Expansion Newport Lexus Tem lebat Yahm Expansion Birch Medical Office Complex Ford Redevelopment Saafar Fine Indian Cuisine CIOSA — Irvine Project St. Mark Presbyterian Church Newport Dunes St. Andrews Presbyterian Church 1401 Dove Street Corporate Plaza West 494/496 Old Newport Boulevard Mariner's Mile Gateway 401 Old Newport Boulevard Land Rover NB Service Center Newport Technology Center OLQA Church Expansion 1901 Westcliff Surgical Center 2300 Newport Boulevard Hoag Hospital Phase III Cumulative Projects Mariners Church Newport Ridge Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Hoag Health Center Newport Coast North Newport Center A-2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpo.doc Figure A-1 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION RESIDENTIAL Newport Center Development A-3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-l.dwg Cq�A� a S BIRCH ti no scale W 2 SR' 73 BRISTOL pAUFpRN A O� o Q.P m MESA SJHTG m m Lig Cy 22ND 25% S' 30% z SAN JOAQUIN HILLS — BLOCK 600 BLOCK 500 FASHION 19TH 'ISLAND� /yp0 T GHQ Internal 10% 17TH S� HIGHWAY P o 10% A 2$% gA`(S1UE Figure A-1 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION RESIDENTIAL Newport Center Development A-3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-l.dwg Figure A-2 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION RETAIL Newport Center Development A-4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-2.dwg Cq�A� a S BIRCH ti no scale W 2 SR' 73 BRISTOL pAUFpRN A O� o Q.P m MESA SJHTG m m Lig Cy �Ty�'�i' FORD 22ND 20% w c� 15% z SAN JOAQUIN HILLS — BLOCK 600 BLOCK 500 15% FASHION 19TH 'ISLAND� /yp0 T GHQ Internal 10% 17TH S� HIGHWAY P o G� 10% A 30% gAY51DE Figure A-2 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION RETAIL Newport Center Development A-4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-2.dwg Figure A-3 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION OFFICE Newport Center Development A-5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-3.dwg Cq�A� a S BIRCH ti no scale W 2 SR' 73 BRISTOL pAUFpRN A O� o Q.P m MESA SJHTG m m Lig Cy �Ty�'�i' FORD 22ND 40% c� 25% z SAN JOAQUIN HILLS — BLOCK 600 BLOCK 500 5% FASHION 19TH 'ISLAND� /yp0 T GHQ Internal 5% 17TH S� HIGHWAY P o 10% A 15% gAY51DE Figure A-3 GENERAL PROJECT DISTRIBUTION OFFICE Newport Center Development A-5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Study 017080tpoFigA-3.dwg 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-6 Intersection: 1. MacArthur & Campus Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1000 40 16 0 1056 11 8 Southbound 1478 59 25 0 1562 16 20 Eastbound 1323 0 10 0 1333 13 0 Westbound 368 0 2 0 370 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1361 54 30 0 1445 14 21 Southbound 1905 76 26 0 2007 20 6 Eastbound 993 0 5 0 998 10 0 Westbound 1367 0 6 0 1373 14 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-6 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-7 Intersection: 2. MacArthur & Birch Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1892 57 11 0 1960 20 8 Southbound 1094 33 26 0 1153 12 20 Eastbound 554 0 7 0 561 6 0 Westbound 232 0 0 0 232 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1318 40 17 0 1375 14 21 Southbound 2306 69 28 0 2403 24 6 Eastbound 525 0 14 0 539 5 0 Westbound 937 0 2 0 939 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-7 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-8 Intersection: 3. MacArthur & Von Karman Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1903 76 9 0 1988 20 8 Southbound 627 25 14 0 666 7 20 Eastbound 155 0 5 0 160 2 0 Westbound 302 0 3 0 305 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1014 41 16 0 1071 11 21 Southbound 1097 44 18 0 1159 12 6 Eastbound 640 0 15 0 655 7 0 Westbound 899 0 8 0 907 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-8 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-9 Intersection: 4. Jamboree & Campus Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1520 61 26 0 1607 16 8 Southbound 2134 85 46 0 2265 23 20 Eastbound 290 0 4 0 294 3 0 Westbound 845 0 3 0 848 8 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2025 81 45 0 2151 22 21 Southbound 2413 97 42 0 2552 26 6 Eastbound 1086 0 2 0 1088 11 0 Westbound 769 0 5 0 774 8 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-9 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-10 Intersection: 5. Jamboree & Birch Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1648 66 28 0 1742 17 8 Southbound 2051 82 57 0 2190 22 20 Eastbound 194 0 0 0 194 2 0 Westbound 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1844 74 52 0 1970 20 21 Southbound 2346 94 45 0 2485 25 6 Eastbound 509 0 1 0 510 5 0 Westbound 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-10 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. MacArthur & Jamboree Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1648 49 28 0 1725 17 8 Southbound 2051 62 42 0 2155 22 20 Eastbound 194 6 35 0 235 2 8 Westbound 7 0 56 0 63 1 20 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1844 55 36 0 1935 19 21 Southbound 2346 70 77 0 2493 25 6 Eastbound 509 15 47 0 571 6 21 Westbound 14 0 45 0 59 1 6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-12 Intersection: 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 480 0 0 0 480 5 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound 3107 0 78 0 3185 32 32 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 641 0 0 0 641 6 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound 3057 0 80 0 3137 31 18 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-12 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-13 Intersection: 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 3370 135 52 0 3557 36 29 Southbound 1050 42 51 0 1143 11 20 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2849 114 70 0 3033 30 58 Southbound 1971 79 54 0 2104 21 6 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-13 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-14 Intersection: 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2187 87 75 0 2349 23 26 Southbound 675 27 51 0 753 8 20 Eastbound 2831 0 78 0 2909 29 31 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1958 78 118 0 2154 22 28 Southbound 1241 50 52 0 1343 13 6 Eastbound 3273 0 80 0 3353 34 15 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-14 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-15 Intersection: 10. Jamboree & Bayview Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1935 58 75 0 2068 21 30 Southbound 2006 60 51 0 2117 21 52 Eastbound 88 0 0 0 88 1 0 Westbound 100 0 0 0 100 1 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1758 53 118 0 1929 19 57 Southbound 2383 71 52 0 2506 25 25 Eastbound 399 0 0 0 399 4 0 Westbound 170 0 0 0 170 2 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-15 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-16 Intersection: 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/University Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1718 52 70 0 1840 18 35 Southbound 1669 50 113 0 1832 18 52 Eastbound 534 0 1 0 535 5 0 Westbound 618 0 5 0 623 6 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1678 50 123 0 1851 19 59 Southbound 2477 74 109 0 2660 27 25 Eastbound 351 0 0 0 351 4 0 Westbound 438 0 10 0 448 4 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-16 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-17 Intersection: 12. Jamboree & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1547 46 60 0 1653 17 42 Southbound 1993 60 105 0 2158 22 53 Eastbound 187 0 0 0 187 2 0 Westbound 319 0 5 0 324 3 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1807 54 108 0 1969 20 62 Southbound 2302 69 107 0 2478 25 27 Eastbound 102 0 1 0 103 1 0 Westbound 464 0 6 0 470 5 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-17 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-18 Intersection: 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1762 53 70 0 1885 19 42 Southbound 1769 53 105 0 1927 19 54 Eastbound 742 0 9 0 751 8 0 Westbound 522 0 12 0 534 5 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2355 71 125 0 2551 26 62 Southbound 2225 67 94 0 2386 24 32 Eastbound 533 0 4 0 537 5 0 Westbound 373 0 4 0 377 4 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-18 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-19 Intersection: 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1313 39 163 0 1515 15 0 Southbound 1929 58 275 0 2262 23 54 Eastbound 350 0 0 0 350 4 0 Westbound 182 0 38 0 220 2 42 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1800 54 243 0 2097 21 0 Southbound 2415 72 255 0 2742 27 32 Eastbound 253 0 12 0 265 3 0 Westbound 295 0 98 0 393 4 62 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-19 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-20 Intersection: 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1554 47 53 0 1654 17 1 Southbound 1392 42 123 0 1557 16 0 Eastbound 73 0 6 0 79 1 0 Westbound 146 0 6 0 152 2 17 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1246 37 91 0 1374 14 6 Southbound 2100 63 88 0 2251 23 0 Eastbound 38 0 3 0 41 0 0 Westbound 974 0 8 0 982 10 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-20 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-21 Intersection: 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 488 15 1 0 504 5 0 Southbound 1101 33 106 0 1240 12 17 Eastbound 3049 91 89 0 3229 32 30 Westbound 1252 38 33 0 1323 13 15 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 398 12 3 0 413 4 0 Southbound 2060 62 85 0 2207 22 5 Eastbound 2438 73 121 0 2632 26 13 Westbound 2323 70 63 0 2456 25 31 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-21 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-22 Intersection: 17. MacArthur & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2817 85 2 0 2904 29 33 Southbound 2357 71 5 0 2433 24 61 Eastbound 604 0 7 0 611 6 6 Westbound 694 0 2 0 696 7 21 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2829 85 19 0 2933 29 84 Southbound 3252 98 28 0 3378 34 21 Eastbound 597 0 8 0 605 6 3 Westbound 770 0 1 0 771 8 11 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-22 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-23 Intersection: 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2108 63 8 0 2179 22 39 Southbound 2465 74 11 0 2550 26 80 Eastbound 426 0 4 0 430 4 0 Westbound 1775 0 10 0 1785 18 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2877 86 33 0 2996 30 86 Southbound 3151 95 23 0 3269 33 28 Eastbound 387 0 2 0 389 4 0 Westbound 992 0 12 0 1004 10 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-23 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-24 Intersection: 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1652 50 19 0 1721 17 0 Southbound 2520 76 43 0 2639 26 82 Eastbound 591 0 8 0 599 6 40 Westbound 750 0 8 0 758 8 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2016 60 46 0 2122 21 0 Southbound 2628 79 54 0 2761 28 30 Eastbound 1062 0 55 0 1117 11 87 Westbound 878 0 8 0 886 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-24 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-25 Intersection: 20. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1883 56 8 0 1947 19 1 Southbound 1765 53 7 0 1825 18 0 Eastbound 190 0 5 0 195 2 11 Westbound 426 0 1 0 427 4 7 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1376 41 11 0 1428 14 4 Southbound 2017 61 11 0 2089 21 0 Eastbound 1535 0 29 0 1564 16 9 Westbound 478 0 12 0 490 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-25 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-26 Intersection: 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 908 27 3 0 938 9 11 Eastbound 1842 55 10 0 1907 19 2 Westbound 1986 60 12 0 2058 21 19 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1832 55 4 0 1891 19 3 Eastbound 1864 56 13 0 1933 19 15 Westbound 1929 58 10 0 1997 20 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-26 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-27 Intersection: 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 72 0 4 0 76 1 35 Southbound 55 0 2 0 57 1 0 Eastbound 748 0 2 0 750 8 54 Westbound 495 0 2 0 497 5 7 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 469 0 0 0 469 5 14 Southbound 72 0 2 0 74 1 0 Eastbound 578 0 2 0 580 6 32 Westbound 586 0 2 0 588 6 48 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-27 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-28 Intersection: 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 108 0 26 0 134 1 36 Southbound 115 0 0 0 115 1 0 Eastbound 428 0 20 0 448 4 49 Westbound 1032 0 26 0 1058 11 4 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 567 0 67 0 634 6 59 Southbound 98 0 0 0 98 1 0 Eastbound 729 0 26 0 755 8 10 Westbound 580 0 64 0 644 6 14 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-28 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-29 Intersection: 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 322 0 0 0 322 3 0 Southbound 485 0 0 0 485 5 9 Eastbound 729 0 2 0 731 7 0 Westbound 936 0 4 0 940 9 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 720 0 28 0 748 7 6 Southbound 423 0 15 0 438 4 0 Eastbound 959 0 0 0 959 10 0 Westbound 1115 0 16 0 1131 11 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-29 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-30 Intersection: 25. Avocado & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 392 0 0 0 392 4 49 Southbound 118 0 0 0 118 1 8 Eastbound 208 0 0 0 208 2 10 Westbound 1089 0 0 0 1089 11 9 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 891 0 0 0 891 9 10 Southbound 372 0 0 0 372 4 58 Eastbound 724 0 22 0 746 7 1 Westbound 742 0 16 0 758 8 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-30 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-31 Intersection: 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 618 0 31 0 649 6 0 Southbound 479 0 26 0 505 5 0 Eastbound 3468 139 168 0 3775 38 11 Westbound 849 34 28 0 911 9 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 535 0 10 0 545 5 0 Southbound 1138 0 162 0 1300 13 0 Eastbound 1649 66 73 0 1788 18 8 Westbound 2446 98 62 0 2606 26 15 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-31 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-32 Intersection: 27. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 653 20 49 0 722 7 10 Eastbound 2562 77 7 0 2646 26 11 Westbound 1098 33 27 0 1158 12 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1087 33 118 0 1238 12 4 Eastbound 1534 46 77 0 1657 17 8 Westbound 2411 72 14 0 2497 25 15 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-32 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-33 Intersection: 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 Southbound 401 0 2 0 403 4 0 Eastbound 2392 96 94 0 2582 26 22 Westbound 1309 52 130 0 1491 15 26 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 Southbound 524 0 2 0 526 5 0 Eastbound 1817 73 181 0 2071 21 13 Westbound 2523 101 134 0 2758 28 27 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-33 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-34 Intersection: 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 52 0 0 0 52 1 0 Eastbound 2268 91 86 0 2445 24 22 Westbound 1276 51 55 0 1382 14 26 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 85 0 0 0 85 1 0 Eastbound 1587 63 91 0 1741 17 13 Westbound 2509 100 103 0 2712 27 27 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-34 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-35 Intersection: 30. Dover/Bayshore & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 74 0 0 0 74 1 0 Southbound 976 0 24 0 1000 10 9 Eastbound 2421 73 81 0 2575 26 22 Westbound 1720 52 61 0 1833 18 32 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 119 0 0 0 119 1 0 Southbound 1310 0 41 0 1351 14 1 Eastbound 1630 49 118 0 1797 18 13 Westbound 3341 100 92 0 3533 35 37 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-35 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-36 Intersection: 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 446 0 4 0 450 5 0 Southbound 46 0 62 0 108 1 0 Eastbound 3170 127 71 0 3368 34 31 Westbound 1483 59 39 0 1581 16 32 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 523 0 5 0 528 5 0 Southbound 68 0 100 0 168 2 0 Eastbound 2419 97 91 0 2607 26 13 Westbound 3129 125 56 0 3310 33 37 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-36 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-37 Intersection: 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 128 0 9 0 137 1 9 Eastbound 1905 57 10 0 1972 20 29 Westbound 1447 43 16 0 1506 15 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 680 0 34 0 714 7 0 Eastbound 1874 56 26 0 1956 20 7 Westbound 2041 61 13 0 2115 21 17 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-37 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-38 Intersection: 33. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 305 0 0 0 305 3 0 Southbound 143 0 0 0 143 1 7 Eastbound 1480 59 6 0 1545 15 28 Westbound 1398 56 15 0 1469 15 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 362 0 0 0 362 4 0 Southbound 705 0 1 0 706 7 48 Eastbound 1684 67 11 0 1762 18 2 Westbound 1603 64 7 0 1674 17 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-38 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-39 Intersection: 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 133 0 0 0 133 1 0 Southbound 59 0 1 0 60 1 0 Eastbound 1187 47 6 0 1240 12 14 Westbound 1990 80 10 0 2080 21 19 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 135 0 0 0 135 1 0 Southbound 75 0 0 0 75 1 0 Eastbound 1782 71 8 0 1861 19 18 Westbound 1742 70 7 0 1819 18 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-39 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-40 Intersection: 35. Marguerite & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 249 0 0 0 249 2 0 Southbound 243 0 0 0 243 2 0 Eastbound 1233 49 5 0 1287 13 18 Westbound 1821 73 10 0 1904 19 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 241 0 0 0 241 2 0 Southbound 254 0 0 0 254 3 0 Eastbound 1799 72 7 0 1878 19 14 Westbound 1460 58 7 0 1525 15 19 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-40 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-41 Intersection: 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 223 0 0 0 223 2 0 Southbound 126 0 0 0 126 1 0 Eastbound 227 0 0 0 227 2 2 Westbound 13 0 0 0 13 0 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 291 0 0 0 291 3 0 Southbound 289 0 0 0 289 3 0 Eastbound 267 0 0 0 267 3 9 Westbound 91 0 0 0 91 1 9 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-41 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-42 Intersection: 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 69 0 0 0 69 1 1 Southbound 166 0 0 0 166 2 2 Eastbound 117 0 0 0 117 1 0 Westbound 181 0 0 0 181 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 274 0 0 0 274 3 9 Southbound 255 0 0 0 255 3 9 Eastbound 235 0 0 0 235 2 0 Westbound 299 0 0 0 299 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-42 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-43 Intersection: 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 122 0 0 0 122 1 6 Southbound 313 0 0 0 313 3 30 Eastbound 85 0 0 0 85 1 0 Westbound 274 0 0 0 274 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 278 0 0 0 278 3 26 Southbound 392 0 0 0 392 4 15 Eastbound 214 0 0 0 214 2 0 Westbound 298 0 0 0 298 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-43 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-44 Intersection: 39. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 322 0 0 0 322 3 3 Southbound 130 0 0 0 130 1 17 Eastbound 69 0 0 0 69 1 2 Westbound 377 0 0 0 377 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 376 0 0 0 376 4 10 Southbound 388 0 0 0 388 4 0 Eastbound 390 0 0 0 390 4 16 Westbound 685 0 0 0 685 7 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-44 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-45 Intersection: 40. Newport Center/Fashion Island & Newport Center Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 501 0 0 0 501 5 0 Southbound 15 0 0 0 15 0 1 Eastbound 229 0 0 0 229 2 0 Westbound 121 0 0 0 121 1 10 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 431 0 0 0 431 4 1 Southbound 156 0 0 0 156 2 9 Eastbound 342 0 0 0 342 3 0 Westbound 511 0 0 0 511 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-45 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-46 Intersection: 1. MacArthur & Campus Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1000 40 16 150 1206 12 8 Southbound 1478 59 25 58 1620 16 20 Eastbound 1323 0 10 0 1333 13 0 Westbound 368 0 2 0 370 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1361 54 30 101 1546 15 21 Southbound 1905 76 26 155 2162 22 6 Eastbound 993 0 5 0 998 10 0 Westbound 1367 0 6 0 1373 14 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-46 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-47 Intersection: 2. MacArthur & Birch Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1892 57 11 150 2110 21 8 Southbound 1094 33 26 58 1211 12 20 Eastbound 554 0 7 0 561 6 0 Westbound 232 0 0 0 232 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1318 40 17 101 1476 15 21 Southbound 2306 69 28 155 2558 26 6 Eastbound 525 0 14 0 539 5 0 Westbound 937 0 2 0 939 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-47 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-48 Intersection: 3. MacArthur & Von Karman Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1903 76 9 168 2156 22 8 Southbound 627 25 14 58 724 7 20 Eastbound 155 0 5 0 160 2 0 Westbound 302 0 3 25 330 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1014 41 16 125 1196 12 21 Southbound 1097 44 18 155 1314 13 6 Eastbound 640 0 15 0 655 7 0 Westbound 899 0 8 21 928 9 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-48 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-49 Intersection: 4. Jamboree & Campus Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1520 61 26 173 1780 18 8 Southbound 2134 85 46 71 2336 23 20 Eastbound 290 0 4 0 294 3 0 Westbound 845 0 3 0 848 8 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2025 81 45 119 2270 23 21 Southbound 2413 97 42 179 2731 27 6 Eastbound 1086 0 2 0 1088 11 0 Westbound 769 0 5 0 774 8 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-49 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-50 Intersection: 5. Jamboree & Birch Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1648 66 28 173 1915 19 8 Southbound 2051 82 57 71 2261 23 20 Eastbound 194 0 0 0 194 2 0 Westbound 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1844 74 52 119 2089 21 21 Southbound 2346 94 45 179 2664 27 6 Eastbound 509 0 1 0 510 5 0 Westbound 14 0 0 0 14 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-50 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-51 Intersection: 6. MacArthur & Jamboree Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1648 49 28 166 1891 19 8 Southbound 2051 62 42 82 2237 22 20 Eastbound 194 6 35 174 409 4 8 Westbound 7 0 56 71 134 1 20 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1844 55 36 138 2073 21 21 Southbound 2346 70 77 176 2669 27 6 Eastbound 509 15 47 106 677 7 21 Westbound 14 0 45 179 238 2 6 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-51 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-52 Intersection: 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 480 0 0 0 480 5 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound 3107 0 78 0 3185 32 32 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 641 0 0 0 641 6 0 Southbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound 3057 0 80 0 3137 31 18 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-52 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-53 Intersection: 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 3370 135 52 173 3730 37 29 Southbound 1050 42 51 51 1194 12 20 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2849 114 70 107 3140 31 58 Southbound 1971 79 54 177 2281 23 6 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-53 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-54 Intersection: 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2187 87 75 173 2522 25 26 Southbound 675 27 51 51 804 8 20 Eastbound 2831 0 78 0 2909 29 31 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1958 78 118 107 2261 23 28 Southbound 1241 50 52 177 1520 15 6 Eastbound 3273 0 80 0 3353 34 15 Westbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-54 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-55 Intersection: 10. Jamboree & Bayview Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1935 58 75 173 2241 22 30 Southbound 2006 60 51 51 2168 22 52 Eastbound 88 0 0 0 88 1 0 Westbound 100 0 0 0 100 1 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1758 53 118 107 2036 20 57 Southbound 2383 71 52 177 2683 27 25 Eastbound 399 0 0 0 399 4 0 Westbound 170 0 0 0 170 2 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-55 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-56 Intersection: 11. Jamboree & Eastbluff/University Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1718 52 70 248 2088 21 35 Southbound 1669 50 113 51 1883 19 52 Eastbound 534 0 1 0 535 5 0 Westbound 618 0 5 22 645 6 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1678 50 123 155 2006 20 59 Southbound 2477 74 109 177 2837 28 25 Eastbound 351 0 0 0 351 4 0 Westbound 438 0 10 80 528 5 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-56 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-57 Intersection: 12. Jamboree & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1547 46 60 2112 3765 38 42 Southbound 1993 60 105 73 2231 22 53 Eastbound 187 0 0 0 187 2 0 Westbound 319 0 5 37 361 4 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1807 54 108 132 2101 21 62 Southbound 2302 69 107 257 2735 27 27 Eastbound 102 0 1 0 103 1 0 Westbound 464 0 6 23 493 5 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-57 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-58 Intersection: 13. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1762 53 70 212 2097 21 42 Southbound 1769 53 105 62 1989 20 54 Eastbound 742 0 9 18 769 8 0 Westbound 522 0 12 117 651 7 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2355 71 125 168 2719 27 62 Southbound 2225 67 94 220 2606 26 32 Eastbound 533 0 4 63 600 6 0 Westbound 373 0 4 71 448 4 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-58 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-59 Intersection: 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1313 39 163 178 1693 17 0 Southbound 1929 58 275 103 2365 24 54 Eastbound 350 0 0 0 350 4 0 Westbound 182 0 38 34 254 3 42 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1800 54 243 148 2245 22 0 Southbound 2415 72 255 232 2974 30 32 Eastbound 253 0 12 0 265 3 0 Westbound 295 0 98 20 413 4 62 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-59 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-60 Intersection: 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1554 47 53 178 1832 18 1 Southbound 1392 42 123 94 1651 17 0 Eastbound 73 0 6 0 79 1 0 Westbound 146 0 6 0 152 2 17 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1246 37 91 148 1522 15 6 Southbound 2100 63 88 194 2445 24 0 Eastbound 38 0 3 0 41 0 0 Westbound 974 0 8 0 982 10 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-60 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-61 Intersection: 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 488 15 1 0 504 5 0 Southbound 1101 33 106 94 1334 13 17 Eastbound 3049 91 89 120 3349 33 30 Westbound 1252 38 33 471 1794 18 15 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 398 12 3 0 413 4 0 Southbound 2060 62 85 194 2401 24 5 Eastbound 2438 73 121 390 3022 30 13 Westbound 2323 70 63 317 2773 28 31 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-61 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-62 Intersection: 17. MacArthur & Bison Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2817 85 2 151 3055 31 33 Southbound 2357 71 5 49 2482 25 61 Eastbound 604 0 7 11 622 6 6 Westbound 694 0 2 52 748 7 21 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2829 85 19 93 3026 30 84 Southbound 3252 98 28 170 3548 35 21 Eastbound 597 0 8 37 642 6 3 Westbound 770 0 1 32 803 8 11 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-62 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-63 Intersection: 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2108 63 8 183 2362 24 39 Southbound 2465 74 11 45 2595 26 80 Eastbound 426 0 4 15 445 4 0 Westbound 1775 0 10 222 2007 20 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2877 86 33 145 3141 31 86 Southbound 3151 95 23 155 3424 34 28 Eastbound 387 0 2 54 443 4 0 Westbound 992 0 12 169 1173 12 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-63 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-64 Intersection: 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1652 50 19 145 1866 19 0 Southbound 2520 76 43 99 2738 27 82 Eastbound 591 0 8 46 645 6 40 Westbound 750 0 8 191 949 9 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2016 60 46 183 2305 23 0 Southbound 2628 79 54 190 2951 30 30 Eastbound 1062 0 55 100 1217 12 87 Westbound 878 0 8 139 1025 10 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-64 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-65 Intersection: 20. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1883 56 8 182 2129 21 1 Southbound 1765 53 7 142 1967 20 0 Eastbound 190 0 5 12 207 2 11 Westbound 426 0 1 0 427 4 7 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1376 41 11 205 1633 16 4 Southbound 2017 61 11 182 2271 23 0 Eastbound 1535 0 29 37 1601 16 9 Westbound 478 0 12 0 490 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-65 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-66 Intersection: 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 908 27 3 152 1090 11 11 Eastbound 1842 55 10 145 2052 21 2 Westbound 1986 60 12 474 2532 25 19 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1832 55 4 220 2111 21 3 Eastbound 1864 56 13 456 2389 24 15 Westbound 1929 58 10 286 2283 23 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-66 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-67 Intersection: 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 72 0 4 0 76 1 35 Southbound 55 0 2 10 67 1 0 Eastbound 748 0 2 9 759 8 54 Westbound 495 0 2 41 538 5 7 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 469 0 0 0 469 5 14 Southbound 72 0 2 9 83 1 0 Eastbound 578 0 2 38 618 6 32 Westbound 586 0 2 30 618 6 48 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-67 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-68 Intersection: 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 108 0 26 11 145 1 36 Southbound 115 0 0 15 130 1 0 Eastbound 428 0 20 19 467 5 49 Westbound 1032 0 26 91 1149 11 4 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 567 0 67 42 676 7 59 Southbound 98 0 0 12 110 1 0 Eastbound 729 0 26 47 802 8 10 Westbound 580 0 64 69 713 7 14 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-68 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-69 Intersection: 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 322 0 0 0 322 3 0 Southbound 485 0 0 0 485 5 9 Eastbound 729 0 2 63 794 8 0 Westbound 936 0 4 191 1131 11 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 720 0 28 0 748 7 6 Southbound 423 0 15 0 438 4 0 Eastbound 959 0 0 216 1175 12 0 Westbound 1115 0 16 137 1268 13 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-69 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-70 Intersection: 25. Avocado & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 392 0 0 0 392 4 49 Southbound 118 0 0 0 118 1 8 Eastbound 208 0 0 12 220 2 10 Westbound 1089 0 0 37 1126 11 9 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 891 0 0 0 891 9 10 Southbound 372 0 0 0 372 4 58 Eastbound 724 0 22 37 783 8 1 Westbound 742 0 16 22 780 8 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-70 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-71 Intersection: 26. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 618 0 31 14 663 7 0 Southbound 479 0 26 52 557 6 0 Eastbound 3468 139 168 102 3877 39 11 Westbound 849 34 28 231 1142 11 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 535 0 10 15 560 6 0 Southbound 1138 0 162 221 1521 15 0 Eastbound 1649 66 73 219 2007 20 8 Westbound 2446 98 62 142 2748 27 15 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-71 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-72 Intersection: 27. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 653 20 49 17 739 7 10 Eastbound 2562 77 7 67 2713 27 11 Westbound 1098 33 27 235 1393 14 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1087 33 118 85 1323 13 4 Eastbound 1534 46 77 238 1895 19 8 Westbound 2411 72 14 145 2642 26 15 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-72 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-73 Intersection: 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 Southbound 401 0 2 5 408 4 0 Eastbound 2392 96 94 89 2671 27 22 Westbound 1309 52 130 281 1772 18 26 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 Southbound 524 0 2 4 530 5 0 Eastbound 1817 73 181 327 2398 24 13 Westbound 2523 101 134 195 2953 30 27 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-73 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-74 Intersection: 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 52 0 0 0 52 1 0 Eastbound 2268 91 86 94 2539 25 22 Westbound 1276 51 55 280 1662 17 26 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 85 0 0 0 85 1 0 Eastbound 1587 63 91 332 2073 21 13 Westbound 2509 100 103 197 2909 29 27 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-74 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-75 Intersection: 30. Dover/Bayshore & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 74 0 0 0 74 1 0 Southbound 976 0 24 28 1028 10 9 Eastbound 2421 73 81 94 2669 27 22 Westbound 1720 52 61 360 2193 22 32 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 119 0 0 0 119 1 0 Southbound 1310 0 41 83 1434 14 1 Eastbound 1630 49 118 332 2129 21 13 Westbound 3341 100 92 248 3781 38 37 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-75 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-76 Intersection: 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 446 0 4 0 450 5 0 Southbound 46 0 62 5 113 1 0 Eastbound 3170 127 71 116 3484 35 31 Westbound 1483 59 39 351 1932 19 32 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 523 0 5 0 528 5 0 Southbound 68 0 100 4 172 2 0 Eastbound 2419 97 91 385 2992 30 13 Westbound 3129 125 56 238 3548 35 37 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-76 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-77 Intersection: 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 128 0 9 0 137 1 9 Eastbound 1905 57 10 156 2128 21 29 Westbound 1447 43 16 469 1975 20 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 680 0 34 0 714 7 0 Eastbound 1874 56 26 513 2469 25 7 Westbound 2041 61 13 317 2432 24 17 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-77 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-78 Intersection: 33. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 305 0 0 0 305 3 0 Southbound 143 0 0 0 143 1 7 Eastbound 1480 59 6 156 1701 17 28 Westbound 1398 56 15 469 1938 19 18 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 362 0 0 0 362 4 0 Southbound 705 0 1 0 706 7 48 Eastbound 1684 67 11 513 2275 23 2 Westbound 1603 64 7 317 1991 20 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-78 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-79 Intersection: 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 133 0 0 0 133 1 0 Southbound 59 0 1 0 60 1 0 Eastbound 1187 47 6 159 1399 14 14 Westbound 1990 80 10 502 2582 26 19 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 135 0 0 0 135 1 0 Southbound 75 0 0 0 75 1 0 Eastbound 1782 71 8 527 2388 24 18 Westbound 1742 70 7 317 2136 21 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-79 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-80 Intersection: 35. Marguerite & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2006 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 249 0 0 0 249 2 0 Southbound 243 0 0 3 246 2 0 Eastbound 1233 49 5 159 1446 14 14 Westbound 1821 73 10 515 2419 24 19 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 241 0 0 0 241 2 0 Southbound 254 0 0 13 267 3 0 Eastbound 1799 72 7 527 2405 24 18 Westbound 1460 58 7 324 1849 18 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-80 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-81 Intersection: 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 223 0 0 0 223 2 0 Southbound 126 0 0 0 126 1 0 Eastbound 227 0 0 0 227 2 2 Westbound 13 0 0 0 13 0 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 291 0 0 0 291 3 0 Southbound 289 0 0 0 289 3 0 Eastbound 267 0 0 0 267 3 9 Westbound 91 0 0 0 91 1 9 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-81 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-82 Intersection: 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 69 0 0 0 69 1 1 Southbound 166 0 0 0 166 2 2 Eastbound 117 0 0 0 117 1 0 Westbound 181 0 0 0 181 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 274 0 0 0 274 3 9 Southbound 255 0 0 0 255 3 9 Eastbound 235 0 0 0 235 2 0 Westbound 299 0 0 0 299 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-82 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-83 Intersection: 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2003 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 122 0 0 0 122 1 6 Southbound 313 0 0 0 313 3 30 Eastbound 85 0 0 0 85 1 0 Westbound 274 0 0 0 274 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 278 0 0 0 278 3 26 Southbound 392 0 0 0 392 4 15 Eastbound 214 0 0 0 214 2 0 Westbound 298 0 0 0 298 3 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-83 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-84 Intersection: 39. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 322 0 0 0 322 3 3 Southbound 130 0 0 0 130 1 17 Eastbound 69 0 0 0 69 1 2 Westbound 377 0 0 0 377 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 376 0 0 0 376 4 10 Southbound 388 0 0 0 388 4 0 Eastbound 390 0 0 0 390 4 16 Westbound 685 0 0 0 685 7 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-84 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis A-85 Intersection: 40. Newport Center/Fashion Island & Newport Center Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2007 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 501 0 0 0 501 5 0 Southbound 15 0 0 0 15 0 1 Eastbound 229 0 0 0 229 2 0 Westbound 121 0 0 0 121 1 10 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 431 0 0 0 431 4 1 Southbound 156 0 0 0 156 2 9 Eastbound 342 0 0 0 342 3 0 Westbound 511 0 0 0 511 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: North Newport Center TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2010 A-85 1. MacArthur & Campus Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 53 .033 155 .097* NBT 4 6400 897 .140* 1171 .183 NBR 1 1600 50 .031 35 .022 SBL 1 1600 261 .163* 131 .082 SBT 4 6400 918 .143 1108 .173* SBR 1 1600 299 .187 666 .416 EBL 2 3200 458 .143 336 .105* EBT 3 4800 778 .180* 455 .137 EBR 0 0 87 0 202 89 WBL 2 3200 43 .013* 132 .041 WBT 3 4800 225 .047 1080 .225* WBR f .225* 100 f 155 100 Right Turn Adjustment 156 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .164* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 55 .034 157 .098* NBT 4 6400 947 .148* 1244 .194 NBR 1 1600 50 .031 37 .023 SBL 1 1600 261 .163* 131 .082 SBT 4 6400 978 .153 1175 .184* SBR 1 1600 301 .188 669 .418 EBL 2 3200 461 .144 338 .106* EBT 3 4800 782 .181* 475 .141 EBR 0 0 89 89 204 204 WBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042 WBT 3 4800 227 .047 1082 .225* WBR f f 100 100 156 156 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment SBR .154* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .496 .764 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .506 .767 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 55 .034 157 .098* NBT 4 6400 955 .149* 1265 .198 NBR 1 1600 50 .031 37 .023 SBL 1 1600 261 .163* 131 .082 SBT 4 6400 998 .156 1181 .185* SBR 1 1600 301 .188 669 .418 EBL 2 3200 461 .144 338 .106* EBT 3 4800 782 .181* 475 .141 EBR 0 0 89 204 204 WBL WBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042 WBT 3 4800 227 .047 1082 .225* WBR f 100 100 156 156 Right Right Turn Adjustment SBR SBR .153* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 55 .034 157 .098* NBT 4 6400 1097 .171* 1345 .210 NBR 1 1600 50 .031 37 .023 SBL 1 1600 261 .163* 131 .082 SBT 4 6400 1036 .162 1330 .208* SBR 1 1600 301 .188 669 .418 EBL 2 3200 461 .144 338 .106* EBT 3 4800 782 .181* 475 .141 EBR 0 0 89 204 WBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042 WBT 3 4800 227 .047 1082 .225* WBR f 100 156 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .130* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .507 .767 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .529 A-86 767 1. MacArthur & Campus Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 55 .034 157 .098* NBT 4 6400 1105 .173* 1366 .213 NBR 1 1600 50 .031 37 .023 SBL 1 1600 261 .163* 131 .082 SBT 4 6400 1056 .165 1336 .209* SBR 1 1600 301 .188 669 .418 EBL 2 3200 461 .144 338 .106* EBT 3 4800 782 .181* 475 .141 EBR 0 0 89 204 WBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042 WBT 3 4800 227 .047 1082 .225* WBR f 100 156 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .129* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .531 .767 A-87 2. MacArthur & Birch Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 47 .029 113 .071* NBT 3 4800 1741 .363* 1183 .246 NBR f 104 22 SBL 1 1600 146 .091* 69 .043 SBT 4 6400 771 .148 2067 .350* SBR 0 0 177 170 EBL 0 0 123 294 EBT 3 4800 372 .115* 207 .109* EBR 0 0 59 24 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 103 .064 WBT 2 3200 164 .051* 694 .217* WBR f 47 140 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 113 .071* NBT 3 4800 1803 .376* 1235 .257 NBR f 104 22 SBL 1 1600 146 .091* 69 .043 SBT 4 6400 815 .156 2150 .364* SBR 0 0 182 177 EBL 0 0 128 306 EBT 3 4800 372 .117* 208 .113* EBR 0 0 61 26 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 103 .064 WBT 2 3200 164 .051* 696 .218* WBR f 47 140 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .620 .747 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .635 .766 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 113 .071* NBT 3 4800 1811 .377* 1256 .262 NBR f 104 22 SBL 1 1600 146 .091* 69 .043 SBT 4 6400 835 .159 2156 .365* SBR 0 0 182 177 EBL 0 0 128 306 EBT 3 4800 372 .117* 208 .113* EBR 0 0 61 26 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 103 .064 WBT 2 3200 164 .051* 696 .218* WBR f 47 140 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .636 .767 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .666 A-88 790 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 113 .071* NBT 3 4800 1953 .407* 1336 .278 NBR f 104 22 SBL 1 1600 146 .091* 69 .043 SBT 4 6400 873 .165 2305 .388* SBR 0 0 182 177 EBL 0 0 128 306 EBT 3 4800 372 .117* 208 .113* EBR 0 0 61 26 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 103 .064 WBT 2 3200 164 .051* 696 .218* WBR f 47 140 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .636 .767 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .666 A-88 790 2. MacArthur & Birch Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 113 .071* NBT 3 4800 1961 .409* 1357 .283 NBR f 104 22 SBL 1 1600 146 .091* 69 .043 SBT 4 6400 893 .168 2311 .389* SBR 0 0 182 177 EBL 0 0 128 306 EBT 3 4800 372 .117* 208 .113* EBR 0 0 61 26 WBL 1 1600 21 .013 103 .064 WBT 2 3200 164 .051* 696 .218* WBR f 47 140 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .668 .791 A-89 3. MacArthur & Von Karman Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 129 .081 71 .044* NBT 3 4800 974 .203* 788 .164 NBR f .173 800 f 155 801 SBL 1 1600 36 .023* 34 .021 SBT 3 4800 394 .082 962 .200* SBR f .211* 197 f 101 199 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 137 .086 EBT 2 3200 84 .026* 222 .069* EBR f .071* 36 f 281 36 WBL 1 1600 102 .064* 682 .426* WBT 2 3200 184 .058 152 .048 WBR f .049 16 f 65 16 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 130 .081 75 .047* NBT 3 4800 1021 .213* 832 .173 NBR f f 801 801 155 155 SBL 1 1600 36 .023* 34 .021 SBT 3 4800 421 .088 1014 .211* SBR f f 199 199 105 105 EBL 1 1600 38 .024 144 .090 EBT 2 3200 86 .027* 228 .071* EBR f f 36 36 283 283 WBL 1 1600 104 .065* 686 .429* WBT 2 3200 185 .058 156 .049 WBR f f 16 16 65 65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .316 .739 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .328 .758 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 130 .081 75 .047* NBT 3 4800 1029 .214* 853 .178 NBR f 819 801 179 155 SBL SBL 1 1600 36 .023* 34 .021 SBT 3 4800 441 .092 1020 .213* SBR f 199 199 105 105 EBL EBL 1 1600 38 .024 144 .090 EBT 2 3200 86 .027* 228 .071* EBR f 36 36 283 283 WBL WBL 1 1600 104 .065* 686 .429* WBT 2 3200 185 .058 156 .049 WBR f 16 16 65 65 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 130 .081 75 .047* NBT 3 4800 1171 .244* 933 .194 NBR f 819 179 SBL 1 1600 36 .023* 34 .021 SBT 3 4800 479 .100 1169 .244* SBR f 199 105 EBL 1 1600 38 .024 144 .090 EBT 2 3200 86 .027* 228 .071* EBR f 36 283 WBL 1 1600 129 .081* 707 .442* WBT 2 3200 185 .058 156 .049 WBR f 16 65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .329 .760 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .375 A-90 804 3. MacArthur & Von Karman Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 130 .081 75 .047* NBT 3 4800 1179 .246* 954 .199 NBR f 819 179 SBL 1 1600 36 .023* 34 .021 SBT 3 4800 499 .104 1175 .245* SBR f 199 105 EBL 1 1600 38 .024 144 .090 EBT 2 3200 86 .027* 228 .071* EBR f 36 283 WBL 1 1600 129 .081* 707 .442* WBT 2 3200 185 .058 156 .049 WBR f 16 65 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .377 .805 A-91 5. Jamboree & Birch Existing WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1455 .303 1742 .364 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1709 .356* 1976 .412* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .555 .642 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .667 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1463 .305 1763 .368 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1729 .360* 1982 .413* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1628 .339 1861 .388 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1780 .371* 2155 .449* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .584 .668 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .595 A-92 704 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1372 .286 1625 .339 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1589 .331* 1857 .387* SBR f 458 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 154 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1455 .303 1742 .364 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1709 .356* 1976 .412* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .555 .642 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .580 .667 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1463 .305 1763 .368 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1729 .360* 1982 .413* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1628 .339 1861 .388 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1780 .371* 2155 .449* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .584 .668 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .595 A-92 704 5. Jamboree & Birch Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 275 .172* 216 .135* NBT 3 4800 1636 .341 1882 .393 NBR 0 0 1 3 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 6 .004 SBT 3 4800 1800 .375* 2161 .450* SBR f 459 483 EBL 0 0 148 349 EBT 2 3200 5 .048* 6 .111* EBR f 41 155 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 1 1600 2 .004* 14 .009* WBR 0 0 4 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .599 .705 A-93 6. MacArthur & Jamboree Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 214 .067 250 .078* NBT 3 4800 1689 .352* 539 .112 NBR 1 1600 482 .301 333 .208 SBL 2 3200 85 .027* 208 .065 SBT 3 4800 304 .063 1479 .308* SBR f .324* 97 f 256 110 EBL 2 3200 432 .135 199 .062 EBT 3 4800 989 .206* 864 .180* EBR f .192* 215 f 51 215 WBL 2 3200 313 .098* 612 .191* WBT 3 4800 632 .132 1026 .214 WBR f .228 183 f 103 197 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 222 .069 262 .082* NBT 3 4800 1759 .366* 579 .121 NBR 1 1600 483 .302 333 .208 SBL 2 3200 93 .029* 230 .072 SBT 3 4800 334 .070 1557 .324* SBR f f 110 110 276 276 EBL 2 3200 446 .139 216 .068 EBT 3 4800 1039 .216* 920 .192* EBR f f 215 215 51 51 WBL 2 3200 313 .098* 613 .192* WBT 3 4800 693 .144 1092 .228 WBR f f 197 197 113 113 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .683 .757 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .709 .790 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 222 .069 262 .082* NBT 3 4800 1767 .368* 600 .125 NBR 1 1600 483 .302 333 .208 SBL 2 3200 93 .029* 230 .072 SBT 3 4800 354 .074 1563 .326* SBR f 116 110 294 276 EBL EBL 2 3200 446 .139 216 .068 EBT 3 4800 1047 .218* 941 .196* EBR f 215 215 51 51 WBL WBL 2 3200 313 .098* 613 .192* WBT 3 4800 713 .149 1098 .229 WBR f 197 197 113 113 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 222 .069 262 .082* NBT 3 4800 1907 .397* 693 .144 NBR 1 1600 501 .313 357 .223 SBL 2 3200 93 .029* 230 .072 SBT 3 4800 410 .085 1715 .357* SBR f 116 294 EBL 2 3200 465 .145 227 .071 EBT 3 4800 1194 .249* 1015 .211* EBR f 215 51 WBL 2 3200 338 .106* 634 .198* WBT 3 4800 739 .154 1250 .260 WBR f 197 113 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .713 .796 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .781 A-94 848 6. MacArthur & Jamboree Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 222 .069 262 .082* NBT 3 4800 1915 .399* 714 .149 NBR 1 1600 501 .313 357 .223 SBL 2 3200 93 .029* 230 .072 SBT 3 4800 430 .090 1721 .359* SBR f 116 294 EBL 2 3200 465 .145 227 .071 EBT 3 4800 1202 .250* 1036 .216* EBR f 215 51 WBL 2 3200 338 .106* 634 .198* WBT 3 4800 759 .158 1256 .262 WBR f 197 113 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .784 .855 A-95 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3200 480 .150 641 .200 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6400 2709 .423* 2913 .455* EBR 1 1600 398 .249 144 .090 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .150* NBR .200* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3200 480 .150 641 .200 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6400 2787 .435* 2994 .468* EBR 1 1600 398 .249 144 .090 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .150* NBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .573 .655 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .585 .668 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3200 480 .150 641 .200 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6400 2819 .440* 3012 .471* EBR 1 1600 398 .249 144 .090 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .150* NBR .200* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3200 480 .150 641 .200 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6400 2787 .435* 2994 .468* EBR 1 1600 398 .249 144 .090 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .150* NBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .590 .671 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .585 A-96 668 7. Bayview & Bristol South (EB) Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 2 3200 480 .150 641 .200 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 4 6400 2819 .440* 3012 .471* EBR 1 1600 398 .249 144 .090 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .150* NBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .590 .671 A-97 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) Existing EBL 0 0 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 0 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1287 .402* 723 .226* NBT 2 3200 1391 .435 1293 .404 NBR f .435 692 f 833 692 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6400 645 .164* 1216 .308* SBR 1.5 .324* 405 1.5 755 406 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1304 .408* 745 .233* NBT 2 3200 1483 .463 1393 .435 NBR f f 692 713 833 870 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6400 721 .176* 1317 .324* SBR 1.5 1.5 406 406 757 757 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .566 .534 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .584 .557 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1304 .408* 745 .233* NBT 2 3200 1491 .466 1414 .442 NBR f 692 713 833 870 SBL SBL 0 0 0 0 0 SBT SBT 2.5 6400 741 .179* 1323 .325* SBR 1.5 406 406 757 757 EBL EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBT EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBR EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBR WBR 0 0 0 0 0 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1304 .408* 745 .233* NBT 2 3200 1656 .518 1500 .469 NBR f 692 833 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6400 772 .184* 1494 .352* SBR 1.5 406 757 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .587 .558 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .592 A-98 585 8. Jamboree & Bristol North (WB) Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 1304 .408* 745 .233* NBT 2 3200 1664 .520 1521 .475 NBR f 713 870 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 2.5 6400 792 .187* 1500 .353* SBR 1.5 406 757 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .595 .586 A-99 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) Existing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .657 .673 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2313 .297* 2063 .272 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 773 .161 1349 .281* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 {.417}* EBT 1.5 4800 443 .277 1020 .417 EBR 2 3200 1265 .395 1368 .428 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .011* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2287 .293* 2035 .269 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 753 .157 1343 .280* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 EBT 1.5 4800 444 .278 1023 .418* EBR 2 3200 1233 .385 1350 .422 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .004* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .678 .702 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2460 .315* 2142 .282 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 804 .168 1520 .317* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 EBT 1.5 4800 444 .278 1023 .418* EBR 2 3200 1233 .385 1350 .422 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .004* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .682 .709 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .700 A-100 739 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2127 .273* 1843 .245 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 675 .141 1241 .259* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1229 .384* 973 {.414}* EBT 1.5 4800 434 .271 1015 .414 EBR 2 3200 1168 .365 1285 .402 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .657 .673 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2313 .297* 2063 .272 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 773 .161 1349 .281* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 {.417}* EBT 1.5 4800 443 .277 1020 .417 EBR 2 3200 1265 .395 1368 .428 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .011* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2287 .293* 2035 .269 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 753 .157 1343 .280* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 EBT 1.5 4800 444 .278 1023 .418* EBR 2 3200 1233 .385 1350 .422 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .004* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .678 .702 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2460 .315* 2142 .282 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 804 .168 1520 .317* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 EBT 1.5 4800 444 .278 1023 .418* EBR 2 3200 1233 .385 1350 .422 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .004* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .682 .709 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .700 A-100 739 9. Jamboree & Bristol South (EB) Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 2486 .318* 2170 .286 NBR 0 0 60 115 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3 4800 824 .172 1526 .318* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1232 .385* 981 {.417}* EBT 1.5 4800 443 .277 1020 .417 EBR 2 3200 1265 .395 1368 .428 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .011* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .703 .746 A-101 10. Jamboree & Bayview Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 119 .074 57 .036 NBT 4 6400 1760 .284* 1650 .266* NBR 0 0 56 0 51 56 SBL 1 1600 79 .049* 191 .119* SBT 4 6400 1658 .259 2111 .330 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 81 .051 EBL 2 3200 34 .011 162 .051* EBT 1 1600 12 .008* 11 .007 EBR 1 1600 42 .026 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 37 .023 WBT 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002* WBR 1 1600 79 .049 130 .081 Right Turn Adjustment .081 WBR .004* EBR .070* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 119 .074* 57 .036 NBT 4 6400 1888 .304 1818 .292* NBR 0 0 56 56 51 51 SBL 1 1600 79 .049 191 .119* SBT 4 6400 1824 .285* 2291 .358 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 81 .051 EBL 2 3200 34 .011 162 .051* EBT 1 1600 12 .008* 11 .007 EBR 1 1600 42 .026 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 37 .023 WBT 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002* WBR 1 1600 79 .049 130 .081 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment .079* EBR .071* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .356 .508 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .378 .535 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 119 .074* 57 .036 NBT 4 6400 1918 .308 1875 .301* NBR 0 0 56 1 51 79 SBL 1 1600 79 .049 191 .119* SBT 4 6400 1876 .293* 2316 .362 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 81 .051 EBL 2 3200 34 .011 162 .051* EBT 1 1600 12 .008* 11 .007 EBR 1 1600 42 .026 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 37 .023 WBT 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002* WBR 1 1600 79 .049 130 .081 Right Turn Adjustment .079* EBR .067* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .386 .540 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .403 A-102 560 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 119 .074 57 .036 NBT 4 6400 2061 .331* 1925 .309* NBR 0 0 56 51 SBL 1 1600 79 .049* 191 .119* SBT 4 6400 1875 .293 2468 .386 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 81 .051 EBL 2 3200 34 .011 162 .051* EBT 1 1600 12 .008* 11 .007 EBR 1 1600 42 .026 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 37 .023 WBT 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002* WBR 1 1600 79 .049 130 .081 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .004* EBR .079* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .386 .540 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .403 A-102 560 10. Jamboree & Bayview Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 119 .074 57 .036 NBT 4 6400 2091 .335* 1982 .318* NBR 0 0 56 51 SBL 1 1600 79 .049* 191 .119* SBT 4 6400 1927 .301 2493 .390 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 81 .051 EBL 2 3200 34 .011 162 .051* EBT 1 1600 12 .008* 11 .007 EBR 1 1600 42 .026 226 .141 WBL 1 1600 17 .011* 37 .023 WBT 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002* WBR 1 1600 79 .049 130 .081 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .004* EBR .076* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .407 .566 A-103 11. Jamboree & University Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 71 .044 38 .024* NBT 3 4800 1457 .304* 1386 .289 NBR 1 1600 190 .119 254 .159 SBL 2 3200 61 .019* 155 .048 SBT 3 4800 1295 .270 1896 .395* SBR 1 1600 313 .196 426 .266 EBL 1.5 393 223 EBT 0.5 3200 108 .157* 102 .102* EBR f 33 26 WBL 1.5 295 216 WBT 1.5 4800 158 .094* 129 .072* WBR f 165 93 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 71 .044 38 .024* NBT 3 4800 1570 .327* 1544 .322 NBR 1 1600 191 .119 261 .163 SBL 2 3200 61 .019* 157 .049 SBT 3 4800 1447 .301 2060 .429* SBR 1 1600 313 .196 426 .266 EBL 1.5 223 393 EBT 223 3200 EBT 0.5 3200 109 .157* 102 .102* EBR f 26 33 WBL 26 WBL 1.5 304 296 WBT 224 4800 WBT 1.5 4800 159 .095* 129 .074* WBR f 95 169 Note: 95 E/W Split Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .574 .593 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .598 .629 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 71 .044* 38 .024* NBT 3 4800 1600 .333 1601 .334 NBR 1 1600 196 .123 263 .164 SBL 2 3200 61 .019 157 .049 SBT 3 4800 1499 .312* 2085 .434* SBR 1 1600 313 .196 426 .266 EBL 1.5 393 223 EBT 0.5 3200 109 .157* 102 .102* EBR f 33 26 WBL 1.5 296 226 WBT 1.5 4800 159 .095* 129 .074* WBR f 169 95 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .608 .634 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 A-104 687 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 71 .044 38 .024* NBT 3 4800 1743 .363* 1651 .344 NBR 1 1600 266 .166 309 .193 SBL 2 3200 61 .019* 157 .049 SBT 3 4800 1498 .312 2237 .466* SBR 1 1600 313 .196 426 .266 EBL 1.5 393 223 EBT 0.5 3200 109 .157* 102 .102* EBR f 33 26 WBL 1.5 318 .099 304 .095* WBT 1.5 4800 159 .099* 129 .081 WBR f 169 95 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .608 .634 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 A-104 687 11. Jamboree & University Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 71 .044 38 .024* NBT 3 4800 1773 .369* 1708 .356 NBR 1 1600 271 .169 311 .194 SBL 2 3200 61 .019* 157 .049 SBT 3 4800 1550 .323 2262 .471* SBR 1 1600 313 .196 426 .266 EBL 1.5 393 223 EBT 0.5 3200 109 .157* 102 .102* EBR f 33 26 WBL 1.5 318 .099 306 .096* WBT 1.5 4800 159 .099* 129 .081 WBR f 169 95 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .644 .693 A-105 12. Jamboree & Bison Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1346 .322* 1669 .376* NBR 0 0 201 0 138 202 SBL 2 3200 196 .061* 181 .057* SBT 3 4800 1601 .334 2003 .417 SBR 1 1600 196 .123 118 .074 EBL 1 1600 116 .073* 67 .042 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR f 1 71 f 35 71 WBL 2 3200 144 .045 273 .085* WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 175 .055 191 .060 Right Turn Adjustment .061 WBR .009* Turn Adjustment WBR Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1444 .343* 1824 .409* NBR 0 0 202 208 141 144 SBL 2 3200 200 .063* 196 .061* SBT 3 4800 1750 .365 2155 .449 SBR 1 1600 196 .123 118 .074 EBL 1 1600 116 .073* 67 .042 EBT 0 0 0 0 1 1 EBR f f 71 71 35 35 WBL 2 3200 145 .045 276 .086* WBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 179 .056 194 .061 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment WBR .009* .009* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .465 .518 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .488 .556 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT NBT 3 4800 1480 .352* 1883 .422* NBR 0 0 208 141 144 SBL SBL 2 3200 200 .063* 196 .061* SBT 3 4800 1803 .376 2182 .455 SBR 1 1600 196 .123 118 .074 EBL 1 1600 116 .073* 67 .042 EBT 0 0 0 1 1 EBR EBR f 71 71 35 35 WBL WBL 2 3200 146 .046 281 .088* WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBR WBR 2 3200 179 .056 194 .061 Right Turn Adjustment WBR WBR .009* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1656 .387* 1956 .437 NBR 0 0 202 141 SBL 2 3200 211 .066* 233 .073* SBT 3 4800 1812 .378 2375 .495 SBR 1 1600 196 .123 118 .074 EBL 1 1600 116 .073* 67 .042 EBT 0 0 0 1 EBR f 71 35 WBL 2 3200 145 .045 276 .086* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 216 .068 217 .068 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .018* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .497 .571 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .544 A-106 596 12. Jamboree & Bison Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 3 4800 1692 .396* 2015 .450* NBR 0 0 208 144 SBL 2 3200 211 .066* 233 .073* SBT 3 4800 1865 .389 2402 .500 SBR 1 1600 196 .123 118 .074 EBL 1 1600 116 .073* 67 .042 EBT 0 0 0 1 EBR f 71 35 WBL 2 3200 146 .046 281 .088* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3200 216 .068 217 .068 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .018* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .553 .611 A-107 13. Jamboree & Ford Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 364 .114* 362 .113* NBT 3 4800 1300 .291 1785 .415 NBR 0 0 98 208 SBL 1 1600 61 .038 44 .028 SBT 3 4800 1541 .321* 2132 .444* SBR 1 1600 167 .104 49 .031 EBL 1.5 232 66 .041 EBT 1.5 4800 239 .098* 212 .066* EBR f 271 255 WBL 1.5 131 .082 181 WBT 1.5 4800 358 .112* 157 .070* WBR 1 1600 33 .021 35 .022 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 367 .115* 366 .114* NBT 3 4800 1405 .313 1955 .452 NBR 0 0 99 SBL 213 1600 SBL 1 1600 61 .038 45 .028 SBT 3 4800 1691 .352* 2289 .477* SBR 1 1600 168 .105 49 .031 EBL 1.5 66 233 EBT 66 .041 EBT 1.5 4800 244 .099* 212 .066* EBR f 268 274 WBL 259 WBL 1.5 210 133 .083 185 4800 WBT 1.5 4800 368 .115* 157 .071* WBR 1 1600 34 .021 35 .022 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .645 .693 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .681 .728 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 367 .115* 366 .114* NBT 3 4800 1447 .322 2017 .465 NBR 0 0 99 213 SBL 1 1600 61 .038 45 .028 SBT 3 4800 1745 .364* 2321 .484* SBR 1 1600 168 .105 49 .031 EBL 1.5 233 66 .041 EBT 1.5 4800 244 .099* 212 .066* EBR f 274 259 WBL 1.5 133 .083 185 WBT 1.5 4800 368 .115* 157 .071* WBR 1 1600 34 .021 35 .022 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .693 .735 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .716 A-108 800 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 376 .118* 371 .116* NBT 3 4800 1595 .356 2074 .486 NBR 0 0 112 257 SBL 1 1600 67 .042 67 .042 SBT 3 4800 1747 .364* 2487 .518* SBR 1 1600 168 .105 49 .031 EBL 1.5 233 66 .041 EBT 1.5 4800 259 .103* 266 .083* EBR f 277 268 WBL 1.5 177 .111 210 WBT 1.5 4800 419 .131* 190 .083* WBR 1 1600 56 .035 48 .030 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .693 .735 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .716 A-108 800 13. Jamboree & Ford Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 376 .118* 371 .116* NBT 3 4800 1637 .364 2136 .499 NBR 0 0 112 257 SBL 1 1600 67 .042 67 .042 SBT 3 4800 1801 .375* 2519 .525* SBR 1 1600 168 .105 49 .031 EBL 1.5 233 66 .041 EBT 1.5 4800 259 .103* 266 .083* EBR f 277 268 WBL 1.5 177 .111 210 WBT 1.5 4800 419 .131* 190 .083* WBR 1 1600 56 .035 48 .030 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .727 .807 A-109 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 41 .026 67 .042 NBT 3 4800 1143 .238* 1598 .333* NBR f 129 135 SBL 2 3200 665 .208* 443 .138* SBT 3 4800 1227 .256 1855 .386 SBR f 37 117 EBL 1.5 258 .081* 162 .051* EBT 1.5 4800 33 .021 34 .021 EBR f 59 57 WBL 1.5 128 .040* 189 .059* WBT 1.5 4800 12 .008 39 .024 WBR 1 1600 42 .026 67 .042 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 41 .026 68 .043 NBT 3 4800 1253 .261* 1760 .367* NBR f 145 134 SBL 145 3200 SBL 2 3200 670 .209* 472 .148* SBT 3 4800 1407 .293 2012 .419 SBR f 117 37 EBL 117 EBL 1.5 163 258 .081* 163 .051* EBT 1.5 4800 33 .021 39 .024 EBR f 57 59 WBL 57 WBL 1.5 205 144 .045* 205 .064* WBT 1.5 4800 12 .008 39 .024 WBR 1 1600 54 .034 112 .070 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .567 .581 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .596 .630 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 41 .026 68 .043 NBT 3 4800 1253 .261* 1760 .367* NBR f 134 145 SBL 2 3200 724 .226* 504 .158* SBT 3 4800 1407 .293 2012 .419 SBR f 37 117 EBL 1.5 258 .081* 163 .051* EBT 1.5 4800 33 .021 39 .024 EBR f 59 57 WBL 1.5 144 .045* 205 .064* WBT 1.5 4800 12 .008 39 .024 WBR 1 1600 96 .060 174 .109 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .613 .640 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .636 A-110 672 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 41 .026 68 .043 NBT 3 4800 1431 .298* 1908 .398* NBR f 134 145 SBL 2 3200 679 .212* 510 .159* SBT 3 4800 1501 .313 2206 .460 SBR f 37 117 EBL 1.5 258 .081* 163 .051* EBT 1.5 4800 33 .021 39 .024 EBR f 59 57 WBL 1.5 144 .045* 205 .064* WBT 1.5 4800 12 .008 39 .024 WBR 1 1600 88 .055 132 .083 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .613 .640 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .636 A-110 672 14. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 41 .026 68 .043 NBT 3 4800 1431 .298* 1908 .398* NBR f 134 145 SBL 2 3200 733 .229* 542 .169* SBT 3 4800 1501 .313 2206 .460 SBR f 37 117 EBL 1.5 258 .081* 163 .051* EBT 1.5 4800 33 .021 39 .024 EBR f 59 57 WBL 1.5 144 .045* 205 .064* WBT 1.5 4800 12 .008 39 .024 WBR 1 1600 130 .081 194 .121 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .653 .682 A-111 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 6 .004 9 .006* NBT 3 4800 1225 .255* 1118 .233 NBR 1 1600 323 .202 119 .074 SBL 2 3200 560 .175* 291 .091 SBT 3 4800 809 .169 1781 .371* SBR 1 1600 23 .014 28 .018 EBL 1 1600 62 .039* 26 .016* EBT 1 1600 3 .007 8 .008 EBR 0 0 8 4 WBL 1.5 51 307 WBT 0.5 3200 2 .017* 5 .098* WBR 1 1600 93 .058 662 .414 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .208* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 6 .004 9 .006* NBT 3 4800 1315 .274* 1242 .259 NBR 1 1600 323 .202 120 .075 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 295 .092 SBT 3 4800 941 .196 1911 .398* SBR 1 1600 24 .015 34 .021 EBL 1 1600 68 .043* 28 .018* EBT 1 1600 3 .007 9 .008 EBR 0 0 8 4 WBL 1.5 52 308 WBT 0.5 3200 2 .017* 6 .098* WBR 1 1600 98 .061 669 .418 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .211* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .486 .699 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .513 .731 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 6 .004 9 .006* NBT 3 4800 1315 .274* 1242 .259 NBR 1 1600 324 .203 126 .079 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 295 .092 SBT 3 4800 941 .196 1911 .398* SBR 1 1600 24 .015 34 .021 EBL 1 1600 68 .043* 28 .018* EBT 1 1600 3 .007 9 .008 EBR 0 0 8 4 WBL 1.5 69 313 WBT 0.5 3200 2 .022* 6 .100* WBR 1 1600 98 .061 669 .418 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .209* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 6 .004 9 .006* NBT 3 4800 1493 .311* 1390 .290 NBR 1 1600 323 .202 120 .075 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 295 .092 SBT 3 4800 1035 .216 2105 .439* SBR 1 1600 24 .015 34 .021 EBL 1 1600 68 .043* 28 .018* EBT 1 1600 3 .007 9 .008 EBR 0 0 8 4 WBL 1.5 52 308 WBT 0.5 3200 2 .017* 6 .098* WBR 1 1600 98 .061 669 .418 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .204* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .518 .731 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .550 A-112 765 15. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 6 .004 9 .006* NBT 3 4800 1493 .311* 1390 .290 NBR 1 1600 324 .203 126 .079 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 295 .092 SBT 3 4800 1035 .216 2105 .439* SBR 1 1600 24 .015 34 .021 EBL 1 1600 68 .043* 28 .018* EBT 1 1600 3 .007 9 .008 EBR 0 0 8 4 WBL 1.5 69 313 WBT 0.5 3200 2 .022* 6 .100* WBR 1 1600 98 .061 669 .418 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .202* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .555 .765 A-113 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 37 .023 NBT 2 3200 374 .146* 265 .113* NBR 0 0 94 0 96 94 SBL 1 1600 137 .086* 176 .110* SBT 2 3200 206 .064 431 .135 SBR f .136 758 f 1453 880 EBL 3 4800 1228 .256* 778 .162* EBT 4 6400 1808 .285 1635 .259 EBR 0 0 13 0 25 14 WBL 2 3200 94 .029 202 .063 WBT 4 6400 1069 .167* 1952 .305* WBR f .323* 89 f 169 89 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 375 .147* 266 .114* NBR 0 0 94 94 98 98 SBL 1 1600 147 .092* 189 .118* SBT 2 3200 207 .065 434 .136 SBR f f 880 897 1571 1576 EBL 3 4800 1314 .274* 887 .185* EBT 4 6400 1900 .299 1719 .273 EBR 0 0 14 14 25 25 WBL 2 3200 94 .029 205 .064 WBT 4 6400 1134 .177* 2068 .323* WBR f f 89 89 173 173 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .655 .690 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .690 .740 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 375 .147* 266 .114* NBR 0 0 94 98 98 SBL SBL 1 1600 147 .092* 189 .118* SBT 2 3200 207 .065 434 .136 SBR f 924 897 1596 1576 EBL EBL 3 4800 1315 .274* 893 .186* EBT 4 6400 1929 .304 1726 .274 EBR 0 0 14 25 25 WBL WBL 2 3200 94 .029 205 .064 WBT 4 6400 1149 .180* 2099 .328* WBR f 254 89 277 173 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 375 .147* 266 .114* NBR 0 0 94 98 SBL 1 1600 197 .123* 358 .224* SBT 2 3200 207 .065 434 .136 SBR f 924 1596 EBL 3 4800 1327 .276* 931 .194* EBT 4 6400 2007 .316 2065 .327 EBR 0 0 14 25 WBL 2 3200 94 .029 205 .064 WBT 4 6400 1440 .225* 2281 .356* WBR f 254 277 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .693 .746 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .771 A-114 888 16. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 20 .013 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 375 .147* 266 .114* NBR 0 0 94 98 SBL 1 1600 197 .123* 358 .224* SBT 2 3200 207 .065 434 .136 SBR f 941 1601 EBL 3 4800 1328 .277* 937 .195* EBT 4 6400 2036 .320 2072 .328 EBR 0 0 14 25 WBL 2 3200 94 .029 205 .064 WBT 4 6400 1455 .227* 2312 .361* WBR f 254 277 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .774 .894 A-115 17. MacArthur & Bison Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 197 .062 192 .060* NBT 4 6400 2466 .385* 2454 .383 NBR f .397 154 f 183 154 SBL 2 3200 76 .024* 224 .070 SBT 4 6400 2018 .315 2707 .423* SBR 1 1600 263 .164 321 .201 EBL 2 3200 224 .070 192 .060 EBT 2 3200 218 .068* 191 .060* EBR f .060* 162 f 214 163 WBL 2 3200 383 .120* 363 .113* WBT 2 3200 217 .068 266 .083 WBR 1 1600 94 .059 141 .088 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 198 .062 196 .061* NBT 4 6400 2542 .397* 2542 .397 NBR f f 154 162 184 205 SBL 2 3200 76 .024* 224 .070 SBT 4 6400 2081 .325 2802 .438* SBR 1 1600 266 .166 335 .209 EBL 2 3200 229 .072 198 .062 EBT 2 3200 219 .068* 191 .060* EBR f f 163 163 216 216 WBL 2 3200 384 .120* 363 .113* WBT 2 3200 218 .068 267 .083 WBR 1 1600 95 .059 141 .088 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .597 .656 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .609 .672 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 198 .062 196 .061* NBT 4 6400 2567 .401* 2605 .407 NBR f 162 2 205 80 SBL 2 3200 76 .024* 224 .070 SBT 4 6400 2142 .335 2823 .441* SBR 1 1600 266 .166 335 .209 EBL 2 3200 229 .072 198 .062 EBT 2 3200 225 .070* 194 .061* EBR f 163 2 216 384 WBL 2 3200 404 .126* 369 .115* WBT 2 3200 219 .068 272 .085 WBR 1 1600 95 .059 141 .088 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .621 .678 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 A-116 707 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 198 .062 196 .061* NBT 4 6400 2693 .421* 2635 .412 NBR f 154 184 SBL 2 3200 80 .025* 239 .075 SBT 4 6400 2126 .332 2957 .462* SBR 1 1600 266 .166 335 .209 EBL 2 3200 229 .072 198 .062 EBT 2 3200 230 .072* 228 .071* EBR f 163 216 WBL 2 3200 384 .120* 363 .113* WBT 2 3200 255 .080 290 .091 WBR 1 1600 110 .069 150 .094 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .621 .678 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .638 A-116 707 17. MacArthur & Bison Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 198 .062 196 .061* NBT 4 6400 2718 .425* 2698 .422 NBR f 162 205 SBL 2 3200 80 .025* 239 .075 SBT 4 6400 2187 .342 2978 .465* SBR 1 1600 266 .166 335 .209 EBL 2 3200 229 .072 198 .062 EBT 2 3200 236 .074* 231 .072* EBR f 163 216 WBL 2 3200 404 .126* 369 .115* WBT 2 3200 256 .080 295 .092 WBR 1 1600 110 .069 150 .094 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .650 .713 A-117 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 107 .033 61 .019 NBT 4 6400 1918 .300* 2348 .367* NBR f .381* 83 f 468 87 SBL 2 3200 529 .165* 774 .242* SBT 4 6400 1923 .300 2328 .364 SBR f .378 13 f 49 13 EBL 2 3200 39 .012 27 .008 EBT 2 3200 266 .083* 299 .093* EBR 1 1600 121 .076 61 .038 WBL 2 3200 552 .173* 232 .073* WBT 2 3200 323 .101 280 .088 WBR f .088 900 f 480 901 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 108 .034 63 .020 NBT 4 6400 1979 .309* 2436 .381* NBR f f 87 92 481 483 SBL 2 3200 529 .165* 775 .242* SBT 4 6400 1992 .311 2420 .378 SBR f f 13 13 50 50 EBL 2 3200 40 .013 27 .008 EBT 2 3200 267 .083* 300 .094* EBR 1 1600 123 .077 62 .039 WBL 2 3200 561 .175* 243 .076* WBT 2 3200 323 .101 281 .088 WBR f f 901 901 480 480 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .721 .775 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .732 .793 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 108 .034 63 .020 NBT 4 6400 2013 .315* 2520 .394* NBR f 159 92 556 483 SBL SBL 2 3200 529 .165* 775 .242* SBT 4 6400 2072 .324 2448 .383 SBR f 13 13 50 50 EBL EBL 2 3200 40 .013 27 .008 EBT 2 3200 267 .083* 300 .094* EBR 1 1600 123 .077 62 .039 WBL 2 3200 561 .175* 245 .077* WBT 2 3200 323 .101 281 .088 WBR f 941 901 503 480 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 108 .034 63 .020 NBT 4 6400 2090 .327* 2506 .392* NBR f 159 556 SBL 2 3200 540 .169* 815 .255* SBT 4 6400 2026 .317 2535 .396 SBR f 13 50 EBL 2 3200 40 .013 27 .008 EBT 2 3200 282 .088* 354 .111* EBR 1 1600 123 .077 62 .039 WBL 2 3200 625 .195* 318 .099* WBT 2 3200 441 .138 352 .110 WBR f 941 503 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .738 .807 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .779 A-118 857 18. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 108 .034 63 .020 NBT 4 6400 2124 .332* 2590 .405* NBR f 164 558 SBL 2 3200 540 .169* 815 .255* SBT 4 6400 2106 .329 2563 .400 SBR f 13 50 EBL 2 3200 40 .013 27 .008 EBT 2 3200 282 .088* 354 .111* EBR 1 1600 123 .077 62 .039 WBL 2 3200 625 .195* 320 .100* WBT 2 3200 441 .138 352 .110 WBR f 941 503 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .784 .871 A-119 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 133 .042* 111 .035 NBT 3 4800 1327 .276 1879 .391* NBR 1 1600 192 .120 26 .016 SBL 2 3200 272 .085 498 .156* SBT 3 4800 1761 .367* 1882 .392 SBR f .407 487 f 248 494 EBL 2 3200 449 .140* 551 .172* EBT 3 4800 105 .030 348 .106 EBR 0 0 37 0 163 37 WBL 1 1600 9 .006 47 .029 WBT 2 3200 322 .101* 306 .096* WBR f .098* 419 f 525 419 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 143 .045* 122 .038 NBT 3 4800 1376 .287 1965 .409* NBR 1 1600 192 .120 26 .016 SBL 2 3200 275 .086 503 .157* SBT 3 4800 1843 .384* 1954 .407 SBR f f 494 576 263 293 EBL 2 3200 453 .142* 579 .181* EBT 3 4800 108 .030 350 .107 EBR 0 0 37 37 163 163 WBL 1 1600 9 .006 47 .029 WBT 2 3200 329 .103* 313 .098* WBR f f 419 419 525 525 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .650 .815 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .674 .845 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 143 .045* 122 .038 NBT 3 4800 1376 .287 1965 .409* NBR 1 1600 192 .120 26 .016 SBL 2 3200 275 .086 503 .157* SBT 3 4800 1843 .384* 1954 .407 SBR f 523 576 293 293 EBL EBL 2 3200 493 .154* 666 .208* EBT 3 4800 108 .030 350 .107 EBR 0 0 37 163 163 WBL WBL 1 1600 9 .006 47 .029 WBT 2 3200 329 .103* 313 .098* WBR f 459 419 556 525 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 143 .045* 122 .038 NBT 3 4800 1492 .311 2046 .426* NBR 1 1600 221 .138 128 .080 SBL 2 3200 291 .091 549 .172* SBT 3 4800 1897 .395* 2068 .431 SBR f 523 293 EBL 2 3200 481 .150* 611 .191* EBT 3 4800 126 .034 418 .121 EBR 0 0 37 163 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 115 .072 WBT 2 3200 392 .123* 353 .110* WBR f 459 556 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .686 .872 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .713 A-120 899 19. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project Cumul + Project w/Mitigation AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 143 .045* 122 .038 NBT 3 4800 1492 .311 2046 .426* NBR 1 1600 221 .138 128 .080 SBL 2 3200 291 .091 549 .172* SBT 3 4800 1897 .395* 2068 .431 SBR f .431 605 f 323 605 EBL 2 3200 521 .163* 698 .218* EBT 3 4800 126 .034 418 .121 EBR 0 0 37 0 163 37 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 115 .072 WBT 2 3200 392 .123* 353 .110* WBR f .110* 459 f 556 459 Exist + Growth + Appr + Cumul + Project w/Mitigation AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 143 .045* 122 .038 NBT 3 4800 1492 .311 2046 .426* NBR 1 1600 221 .138 128 .080 SBL 2 3200 291 .091 549 .172* SBT 3 4800 1897 .395* 2068 .431 SBR f 605 323 EBL 3 4800 521 .109* 698 .145* EBT 3 4800 126 .034 418 .121 EBR 0 0 37 163 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 115 .072 WBT 2 3200 392 .123* 353 .110* WBR f 459 556 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .726 .926 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .672 .853 A-121 20. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 87 .027 98 .031* NBT 3 4800 1514 .315* 1000 .208 NBR 1 1600 282 .176 278 .174 SBL 2 3200 7 .002* 9 .003 SBT 3 4800 1209 .252 1500 .313* SBR 1 1600 549 .343 508 .318 EBL 2 3200 86 .027 909 .284* EBT 2 3200 73 .033* 472 .196 EBR 0 0 31 0 154 31 WBL 2 3200 224 .070* 217 .068 WBT 2 3200 164 .063 232 .082* WBR 0 0 38 0 29 38 Right Turn Adjustment 29 SBR .023* Turn Adjustment SBR Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 87 .027 100 .031* NBT 3 4800 1567 .326* 1039 .216 NBR 1 1600 282 .176 278 .174 SBL 2 3200 9 .003* 13 .004 SBT 3 4800 1247 .260 1549 .323* SBR 1 1600 551 .344 511 .319 EBL 2 3200 88 .028 916 .286* EBT 2 3200 75 .033* 484 .203 EBR 0 0 31 42 164 167 WBL 2 3200 224 .070* 217 .068 WBT 2 3200 165 .063 244 .085* WBR 0 0 38 38 29 29 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment SBR .012* .012* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .443 .710 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .444 .725 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 88 .028 104 .033* NBT 3 4800 1567 .326* 1039 .216 NBR 1 1600 282 .176 278 .174 SBL 2 3200 9 .003* 13 .004 SBT 3 4800 1247 .260 1549 .323* SBR 1 1600 551 .344 511 .319 EBL 2 3200 88 .028 916 .286* EBT 2 3200 75 .037* 490 .205 EBR 0 0 42 201 167 WBL WBL 2 3200 224 .070* 217 .068 WBT 2 3200 172 .066 237 .083* WBR 0 0 38 29 29 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .012* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .448 .725 A-122 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 124 .039 122 .038* NBT 3 4800 1712 .357* 1222 .255 NBR 1 1600 282 .176 278 .174 SBL 2 3200 9 .003* 13 .004 SBT 3 4800 1389 .289 1731 .361* SBR 1 1600 551 .344 511 .319 EBL 2 3200 88 .028 916 .286* EBT 2 3200 75 .037* 484 .214 EBR 0 0 43 201 WBL 2 3200 224 .070* 217 .068 WBT 2 3200 165 .063 244 .085* WBR 0 0 38 29 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .467 .770 20. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 125 .039 126 .039* NBT 3 4800 1712 .357* 1222 .255 NBR 1 1600 282 .176 278 .174 SBL 2 3200 9 .003* 13 .004 SBT 3 4800 1389 .289 1731 .361* SBR 1 1600 551 .344 511 .319 EBL 2 3200 88 .028 916 .286* EBT 2 3200 75 .040* 490 .217 EBR 0 0 54 204 WBL 2 3200 224 .070* 217 .068 WBT 2 3200 172 .066 237 .083* WBR 0 0 38 29 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .470 .769 A-123 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 571 .178* 829 .259* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR f 0 337 f 1003 348 EBL 2 3200 954 .298* 515 .161* EBT 3 4800 888 .185 1349 .281 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1099 .229* 1058 .220* WBR f .228* 887 f 871 917 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 590 .184* 858 .268* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR f f 348 348 1033 1033 EBL 2 3200 988 .309* 535 .167* EBT 3 4800 921 .192 1397 .291 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1141 .238* 1096 .228* WBR f f 917 918 900 904 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .705 .640 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .731 .663 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR NBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL SBL 2 3200 601 .188* 861 .269* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBR SBR f 450 348 1119 1033 EBL EBL 2 3200 988 .309* 535 .167* EBT 3 4800 923 .192 1412 .294 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT WBT 3 4800 1159 .241* 1094 .228* WBR f 1052 918 986 904 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 640 .200* 992 .310* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 450 1119 EBL 2 3200 1036 .324* 654 .204* EBT 3 4800 1029 .214 1791 .373 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1508 .314* 1327 .276* WBR f 1052 986 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .738 .664 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .838 A-124 790 21. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 651 .203* 995 .311* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 450 1119 EBL 2 3200 1036 .324* 654 .204* EBT 3 4800 1031 .215 1806 .376 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1526 .318* 1325 .276* WBR f 1053 990 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .645 .791 A-125 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 60 .019* 413 .129* NBT 1 1600 2 .008 12 .035 NBR 0 0 10 0 44 11 SBL 1 1600 21 .013 22 .014 SBT 2 3200 11 .007* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 23 .014 45 .028 EBL 1 1600 30 .019 55 .034* EBT 3 4800 494 .150* 324 .101 EBR 0 0 224 0 199 .124 WBL 1 1600 181 .113* 54 .034 WBT 3 4800 286 .065 495 .111* WBR 0 0 28 0 37 28 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 61 .019* 413 .129* NBT 1 1600 2 .008 12 .035 NBR 0 0 11 11 44 44 SBL 1 1600 21 .013 23 .014 SBT 2 3200 12 .008* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 23 .014 45 .028 EBL 1 1600 30 .019 55 .034* EBT 3 4800 495 .150* 324 .101 EBR 0 0 224 229 200 .125 WBL 1 1600 182 .114* 54 .034 WBT 3 4800 286 .065 496 .111* WBR 0 0 28 28 37 37 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .289 .277 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .291 .277 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 96 .030* 427 .133* NBT 1 1600 2 .008 12 .035 NBR 0 0 11 44 44 SBL SBL 1 1600 21 .013 23 .014 SBT 2 3200 12 .008* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 23 .014 45 .028 EBL 1 1600 30 .019 55 .034* EBT 3 4800 544 .161* 334 .104 EBR 0 0 229 200 222 .139 WBL 1 1600 182 .114* 54 .034 WBT 3 4800 293 .067 544 .121* WBR 0 0 28 47 37 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 61 .019* 413 .129* NBT 1 1600 2 .008 12 .035 NBR 0 0 11 44 SBL 1 1600 31 .019 32 .020 SBT 2 3200 12 .008* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 23 .014 45 .028 EBL 1 1600 30 .019 55 .034* EBT 3 4800 504 .152* 362 .113 EBR 0 0 224 200 .125 WBL 1 1600 182 .114* 54 .034 WBT 3 4800 320 .074 516 .117* WBR 0 0 35 47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .313 .291 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .293 A-126 283 22. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 96 .030* 427 .133* NBT 1 1600 2 .008 12 .035 NBR 0 0 11 44 SBL 1 1600 31 .019 32 .020 SBT 2 3200 12 .008* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 23 .014 45 .028 EBL 1 1600 30 .019 55 .034* EBT 3 4800 553 .163* 372 .116 EBR 0 0 229 222 .139 WBL 1 1600 182 .114* 54 .034 WBT 3 4800 327 .075 564 .127* WBR 0 0 35 47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .315 .297 A-127 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 35 .022 167 .104* NBT 1 1600 6 .004* 28 .018 NBR 1 1600 67 .042 372 .233 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 67 .042 SBT 1 1600 13 .008 7 .004* SBR 1 1600 36 .023 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 33 .021 36 .023 EBT 3 4800 253 .079* 597 .144* EBR 0 0 142 .089 96 149 WBL 2 3200 531 .166* 250 .078* WBT 3 4800 445 .104 244 .069 WBR 0 0 56 0 86 56 Right Turn Adjustment 86 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .108* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 46 .029 175 .109* NBT 1 1600 6 .004* 28 .018 NBR 1 1600 70 .044 398 .249 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 67 .042 SBT 1 1600 13 .008 7 .004* SBR 1 1600 36 .023 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 34 .021 36 .023 EBT 3 4800 258 .081* 602 .148* EBR 0 0 149 .093 106 116 WBL 2 3200 538 .168* 274 .086* WBT 3 4800 463 .108 269 .074 WBR 0 0 56 56 86 86 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment EBR NBR .113* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .290 .438 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .294 .460 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 53 .033 223 .139* NBT 1 1600 6 .004* 28 .018 NBR 1 1600 99 .062 409 .256 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 67 .042 SBT 1 1600 13 .008 7 .004* SBR 1 1600 36 .023 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 34 .021 36 .023 EBT 3 4800 258 .081* 602 .150* EBR 0 0 198 .124 116 WBL WBL 2 3200 542 .169* 288 .090* WBT 3 4800 463 .108 269 .074 WBR 0 0 56 100 86 Right Right Turn Adjustment EBR .015* NBR .087* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 46 .029 175 .109* NBT 1 1600 6 .004* 28 .018 NBR 1 1600 81 .051 440 .275 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 79 .049 SBT 1 1600 13 .008 7 .004* SBR 1 1600 36 .023 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 34 .021 36 .023 EBT 3 4800 277 .087* 649 .157* EBR 0 0 149 .093 106 WBL 2 3200 577 .180* 299 .093* WBT 3 4800 504 .119 299 .083 WBR 0 0 67 100 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .141* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .310 .470 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .322 A-128 504 23. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 53 .033 223 .139* NBT 1 1600 6 .004* 28 .018 NBR 1 1600 110 .069 451 .282 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 79 .049 SBT 1 1600 13 .008 7 .004* SBR 1 1600 36 .023 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 34 .021 36 .023 EBT 3 4800 277 .087* 649 .159* EBR 0 0 198 .124 116 WBL 2 3200 581 .182* 313 .098* WBT 3 4800 504 .119 299 .083 WBR 0 0 67 100 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .002* NBR .114* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .326 .514 A-129 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 2 .001 11 .007 NBT 2 3200 229 .100* 499 .222* NBR 0 0 91 0 210 91 SBL 1 1600 67 .042* 85 .053* SBT 2 3200 316 .131 241 .106 SBR 0 0 102 0 97 102 EBL 2 3200 214 .067 514 .161* EBT 3 4800 492 .107* 431 .093 EBR 0 0 23 0 14 23 WBL 1 1600 213 .133* 264 .165 WBT 3 4800 663 .151 784 .177* WBR 0 0 60 0 67 60 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 2 .001 11 .007 NBT 2 3200 229 .100* 505 .226* NBR 0 0 91 90 218 215 SBL 1 1600 67 .042* 85 .053* SBT 2 3200 316 .131 249 .108 SBR 0 0 102 102 97 97 EBL 2 3200 214 .067 514 .161* EBT 3 4800 493 .108* 431 .093 EBR 0 0 23 23 14 14 WBL 1 1600 215 .134* 272 .170 WBT 3 4800 663 .151 784 .177* WBR 0 0 60 60 67 67 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .382 .613 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .384 .617 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 2 .001 11 .007 NBT 2 3200 229 .100* 514 .228* NBR 0 0 90 218 215 SBL SBL 1 1600 67 .042* 85 .053* SBT 2 3200 325 .133 248 .108 SBR 0 0 102 97 97 EBL EBL 2 3200 214 .067 514 .161* EBT 3 4800 493 .108* 431 .093 EBR 0 0 23 14 14 WBL WBL 1 1600 213 .133* 266 .166 WBT 3 4800 663 .151 784 .177* WBR 0 0 60 67 67 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 2 .001 11 .007 NBT 2 3200 229 .100* 505 .226* NBR 0 0 91 218 SBL 1 1600 67 .042* 85 .053* SBT 2 3200 316 .131 249 .108 SBR 0 0 102 97 EBL 2 3200 214 .067* 514 .161* EBT 3 4800 556 .121 647 .138 EBR 0 0 23 14 WBL 1 1600 215 .134 272 .170 WBT 3 4800 854 .190* 921 .206* WBR 0 0 60 67 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .383 .619 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .399 A-130 646 24. San Miguel & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 2 .001 11 .007 NBT 2 3200 229 .100* 514 .228* NBR 0 0 90 215 SBL 1 1600 67 .042* 85 .053* SBT 2 3200 325 .133 248 .108 SBR 0 0 102 97 EBL 2 3200 214 .067* 514 .161* EBT 3 4800 556 .121 647 .138 EBR 0 0 23 14 WBL 1 1600 213 .133 266 .166 WBT 3 4800 854 .190* 921 .206* WBR 0 0 60 67 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .399 .648 A-131 25. Avocado & San Miguel Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 123 .077 176 .110* NBT 1 1600 148 .093* 60 .038 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 655 .409 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 222 .139 SBT 1 1600 51 .032 129 .081* SBR 1 1600 16 .010 21 .013 EBL 1 1600 7 .004 182 .114* EBT 2 3200 148 .063* 444 .169 EBR 0 0 53 0 98 53 WBL 1 1600 467 .292* 174 .109 WBT 2 3200 435 .194 492 .178* WBR 0 0 187 0 76 187 Right Turn Adjustment 78 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .265* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 123 .077 176 .110* NBT 1 1600 148 .093* 60 .038 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 655 .409 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 222 .139 SBT 1 1600 51 .032 129 .081* SBR 1 1600 16 .010 21 .013 EBL 1 1600 7 .004 182 .114* EBT 2 3200 148 .063* 466 .176 EBR 0 0 53 53 98 98 WBL 1 1600 467 .292* 174 .109 WBT 2 3200 435 .194 508 .183* WBR 0 0 187 197 76 78 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment NBR .266* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .480 .748 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .480 .754 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 123 .077 176 .110* NBT 1 1600 197 .123* 70 .044 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 655 .409 SBL 1 1600 52 .033* 232 .145 SBT 1 1600 58 .036 177 .111* SBR 1 1600 16 .010 21 .013 EBL 1 1600 7 .004 182 .114* EBT 2 3200 158 .066* 467 .177 EBR 0 0 53 98 98 WBL WBL 1 1600 467 .292* 174 .109 WBT 2 3200 434 .197 502 .181* WBR 0 0 197 76 78 Right Right Turn Adjustment NBR NBR .244* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 123 .077 176 .110* NBT 1 1600 148 .093* 60 .038 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 655 .409 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 222 .139 SBT 1 1600 51 .032 129 .081* SBR 1 1600 16 .010 21 .013 EBL 1 1600 7 .004 182 .114* EBT 2 3200 160 .067* 503 .188 EBR 0 0 53 98 WBL 1 1600 467 .292* 174 .109 WBT 2 3200 472 .206 530 .189* WBR 0 0 187 76 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .271* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .514 .760 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .484 A-132 765 25. Avocado & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 123 .077 176 .110* NBT 1 1600 197 .123* 70 .044 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 655 .409 SBL 1 1600 52 .033* 232 .145 SBT 1 1600 58 .036 177 .111* SBR 1 1600 16 .010 21 .013 EBL 1 1600 7 .004 182 .114* EBT 2 3200 170 .070* 504 .188 EBR 0 0 53 98 WBL 1 1600 467 .292* 174 .109 WBT 2 3200 471 .209 524 .188* WBR 0 0 197 78 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .247* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .518 .770 A-133 26. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 202 261 NBT 1.5 4800 327 .129* 209 .111* NBR 0 89 65 SBL 1.5 170 163 SBT 1.5 4800 122 .061* 237 .083* SBR 2 3200 187 .058 738 .231 EBL 2 3200 988 .309 255 .080* EBT 3 4800 2242 .467* 1169 .244 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 225 .141 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 582 .121 2165 .359* WBR 0 0 206 .129 134 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .088* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 203 261 NBT 1.5 4800 357 .135* 218 .114* NBR 0 89 66 SBL 1.5 170 163 SBT 1.5 4800 128 .062* 269 .090* SBR 2 3200 207 .065 868 .271 EBL 2 3200 1111 .347 293 .092* EBT 3 4800 2377 .495* 1248 .260 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 228 .143 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 633 .131 2314 .383* WBR 0 0 206 134 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .112* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .695 .721 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .730 .791 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 203 261 NBT 1.5 4800 357 .135* 218 .114* NBR 0 89 66 SBL 1.5 170 163 SBT 1.5 4800 128 .062* 269 .090* SBR 2 3200 207 .065 868 .271 EBL 2 3200 1111 .347 293 .092* EBT 3 4800 2388 .498* 1256 .262 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 228 .143 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 651 .134 2329 .385* WBR 0 0 206 134 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .112* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 203 261 NBT 1.5 4800 371 .138* 233 .117* NBR 0 89 66 SBL 1.5 193 242 SBT 1.5 4800 134 .068* 297 .112* SBR 2 3200 230 .072 982 .307 EBL 2 3200 1167 .365 354 .111* EBT 3 4800 2423 .505* 1406 .293 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 228 .143 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 788 .164 2409 .405* WBR 0 0 282 .176 181 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .112* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .733 .793 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .749 A-134 857 26. Superior/Balboa & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1.5 203 261 NBT 1.5 4800 371 .138* 233 .117* NBR 0 89 66 SBL 1.5 193 242 SBT 1.5 4800 134 .068* 297 .112* SBR 2 3200 230 .072 982 .307 EBL 2 3200 1167 .365 354 .111* EBT 3 4800 2434 .507* 1414 .295 EBR 1 1600 238 .149 228 .143 WBL 1 1600 61 .038* 147 .092 WBT 4 6400 806 .168 2424 .407* WBR 0 0 282 .176 181 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .112* Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .751 .859 A-135 27. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 384 .120* 617 .193* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 269 .168 470 .294 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2075 .648* 1267 .396* EBR f 487 267 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 979 .204 1848 .385 WBR f 370 563 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .093* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 409 .128* 728 .228* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 313 .196 510 .319 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2140 .669* 1375 .430* EBR f 506 282 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1035 .216 1917 .399 WBR f 381 580 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .068* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .768 .682 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .797 .726 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 419 .131* 732 .229* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 313 .196 510 .319 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2151 .672* 1383 .432* EBR f 506 282 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1053 .219 1932 .403 WBR f 381 580 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .068* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 426 .133* 813 .254* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 313 .196 510 .319 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2207 .690* 1613 .504* EBR f 506 282 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1266 .264 2058 .429 WBR f 385 584 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .009* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .803 .729 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .823 A-136 767 27. Newport & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 436 .136* 817 .255* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1600 313 .196 510 .319 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 2 3200 2218 .693* 1621 .507* EBR f 506 282 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1284 .268 2073 .432 WBR f 385 584 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .008* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .829 .770 A-137 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 26 NBT 1 1600 6 .005 7 .029* NBR 0 0 0 14 SBL 0 0 85 84 1.0521* SBT 1 1600 15 .063* 7 .057 SBR 1 1600 301 .188 433 .271 EBL 1 1600 280 .175 268 .168* EBT 2 3200 2094 .660* 1528 .484 EBR 0 0 18 21 WBL 1 1600 9 .006* 28 .018 WBT 3 4800 1232 .257 2430 .506* WBR 1 1600 68 .043 65 .041 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .038* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 26 NBT 1 1600 6 .005 7 .029* NBR 0 0 0 14 SBL 0 0 87 86 1.0541* SBT 1 1600 15 .064* 7 .058 SBR 1 1600 301 .188 433 .271 EBL 1 1600 280 .175 268 .168* EBT 2 3200 2272 .716* 1770 .560 EBR 0 0 18 21 WBL 1 1600 9 .006* 28 .018 WBT 3 4800 1410 .294 2658 .554* WBR 1 1600 69 .043 68 .043 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .036* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .730 .793 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .787 .841 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 26 NBT 1 1600 6 .005 7 .029* NBR 0 0 0 14 SBL 0 0 87 86 1.0541* SBT 1 1600 15 .064* 7 .058 SBR 1 1600 301 .188 433 .271 EBL 1 1600 280 .175 268 .168* EBT 2 3200 2294 .723* 1783 .564 EBR 0 0 18 21 WBL 1 1600 9 .006* 28 .018 WBT 3 4800 1436 .299 2685 .559* WBR 1 1600 69 .043 68 .043 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .036* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 26 NBT 1 1600 6 .005 7 .029* NBR 0 0 0 14 SBL 0 0 92 90 1.0561* SBT 1 1600 15 .067* 7 .061 SBR 1 1600 301 .188 433 .271 EBL 1 1600 280 .175 268 .168* EBT 2 3200 2361 .743* 2097 .662 EBR 0 0 18 21 WBL 1 1600 9 .006* 28 .018 WBT 3 4800 1687 .351 2849 .594* WBR 1 1600 73 .046 72 .045 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .034* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .794 .846 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .817 A-138 881 28. Riverside & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 2 1.0011* 26 NBT 1 1600 6 .005 7 .029* NBR 0 0 0 14 SBL 0 0 92 90 1.0561* SBT 1 1600 15 .067* 7 .061 SBR 1 1600 301 .188 433 .271 EBL 1 1600 280 .175 268 .168* EBT 2 3200 2383 .750* 2110 .666 EBR 0 0 18 21 WBL 1 1600 9 .006* 28 .018 WBT 3 4800 1713 .357 2876 .599* WBR 1 1600 73 .046 72 .045 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .034* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .824 .886 A-139 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 1 1.0011* 0 NBT 1 1600 0 .000 0 .004 NBR 0 0 0 0 6 0 SBL 0 0 36 0 45 0 SBT 1 1600 0 .033* 0 .053* SBR 0 0 16 0 40 0 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 32 .020* EBT 2 3200 2241 .700* 1548 .486 EBR 0 0 0 0 7 0 WBL 1 1600 1 .001* 0 .000 WBT 3 4800 1236 .258 2462 .513* WBR 1 1600 39 .024 47 .029 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 1 1.0011* NBT 1 1600 0 .000 0 .004 NBR 0 0 0 0 6 SBL 0 0 36 0 45 SBT 1 1600 0 .033* 0 .053* SBR 0 0 16 0 40 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 32 .020* EBT 2 3200 2417 .755* 1701 .534 EBR 0 0 0 0 7 WBL 1 1600 1 .001* 0 .000 WBT 3 4800 1340 .279 2663 .555* WBR 1 1600 39 .024 47 .029 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .734 .587 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .789 .629 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1.0011* 1 1.0011* 1 NBT 1 1600 0 .000 0 .004 NBR 0 0 0 6 0 SBL 0 0 36 45 1 SBT 1 1600 0 .033* 0 .053* SBR 0 0 16 40 1 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 32 .020* EBT 2 3200 2439 .762* 1714 .538 EBR 0 0 0 7 1 WBL 1 1600 1 .001* 0 .000 WBT 3 4800 1366 .285 2690 .560* WBR 1 1600 39 .024 47 .029 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 1.0011* NBT 1 1600 0 .000 0 .004 NBR 0 0 0 6 SBL 0 0 36 45 SBT 1 1600 0 .033* 0 .053* SBR 0 0 16 40 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 32 .020 EBT 2 3200 2511 .785* 2033 .638* EBR 0 0 0 7 WBL 1 1600 1 .001* 0 .000 WBT 3 4800 1620 .338 2860 .596 WBR 1 1600 39 .024 47 .029 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .796 .634 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .819 A-140 692 29. Tustin & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 1.0011* NBT 1 1600 0 .000 0 .004 NBR 0 0 0 6 SBL 0 0 36 45 SBT 1 1600 0 .033* 0 .053* SBR 0 0 16 40 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 32 .020 EBT 2 3200 2533 .792* 2046 .642* EBR 0 0 0 7 WBL 1 1600 1 .001* 0 .000 WBT 3 4800 1646 .343 2887 .601 WBR 1 1600 39 .024 47 .029 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .626 .696 A-141 30. Dover & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .009 36 .023 NBT 2 3200 38 .018* 49 .026* NBR 0 0 21 0 34 21 SBL 3 4800 821 .171* 1058 .220* SBT 1 1600 31 .019 77 .048 SBR 1 1600 124 .078 175 .109 EBL 2 3200 143 .045 133 .042* EBT 3 4800 2251 .475* 1457 .312 EBR 0 0 27 0 40 27 WBL 1 1600 16 .010* 55 .034 WBT 3 4800 1207 .251 2178 .454* WBR f .484* 497 f 1108 506 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .009 36 .023 NBT 2 3200 38 .018* 49 .026* NBR 0 0 21 21 34 34 SBL 3 4800 826 .172* 1071 .223* SBT 1 1600 31 .019 77 .048 SBR 1 1600 142 .089 203 .127 EBL 2 3200 157 .049 170 .053* EBT 3 4800 2386 .503* 1582 .338 EBR 0 0 27 27 40 40 WBL 1 1600 16 .010* 55 .034 WBT 3 4800 1295 .270 2325 .484* WBR f f 506 512 1118 1128 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .674 .742 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .703 .786 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .009 36 .023 NBT 2 3200 38 .018* 49 .026* NBR 0 0 21 34 34 SBL SBL 3 4800 835 .174* 1072 .223* SBT 1 1600 31 .019 77 .048 SBR 1 1600 142 .089 203 .127 EBL 2 3200 157 .049 170 .053* EBT 3 4800 2408 .507* 1595 .341 EBR 0 0 27 40 40 WBL WBL 1 1600 16 .010* 55 .034 WBT 3 4800 1321 .275 2352 .490* WBR f 586 512 1169 1128 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .009 36 .023 NBT 2 3200 38 .018* 49 .026* NBR 0 0 21 34 SBL 3 4800 854 .178* 1154 .240* SBT 1 1600 31 .019 77 .048 SBR 1 1600 142 .089 203 .127 EBL 2 3200 157 .049 170 .053* EBT 3 4800 2480 .522* 1914 .407 EBR 0 0 27 40 WBL 1 1600 16 .010* 55 .034 WBT 3 4800 1575 .328 2522 .525* WBR f 586 1169 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .709 .792 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .728 A-142 844 30. Dover & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 15 .009 36 .023 NBT 2 3200 38 .018* 49 .026* NBR 0 0 21 34 SBL 3 4800 863 .180* 1155 .241* SBT 1 1600 31 .019 77 .048 SBR 1 1600 142 .089 203 .127 EBL 2 3200 157 .049 170 .053* EBT 3 4800 2502 .527* 1927 .410 EBR 0 0 27 40 WBL 1 1600 16 .010* 55 .034 WBT 3 4800 1601 .334 2549 .531* WBR f 592 1179 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .735 .851 A-143 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2.5 394 477 NBT 0.5 4800 17 .093* 17 .109* NBR 0 35 29 SBL 1 1600 19 .012 27 .017 SBT 1 1600 9 .017* 11 .026* SBR 0 0 18 30 EBL 1 1600 26 .016 48 .030* EBT 3 4800 2800 .583* 1947 .406 EBR 1 1600 344 .215 424 .265 WBL 1 1600 62 .039* 74 .046 WBT 4 6400 1407 .222 3026 .477* WBR 0 0 14 29 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2.5 397 482 NBT 0.5 4800 17 .094* 17 .110* NBR 0 36 29 SBL 1 1600 63 .039* 98 .061* SBT 1 1600 9 .028 11 .044 SBR 0 0 36 59 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 74 .046* EBT 3 4800 2946 .614* 2083 .434 EBR 1 1600 346 .216 431 .269 WBL 1 1600 62 .039* 74 .046 WBT 4 6400 1502 .237 3203 .505* WBR 0 0 14 29 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .732 .642 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .786 .722 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2.5 397 482 NBT 0.5 4800 17 .094* 17 .110* NBR 0 36 29 SBL 1 1600 63 .039* 98 .061* SBT 1 1600 9 .028 11 .044 SBR 0 0 36 59 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 74 .046* EBT 3 4800 2977 .620* 2096 .437 EBR 1 1600 346 .216 431 .269 WBL 1 1600 62 .039* 74 .046 WBT 4 6400 1534 .242 3240 .511* WBR 0 0 14 29 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .792 .728 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .814 A-144 762 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2.5 397 482 NBT 0.5 4800 17 .094* 17 .110* NBR 0 36 29 SBL 1 1600 68 .043* 102 .064* SBT 1 1600 9 .028 11 .044 SBR 0 0 36 59 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 74 .046* EBT 3 4800 3062 .638* 2468 .514 EBR 1 1600 346 .216 431 .269 WBL 1 1600 62 .039* 74 .046 WBT 4 6400 1849 .292 3437 .542* WBR 0 0 18 33 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .792 .728 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .814 A-144 762 31. Bayside & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2.5 397 482 NBT 0.5 4800 17 .094* 17 .110* NBR 0 36 29 SBL 1 1600 68 .043* 102 .064* SBT 1 1600 9 .028 11 .044 SBR 0 0 36 59 EBL 1 1600 61 .038 74 .046* EBT 3 4800 3093 .644* 2481 .517 EBR 1 1600 346 .216 431 .269 WBL 1 1600 62 .039* 74 .046 WBT 4 6400 1881 .297 3474 .548* WBR 0 0 18 33 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .820 .768 A-145 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 46 .014* 141 .044* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR f 0 82 f 539 91 EBL 2 3200 263 .082 307 .096* EBT 3 4800 1642 .342* 1567 .326 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1222 .255 1881 .392* WBR f .405* 225 f 160 226 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 46 .014* 144 .045* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBR f f 91 102 570 572 EBL 2 3200 268 .084 320 .100* EBT 3 4800 1697 .354* 1627 .339 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1274 .265 1944 .405* WBR f f 226 223 166 154 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .356 .532 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .368 .550 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR NBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL SBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBR SBR f 91 102 570 572 EBL EBL 2 3200 268 .084 321 .100* EBT 3 4800 1726 .360* 1633 .340 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT WBT 3 4800 1278 .266 1973 .411* WBR f 226 223 166 154 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 46 .014* 144 .045* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 91 570 EBL 2 3200 268 .084* 320 .100* EBT 3 4800 1853 .386 2140 .446 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1743 .363* 2261 .471* WBR f 226 166 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .374 .553 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .461 A-146 616 32. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 44 .014* 135 .042* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 102 572 EBL 2 3200 268 .084* 321 .100* EBT 3 4800 1882 .392 2146 .447 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1747 .364* 2290 .477* WBR f 223 154 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .462 .619 A-147 33. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 78 .049 109 .068* NBT 1 1600 106 .066* 90 .056 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 163 .102 SBL 1.5 50 300 SBT 0.5 3200 43 .029* 130 .134* SBR f 50 275 EBL 1 1600 199 .124* 120 .075 EBT 3 4800 1233 .267 1494 .326* EBR 0 0 48 70 WBL 1 1600 95 .059 119 .074* WBT 3 4800 1126 .271* 1365 .309 WBR 0 0 177 119 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 78 .049 109 .068* NBT 1 1600 106 .066* 90 .056 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 163 .102 SBL 1.5 300 50 SBT 300 3200 SBT 0.5 3200 43 .029* 130 .134* SBR f 276 50 EBL 276 1600 EBL 1 1600 199 .124* 120 .075 EBT 3 4800 1288 .278 1564 .341* EBR 0 0 48 WBL 71 1600 WBL 1 1600 95 .059 119 .074* WBT 3 4800 1186 .284* 1427 .322 WBR 0 0 177 Note: 119 NIS Split Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .490 .602 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .503 .617 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 78 .049 109 .068* NBT 1 1600 106 .066* 90 .056 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 163 .102 SBL 1.5 53 319 SBT 0.5 3200 43 .030* 130 .140* SBR f 54 305 EBL 1 1600 228 .143* 126 .079 EBT 3 4800 1287 .278 1560 .340* EBR 0 0 48 71 WBL 1 1600 95 .059 119 .074* WBT 3 4800 1184 .288* 1421 .322 WBR 0 0 197 123 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .527 .622 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .601 A-148 724 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 78 .049 109 .068* NBT 1 1600 106 .066* 90 .056 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 163 .102 SBL 1.5 50 300 SBT 0.5 3200 43 .029* 130 .134* SBR f 50 276 EBL 1 1600 199 .124* 120 .075 EBT 3 4800 1444 .311 2077 .448* EBR 0 0 48 71 WBL 1 1600 95 .059 119 .074* WBT 3 4800 1655 .382* 1744 .388 WBR 0 0 177 119 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .527 .622 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .601 A-148 724 33. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 78 .049 109 .068* NBT 1 1600 106 .066* 90 .056 NBR 1 1600 121 .076 163 .102 SBL 1.5 53 319 SBT 0.5 3200 43 .030* 130 .140* SBR f 54 305 EBL 1 1600 228 .143* 126 .079 EBT 3 4800 1443 .311 2073 .447* EBR 0 0 48 71 WBL 1 1600 95 .059 119 .074* WBT 3 4800 1653 .385* 1738 .388 WBR 0 0 197 123 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .624 .729 A-149 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 106 V/C 110 1.0691* 0 NBT 1 1600 0 .083* 0 .084 NBR 0 0 27 .084 25 0 SBL 0 0 40 1.0251* 47 0 SBT 1 1600 5 .037 5 .047* SBR 0 0 14 .047* 23 0 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 39 .024 EBT 2 3200 1132 .366 1717 .545* EBR 0 0 39 .569* 26 0 WBL 1 1600 44 .028 26 .016* WBT 2 3200 1935 .608* 1703 .536 WBR 0 0 11 .560 13 0 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 106 NBT 110 1.0691* 1600 NBT 1 1600 0 .083* 0 .084 NBR 0 0 27 SBL 25 0 SBL 0 0 41 1.0261* 47 1600 SBT 1 1600 5 .038 5 .047* SBR 0 0 14 EBL 23 1600 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 39 .024 EBT 2 3200 1183 .382 1794 .569* EBR 0 0 39 WBL 26 1600 WBL 1 1600 44 .028 26 .016* WBT 2 3200 2022 .635* 1778 .560 WBR 0 0 11 13 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .726 .677 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .754 .701 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 106 NBT 110 1.0691* 1600 NBT 1 1600 0 .083* 0 .084 NBR 0 0 27 SBL 25 0 SBL 0 0 41 1.0261* SBT 47 1600 SBT 1 1600 5 .038 5 .047* SBR 0 0 14 EBL 23 1600 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 39 .024 EBT 2 3200 1197 .386 1812 .574* EBR 0 0 39 WBL 26 1600 WBL 1 1600 44 .028 26 .016* WBT 2 3200 2041 .641* 1780 .560 WBR 0 0 11 13 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 106 110 1.0691* NBT 1 1600 0 .083* 0 .084 NBR 0 0 27 25 SBL 0 0 41 1.0261* 47 SBT 1 1600 5 .038 5 .047* SBR 0 0 14 23 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 39 .024 EBT 2 3200 1342 .432 2321 .733* EBR 0 0 39 26 WBL 1 1600 44 .028 26 .016* WBT 2 3200 2524 .792* 2095 .659 WBR 0 0 11 13 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .760 .706 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .911 A-150 865 34. Goldenrod & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 106 110 1.0691* NBT 1 1600 0 .083* 0 .084 NBR 0 0 27 25 SBL 0 0 41 1.0261* 47 SBT 1 1600 5 .038 5 .047* SBR 0 0 14 23 EBL 1 1600 16 .010* 39 .024 EBT 2 3200 1356 .436 2339 .739* EBR 0 0 39 26 WBL 1 1600 44 .028 26 .016* WBT 2 3200 2543 .798* 2097 .659 WBR 0 0 11 13 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .917 .871 A-151 35. Marguerite & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .075* 94 .059* NBT 1 1600 73 .081 71 .092 NBR 0 0 56 0 76 56 SBL 1 1600 49 .031 92 .058 SBT 1 1600 67 .121* 84 .101* SBR 0 0 127 0 78 127 EBL 1 1600 48 .030* 55 .034 EBT 2 3200 1104 .345 1687 .527* EBR 1 1600 81 .051 57 .036 WBL 1 1600 24 .015 63 .039* WBT 2 3200 1764 .562* 1366 .437 WBR 0 0 33 0 31 33 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .075* 94 .059* NBT 1 1600 73 .081 71 .092 NBR 0 0 56 56 76 76 SBL 1 1600 49 .031 92 .058 SBT 1 1600 67 .121* 84 .101* SBR 0 0 127 127 78 78 EBL 1 1600 48 .030* 55 .034 EBT 2 3200 1153 .360 1761 .550* EBR 1 1600 81 .051 57 .036 WBL 1 1600 24 .015 63 .039* WBT 2 3200 1845 .587* 1428 .456 WBR 0 0 33 33 31 31 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .788 .726 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .813 .749 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .075* 94 .059* NBT 1 1600 73 .081 71 .092 NBR 0 0 56 76 76 SBL SBL 1 1600 49 .031 92 .058 SBT 1 1600 67 .121* 84 .101* SBR 0 0 127 78 78 EBL EBL 1 1600 48 .030* 55 .034 EBT 2 3200 1167 .365 1779 .556* EBR 1 1600 81 .051 57 .036 WBL 1 1600 24 .015 63 .039* WBT 2 3200 1864 .593* 1430 .457 WBR 0 0 33 38 31 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .075* 94 .059* NBT 1 1600 73 .081 71 .092 NBR 0 0 56 76 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 105 .066 SBT 1 1600 67 .121* 84 .101* SBR 0 0 127 78 EBL 1 1600 48 .030* 55 .034 EBT 2 3200 1312 .410 2288 .715* EBR 1 1600 81 .051 57 .036 WBL 1 1600 24 .015 63 .039* WBT 2 3200 2347 .748* 1745 .557 WBR 0 0 46 38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .819 .755 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .974 A-152 914 35. Marguerite & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 120 .075* 94 .059* NBT 1 1600 73 .081 71 .092 NBR 0 0 56 76 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 105 .066 SBT 1 1600 67 .121* 84 .101* SBR 0 0 127 78 EBL 1 1600 48 .030* 55 .034 EBT 2 3200 1326 .414 2306 .721* EBR 1 1600 81 .051 57 .036 WBL 1 1600 24 .015 63 .039* WBT 2 3200 2366 .754* 1747 .558 WBR 0 0 46 38 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .980 .920 A-153 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 75 .047* 155 .097* NBT 2 3200 134 .042 102 .032 NBR 1 1600 14 .009 34 .021 SBL 1 1600 11 .007 42 .026 SBT 2 3200 76 .024* 180 .056* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 67 .042 EBL 1 1600 34 .021* 38 .024 EBT 2 3200 28 .018 97 .061* EBR 0 0 165 .103 132 .083 WBL 0 0 2 0 23 {.014}* 0 WBT 2 3200 5 .004* 44 .028 WBR 0 0 6 .004 24 .004 Right Turn Adjustment Right EBR .044* EBR .044* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 75 .047* 155 .097* NBT 2 3200 134 .042 102 .032 NBR 1 1600 14 .009 34 .021 SBL 1 1600 11 .007 42 .026 SBT 2 3200 76 .024* 180 .056* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 67 .042 EBL 1 1600 34 .021* 38 .024 EBT 2 3200 28 .018 97 .061* EBR 0 0 165 .103 132 .083 WBL 0 0 2 0 23 {.014}* WBT 2 3200 5 .004* 44 .028 WBR 0 0 6 .004 24 Turn Adjustment Right Turn Adjustment Right EBR .044* EBR .044* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .140 .228 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .140 .228 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR V/C LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 75 .047* 155 .097* NBT 2 3200 134 .042 102 .032 NBR 1 1600 14 .009 34 .021 SBL 1 1600 11 .007 42 .026 SBT 2 3200 76 .024* 180 .056* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 67 .042 EBL 1 1600 34 .021* 38 .024 EBT 2 3200 30 .019 106 .066* EBR 0 0 165 .103 132 .083 WBL 0 0 2 2 23 {.014}* 5 WBT 2 3200 6 .004* 53 .031 WBR 0 0 6 Turn Adjustment 24 EBR Right Turn Adjustment EBR .044* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 75 .047* 155 .097* NBT 2 3200 134 .042 102 .032 NBR 1 1600 14 .009 34 .021 SBL 1 1600 11 .007 42 .026 SBT 2 3200 76 .024* 180 .056* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 67 .042 EBL 1 1600 34 .021* 38 .024 EBT 2 3200 28 .018 97 .061* EBR 0 0 165 .103 132 .083 WBL 0 0 2 23 {.014}* WBT 2 3200 5 .004* 44 .028 WBR 0 0 6 .004 24 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .044* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .140 .233 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .140 A-154 228 36. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 75 .047* 155 .097* NBT 2 3200 134 .042 102 .032 NBR 1 1600 14 .009 34 .021 SBL 1 1600 11 .007 42 .026 SBT 2 3200 76 .024* 180 .056* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 67 .042 EBL 1 1600 34 .021* 38 .024 EBT 2 3200 30 .019 106 .066* EBR 0 0 165 .103 132 .083 WBL 0 0 2 23 1.0141* WBT 2 3200 6 .004* 53 .031 WBR 0 0 6 24 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .044* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .140 .233 A-155 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 10 1.0061* 50 1.0311* 0 NBT 2 3200 32 .022 144 .086 NBR 0 0 27 NBR 80 0 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 32 .020 SBT 1 1600 85 .053* 120 .075* SBR 1 1600 56 .035 103 .064 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 91 .057 EBT 2 3200 60 .019* 102 .032* EBR 1 1600 22 .014 42 .026 WBL 1 1600 63 .039* 116 .073* WBT 2 3200 84 .026 102 .032 WBR 1 1600 34 .021 81 .051 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 10 1.0061* 50 1.0311* NBT 2 3200 32 .022 144 .086 NBR 0 0 27 80 80 SBL SBL 1 1600 25 .016 32 .020 SBT 1 1600 85 .053* 120 .075* SBR 1 1600 56 .035 103 .064 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 91 .057 EBT 2 3200 60 .019* 102 .032* EBR 1 1600 22 .014 42 .026 WBL 1 1600 63 .039* 116 .073* WBT 2 3200 84 .026 102 .032 WBR 1 1600 34 .021 81 .051 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .117 .211 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .117 .211 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 10 1.0061* 50 1.0311* NBT NBT 2 3200 33 .022 153 .088 NBR 0 0 27 80 80 SBL SBL 1 1600 25 .016 32 .020 SBT 1 1600 87 .054* 129 .081* SBR 1 1600 56 .035 103 .064 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 91 .057 EBT 2 3200 60 .019* 102 .032* EBR 1 1600 22 .014 42 .026 WBL 1 1600 63 .039* 116 .073* WBT 2 3200 84 .026 102 .032 WBR 1 1600 34 .021 81 .051 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 10 1.0061* 50 1.0311* NBT 2 3200 32 .022 144 .086 NBR 0 0 27 80 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 32 .020 SBT 1 1600 85 .053* 120 .075* SBR 1 1600 56 .035 103 .064 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 91 .057 EBT 2 3200 60 .019* 102 .032* EBR 1 1600 22 .014 42 .026 WBL 1 1600 63 .039* 116 .073* WBT 2 3200 84 .026 102 .032 WBR 1 1600 34 .021 81 .051 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .118 .217 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .117 A-156 211 37. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 10 1.0061* 50 1.0311* NBT 2 3200 33 .022 153 .088 NBR 0 0 27 80 SBL 1 1600 25 .016 32 .020 SBT 1 1600 87 .054* 129 .081* SBR 1 1600 56 .035 103 .064 EBL 1 1600 35 .022 91 .057 EBT 2 3200 60 .019* 102 .032* EBR 1 1600 22 .014 42 .026 WBL 1 1600 63 .039* 116 .073* WBT 2 3200 84 .026 102 .032 WBR 1 1600 34 .021 81 .051 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .118 .217 A-157 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 69 .022* 204 .064* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 36 .023 SBL 1 1600 87 .054* 80 .050* SBT 2 3200 183 .057 228 .071 SBR 1 1600 43 .027 84 .053 EBL 0 0 20 84 EBT 2 3200 39 .027* 67 .067* EBR 0 0 26 63 WBL 0.5 42 33 WBT 2 4000 87 .032* 102 .034* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 163 .102 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .018* WBR .030* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 69 .022* 204 .064* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 36 .023 SBL 1 1600 87 .054* 80 .050* SBT 2 3200 183 .057 228 .071 SBR 1 1600 43 .027 84 .053 EBL 0 0 20 84 EBT 2 3200 39 .027* 67 .067* EBR 0 0 26 63 WBL 0.5 42 33 WBT 2 4000 87 .032* 102 .034* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 163 .102 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .018* WBR .030* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .153 .245 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .153 .245 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019* 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 75 .023 230 .072* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 36 .023 SBL 1 1600 87 .054 80 .050* SBT 2 3200 213 .067* 243 .076 SBR 1 1600 43 .027 84 .053 EBL 0 0 20 84 EBT 2 3200 34 .025* 42 .053* EBR 0 0 26 63 .039 WBL 0.5 42 33 WBT 2 4000 76 .030* 60 .023* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 163 .102 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .014* WBR .041* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 69 .022* 204 .064* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 36 .023 SBL 1 1600 87 .054* 80 .050* SBT 2 3200 183 .057 228 .071 SBR 1 1600 43 .027 84 .053 EBL 0 0 20 84 EBT 2 3200 50 .030* 109 .080* EBR 0 0 26 63 WBL 0.5 42 33 WBT 2 4000 126 .042* 127 .040* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 163 .102 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .008* WBR .024* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .155 .239 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .156 A-158 258 38. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 31 .019* 38 .024 NBT 2 3200 75 .023 230 .072* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 36 .023 SBL 1 1600 87 .054 80 .050* SBT 2 3200 213 .067* 243 .076 SBR 1 1600 43 .027 84 .053 EBL 0 0 20 84 EBT 2 3200 45 .028* 84 .072* EBR 0 0 26 63 WBL 0.5 42 33 WBT 2 4000 115 .039* 85 .030* WBR 1 1600 145 .091 163 .102 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .005* WBR .034* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .158 .258 A-159 39. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 98 .061* NBT 2 3200 147 .086* 98 .061 NBR 0 0 127 .061 180 .113 SBL 0 0 55 1.0341* 104 0 SBT 2 3200 54 .041 174 .121* SBR 0 0 21 .121* 110 0 EBL 1 1600 13 .008 42 .026 EBT 2 3200 39 .012* 248 .078* EBR 1 1600 17 .011 100 .063 WBL 1 1600 132 .083* 243 .152* WBT 2 3200 138 .043 282 .088 WBR 1 1600 107 .067 160 .100 Existing + Regional Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 98 .061* NBT 2 3200 147 .086* 98 .061 NBR 0 0 127 180 180 .113 SBL 0 0 55 1.0341* 104 SBT SBT 2 3200 54 .041 174 .121* SBR 0 0 21 110 110 EBL EBL 1 1600 13 .008 42 .026 EBT 2 3200 39 .012* 248 .078* EBR 1 1600 17 .011 100 .063 WBL 1 1600 132 .083* 243 .152* WBT 2 3200 138 .043 282 .088 WBR 1 1600 107 .067 160 .100 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .215 .412 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .215 .412 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 98 .061* NBT 2 3200 150 .087* 108 .068 NBR 0 0 127 180 180 .113 SBL 0 0 62 1.0391* 84 SBT SBT 2 3200 64 .046 167 .113* SBR 0 0 21 110 110 EBL EBL 1 1600 13 .008 42 .026 EBT 2 3200 41 .013* 264 .083* EBR 1 1600 17 .011 100 .063 WBL 1 1600 132 .083* 243 .152* WBT 2 3200 142 .044 296 .093 WBR 1 1600 101 .063 134 .084 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 98 .061* NBT 2 3200 147 .086* 98 .061 NBR 0 0 127 180 .113 SBL 0 0 55 1.0341* 104 SBT 2 3200 54 .041 174 .121* SBR 0 0 21 110 EBL 1 1600 13 .008 42 .026 EBT 2 3200 51 .016* 285 .089* EBR 1 1600 17 .011 100 .063 WBL 1 1600 132 .083* 243 .152* WBT 2 3200 175 .055 304 .095 WBR 1 1600 107 .067 160 .100 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .222 .409 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .219 A-160 423 39. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 48 .030 98 .061* NBT 2 3200 150 .087* 108 .068 NBR 0 0 127 180 .113 SBL 0 0 62 1.0391* 84 SBT 2 3200 64 .046 167 .113* SBR 0 0 21 110 EBL 1 1600 13 .008 42 .026 EBT 2 3200 53 .017* 301 .094* EBR 1 1600 17 .011 100 .063 WBL 1 1600 132 .083* 243 .152* WBT 2 3200 179 .056 318 .099 WBR 1 1600 101 .063 134 .084 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .226 .420 A-161 40. Newport Center/Fashion Island & Newport Center Existing PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 143 .089* 169 .053 119 .074 41 .026 112 .036* 3 22 .014 105 .033* 215 .134 376 .235* 83 .026 52 .033 EBR .034* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* NBT 2 3200 58 .018 NBR 1 1600 276 .173 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 SBT 2 3200 10 .003* SBR 0 0 1 1 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 EBT 2 3200 98 .031* EBR 1 1600 125 .078 WBL 1 1600 68 .043* WBT 2 3200 41 .013 WBR 1 1600 12 .008 Right Turn Adjustment .033* NBR .037* PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 143 .089* 169 .053 119 .074 41 .026 112 .036* 3 22 .014 105 .033* 215 .134 376 .235* 83 .026 52 .033 EBR .034* Existing + Regional Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* 143 .089* NBT 2 3200 58 .018 169 .053 NBR 1 1600 276 .173 119 .074 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 41 .026 SBT 2 3200 10 .003* 112 .036* SBR 0 0 1 1 3 3 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 22 .014 EBT 2 3200 98 .031* 105 .033* EBR 1 1600 125 .078 215 .134 WBL 1 1600 68 .043* 376 .235* WBT 2 3200 41 .013 83 .026 WBR 1 1600 12 .008 52 .033 Right Turn Adjustment Turn Adjustment NBR .037* EBR .034* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .218 .427 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .218 .427 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR LANES AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* 143 .089* NBT 2 3200 60 .019 178 .056 NBR 1 1600 274 .171 111 .069 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 41 .026 SBT 2 3200 11 .004* 121 .039* SBR 0 0 1 1600 3 .043* EBL 1 1600 6 .004 22 .014 EBT 2 3200 98 .031* 105 .033* EBR 1 1600 125 .078 215 .134 WBL 1 1600 78 .049* 369 .231* WBT 2 3200 41 .013 83 .026 WBR 1 1600 12 .008 52 .033 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .029* EBR .034* Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .217 .426 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .218 A-162 PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 143 .089* 169 .053 119 .074 41 .026 112 .036* 3 22 .014 105 .033* 215 .134 376 .235* 83 .026 52 .033 EBR .034* 427 AM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* NBT 2 3200 58 .018 NBR 1 1600 276 .173 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 SBT 2 3200 10 .003* SBR 0 0 1 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 EBT 2 3200 98 .031* EBR 1 1600 125 .078 WBL 1 1600 68 .043* WBT 2 3200 41 .013 WBR 1 1600 12 .008 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .037* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .217 .426 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .218 A-162 PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 143 .089* 169 .053 119 .074 41 .026 112 .036* 3 22 .014 105 .033* 215 .134 376 .235* 83 .026 52 .033 EBR .034* 427 40. Newport Center/Fashion Island & Newport Center Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* 143 .089* NBT 2 3200 60 .019 178 .056 NBR 1 1600 274 .171 111 .069 SBL 1 1600 4 .003 41 .026 SBT 2 3200 11 .004* 121 .039* SBR 0 0 1 3 EBL 1 1600 6 .004 22 .014 EBT 2 3200 98 .031* 105 .033* EBR 1 1600 125 .078 215 .134 WBL 1 1600 78 .049* 369 .231* WBT 2 3200 41 .013 83 .026 WBR 1 1600 12 .008 52 .033 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .029* EBR .034* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .217 .426 A-163 FINAL City of Newport Beach NEWPORT CENTER TRIP TRANSFER TRAFFIC STUDY Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714)667-0496 November 7, 2007 City of Newport Beach NEWPORT CENTER TRIP TRANSFER TRAFFIC STUDY As part of the proposed North Newport Center Project, The Irvine Company is proposing to remove some existing and entitled uses in Block 600 and replace them with office uses in Block 500. As part of the proposed transfer of uses, The Irvine Company and the City wish to reserve 72,000 square feet of the converted uses for a new City Hall building in Block 500. The transfer of development rights within Newport Center is allowed in accordance with the City of Newport Beach General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 provided the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) examined the conversion and transfer of the entitled uses into equivalent office uses on the basis of a PM peak hour trip generation equivalency basis. ANALYSIS The transfer involves existing uses including a health club, restaurant, and office as well as remaining, but as yet unused entitlement for hotel uses in Block 600, which will be replaced by office use in Block 500. The existing uses in Block 600 amount to 42,036 square feet (sf) of office, restaurant and health club uses. The unused entitlement in Block 600 is 195 hotel rooms. These entitled uses in Block 600 are to be replaced in Block 500 with office use, 72,000 sf of which may be used for a new City Hall. The analysis is based upon use of the worst case PM peak hour trip rates. Rates for the analysis were taken from ITE's 7rh Edition Trip Generation publication. The trips generated by the uses proposed to be eliminated are calculated in Table 1. As indicated, the uses included as the basis of the proposed transfer are projected to generate 339 PM peak hour trips. A potential new City Hall of 72,000 sf would generate 108 peak hour trips (based on a rate of 1.5 trips per thousand square feet) leaving 231 trips, which can be allocated toward other uses. These 231 PM peak hour trips equate to 206,000± sf of office use based on a trip rate of 1.12 trips/TSF. The proposed project consists of 205,161 sf of office space in Block 500. Therefore, the total PM peak hour trip generation associated with the converted uses proposed for Block 500 would be 338 trips. Newport Center Trip Transfer 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Study 017080rpt.doc Table 1 CONVERTED USES PM Use (Entitled in Block 600) Peak Hour Rate PM Peak Trips Hotel 195 Rooms) — Unbuilt Entitlement 0.70 (ITE 310)' 136 Family Fitness 17,300* s — Existing 4.05 ITE 492 )2 70 Palm Gardens 16,447* s — Existing 7.49 ITE 931 3 123 Eliminated Office (6,789* sf) — Existing 1.12 (ITE 710)4 8 Eliminated Office 1,500 s — Existing 1.12 ITE 710 4 2 TOTAL 339 Use (Proposed in Block 500 Office 205,161 s 1.12 ITE 710 4 230 City Hall 72,000 s 1.50 ITE 750 )4 108 TOTAL 338 * Per building permit information. ' Hotel (rates applied for each occupied room) 2 Health Club (rates per TSF) 3 Quality Restaurant (rates per TSF) 4 Trip rate per TSF determined from applying the ITE office regression equation to the existing (408 TSF) and proposed future (614 TSF) office use, and calculating the rate based on the square footage increment (206 TSF) 5 Closest ITE rate (in both function and magnitude) to match the GP assumption for City Hall trip generation. Newport Center Trip Transfer 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Study 017080rpt.doc CONCLUSION In summary, it is concluded that the currently entitled uses in Block 600 Newport Center (i.e., 195 hotel rooms and 42,036 sf of health club, retail, and office uses) proposed for transfer to Block 500 equate to 339 PM peak hour trips. These 339 trips would match the amount of PM peak hour trips projected to be generated by a new 72,000 sf City Hall plus another 205,161 sf of office use. Therefore, the proposed transfer of development rights will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Newport Center Trip Transfer 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Study 017080rpt.doc Exhibit "D" Addendum No. 2 (North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-impact-repor 10-26 ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN 2006 UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCH No. 2006011119 C poveO�UR X44. Lead Agency City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 CEQA Consultant T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17 th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, California 92780 June 15, 2012 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Page 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Summary.............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 The California Environmental Quality Act................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update and Final Program EIR.................................... 1-2 1.4 Addendum No. I to the Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update and Final 4.3.10 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................4-45 ProgramEIR...................................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements.............................................................. 1-3 1.6 Type of CEQA Compliance Document and Level of Analysis ............................................. 1-4 1.7 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum............................................................................. 1-7 1.8 Preparation and Processing of this EIR Addendum................................................................. 1-8 2.0 Project Description........................................................................................................................................2-1 3.0 Project Information........................................................................................................................................3-1 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.............................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency)....................................................... 4-1 4.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.1 Aesthetics........................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources............................................................................4-6 4.3.3 Air Quality..........................................................................................................................4-9 4.3.4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................4-18 4.3.5 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................4-21 4.3.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources......................................................................4-24 4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................................4-29 4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials..............................................................................4-35 4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.....................................................................................4-40 4.3.10 Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................4-45 4.3.1 1 Noise.................................................................................................................................4-49 4.3.12 Population and Housing................................................................................................4-61 4.3.13 Public Services.................................................................................................................4-62 4.3.14 Recreation and Open Space.........................................................................................4-66 4.3. 15 Transportation/Traffic...................................................................................................4-68 4.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................4-81 5.0 References........................................................................................................................................................5-1 6.0 Persons Contributing to Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Preparation....................................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation ............................................. 6-1 6.2 Resumes for Key Personnel.......................................................................................................... 6-1 7.0 Technical Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 7-1 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number/Title Page Figure I Proposed Development Intensity Transfer...............................................................................2-3 Figure2 Project Location Map...................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses........................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 4 TPO Analysis Study Intersections..............................................................................................4-70 Figure 5 General Project Trip Distribution and Project ADT............................................................4-72 LIST OF TABLES Table Number/Title Page Table I Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB..........................................................4-10 Table 2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions.................................................................................4-13 Table 3 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs ..........................4-31 Table 4 Total Annual Project GHG Emissions......................................................................................4-33 Table 5 Allowable Exterior Noise Levels...............................................................................................4-51 Table 6 Allowable Interior Noise Levels.................................................................................................4-51 Table 7 Existing Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts.......................................................4-54 Table 8 Year 2016 Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts..................................................4-56 Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..........................................................4-58 Table 10 Approved Projects Summary......................................................................................................4-71 Table I I Trip Generation Summary...........................................................................................................4-71 Table 12 Cumulative Projects Summary ...................................................................................................4-73 Table13 Existing ICU Summary ..................................................................................................................4-73 Table 14 Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary..........................................................................................4-74 Table 15 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary ....................................................................................4-75 Table 16 Year 2016 ICU Summary.............................................................................................................4-76 Table 17 Cumulative ICU Summary...........................................................................................................4-77 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS Acronym Definition AB Assembly Bill ADT Average Daily Traffic AELUP Airport Environs Land Use Plan AFY Acre -Feet per Year AHIP Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APS Alternative Planning Strategy AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CDC California Department of Conservation CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 Methane CGS California Geological Survey CMP Congestion Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level DAMP (Orange County) Drainage Area Master Plan dB Decibels EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GCC Global Climate Change GHG Greenhouse Gas(es) GWP Global Warming Potential HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC Hydrofluorocarbon ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JWA John Wayne Airport NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS (cont'd) Acronym Definition Leq Equivalent Level (noise) LOS Level of Service MFR Multi -Family Residential Uses mgd million gallons per day MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRZ-3 Mineral Resources Zone 3 MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MU -H3 Mixed -Use Horizontal 3 MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 NBFD Newport Beach Fire Department NBPD Newport Beach Police Department NBPL Newport Beach Public Library NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NMUSD Newport Mesa Unified School District NNCPC North Newport Center Planned Community NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority OCWD Orange County Water District PC -56 North Newport Center Planned Community PFC Perfluorocarbon PMz.s Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Inhalable Particulate Matter pph person(s) per household REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level RM Multiple Residential RTP Regional Transportation Plan SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCGC Southern California Gas Company SCH State Clearinghouse (Governor's Office of Planning & Research) SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SIP State Implementation Plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 LIST OF ACRONYMS (cont'd) Acronym Definition SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V/C Volume to Capacity Ratio VdB Vibration Decibels VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds vph vehicles per hour WQMP Water Quality Management Plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 1.0 Introduction The City of Newport Beach (hereafter "City") received an application from the Irvine Company (hereafter "Project Applicant") in February 2012 requesting to assign un -built development intensity permitted by the City's General Plan to the North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) and to vest that development intensity to the NNCPC subarea named "San Joaquin Plaza" (hereafter "proposed Project site"). Specifically, the application (hereafter "Project" or "proposed Project") proposes the following: 1) convert 79 un -built hotel units to 79 multi -family residential units and transfer and vest those 79 units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC; 2) assign and vest 15 un -built multi -family residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC; and 3) reallocate 430 units already allowed within the NNCPC's Block 500, Block 600 and the San Joaquin Plaza, solely to the San Joaquin Plaza. The proposed Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City is the lead agency with principal responsibility for considering the proposed Project for approval. This Introduction will discuss: 1) the requirements of CEQA; 2) the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 200601 1 19) certified by the Newport Beach City Council for the General Plan 2006 Update (hereafter "General Plan EIR") in compliance with CEQA; 3) Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR that supported the approval of the NNCPC Development Plan and associated actions; 4) the primary purpose of an EIR Addendum; 5) the standards for adequacy of an EIR Addendum pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines; 6) the format and content of this EIR Addendum; and 7) the City's processing requirements to consider the proposed Project for approval. 1.1 Project Summary The proposed Project evaluated in this EIR Addendum is located in the City's Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L I). This area is commonly known as Newport Center/Fashion Island, which is a mixed use district that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential uses in a master -planned development. The Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (hereafter, "General Plan" or "2006 General Plan") describes the City's existing and planned development pattern. It includes maps and tables that specify where certain land uses can occur and assigns maximum development limits (also called development "intensity") to specific locations. The General Plan recognizes that although Newport Beach is mostly built -out, growth and change will continue to occur; therefore, to allow flexibility, the City Council may allow transfers of un -built development intensity. The Project Applicant is requesting the following: a. The conversion of development intensity associated with 79 un -built hotel rooms in Statistical Area LI from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and the transfer and vesting of the converted units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC; b. The assignment and vesting of 15 un -built multi -family residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of Newport Center to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC; and c. The reallocation of the 430 residential units currently allocated to the Mixed -Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) portions of the NNCPC (Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza) solely to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-1 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 The above actions, combined, would result in a net increase in the number of multi -family residential dwelling units allowed within San Joaquin Plaza by 94 dwelling units (from 430 units to 524 units) and would eliminate residential unit allocations from NNCPC Blocks 500 and 600. The above actions do not, however, increase the overall intensity currently allowed by the General Plan. A General Plan Amendment is not required to accomplish transfers of development intensity, but the transfers must be approved by the City Council pursuant to Land Use Policy LU 6.14.3 of the General Plan (Transfers of Development Rights). The following actions require consideration by the Newport Beach City Council in order to approve the proposed Project: 1) Convert un -built non-residential development intensity (79 hotel rooms) to multi -family residential development intensity (79 multi -family units) and transfer the converted development intensity into the NNCPC; 2) Assign 15 residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of the Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza; 3) Amend the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by a total of 94 units and to allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza; 4) Amend the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations; 5) Approve a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and 6) Amend the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). Additional detail regarding the proposed Project and the six (6) actions listed above is provided in Section 2.0 of this document. 1.2 The California Environmental Quality Act CEQA, a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code §§21000-21177, applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. The overarching goal of CEQA is to protect the physical environment. To achieve that goal, CEQA requires that public agencies inform themselves of the environmental consequences of their discretionary actions and consider alternatives and mitigation measures that could avoid or reduce significant adverse impacts when avoidance or reduction is feasible. It also gives other public agencies and the general public an opportunity to comment on the information. If significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided, reduced, or mitigated to below a level of significance, the public agency is required to prepare an EIR and balance the project's environmental concerns with other goals and benefits in a statement of overriding considerations. 1.3 Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update and Final Program EIR In 2006, the City of Newport Beach prepared an update to its General Plan, which required the preparation of a program EIR. As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a program EIR is " an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related...." To reduce duplicative paperwork, program EIRs are intended to be used with later activities if the CEQA lead agency finds that no new adverse environmental effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required. See CEQA Guidelines § 15168. In that case, the agency can approve the NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-2 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 implementing activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. The City's General Plan EIR (SCH No. 200601 1 1 19) was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with planned buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of the property encompassing the NNCPC and the specific area of the NNCPC that is the subject of evaluation in this document (San Joaquin Plaza). The location of the NNCPC, previous approvals granted, and the actions addressed as part of the proposed Project evaluated in this EIR Addendum are further addressed in Section 2.0, Project Description. On July 25, 2006, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-75 in association with certifying the General Plan EIR, making associated Findings and Statement of Facts, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in compliance with CEQA. The General Plan EIR and Resolution No. 2006-75 are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov. 1.4 Addendum No. 1 to the Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Ur)date and Final Program EIR When the 2006 General Plan was adopted by the City, a certain amount of development intensity was allocated to the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area LI). In 2007, the Irvine Company proposed to assign a portion of the development intensity allocated to Statistical Area LI through the approval of a zoning amendment that would result in the City adopting the NNCPC Development Plan. Associated actions also were proposed, including but not limited to a Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center and an AHIP. In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared and approved Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR (hereafter, "Addendum No. I") in association with the City's approval of that project. Addendum No. I is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. 1.5 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements The CEQA Guidelines allow for the updating and use of a previously certified EIR for projects that have changed or are different from the previous project or conditions analyzed in the certified EIR. In cases where changes or additions occur with no new significant environmental impacts, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared. See CEQA Guidelines § 15164. The following describes the requirements of an Addendum, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164: a. The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. b. An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. c. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-3 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 d. A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. As noted above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) allows for the preparation of an Addendum if none of the conditions described in Section 15162 are met. CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 describes the conditions under which a Subsequent EIR must be prepared, as follows: a. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; b. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or c. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following: The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 3. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternatives; or 4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an Addendum may be prepared. See CEQA Guidelines § 15164. As described in detail herein, none of the above circumstances that warrant the preparation of a Subsequent EIR are present. 1.6 Type of CEQA Compliance Document and Level of Analysis This document is Addendum No. 2 to the previously -certified City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR (SCH No. 200601 1 1 1 9). As such, this Addendum analyzes the potential differences between the impacts in the General Plan EIR and those that would be associated with the proposed Project described in Section 2.0, Project Description. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1) Geographically, NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-4 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 2) A logical parts [sic] in the chain of contemplated actions, 3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that subsequent activities undertaken pursuant to a Program EIR must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), "Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EIR." This EIR Addendum provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the proposed Project, which consists of the actions summarized above in Section 1.1 and more fully described in Section 2.0, Project Description. The City has determined that an Addendum to the General Plan EIR should be prepared, rather than a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR, based on the following facts: a. As demonstrated in the accompanying Environmental Checklist Form and its associated analyses (refer to Section 4.0), the proposed Project would not require major revisions to the previously -certified Program EIR because the Project would not result any new significant impacts to the physical environment nor would it create substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. In summary, the proposed Project consists of assigning un -built development intensity within the General Plan's Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area LI), as summarized above in Section 1.1 and described in detail in Section 2.0. Although the total number of multi -family residential dwelling units allowed within the NNCPC would increase by 94 units, the total number of dwelling units (including hotel rooms) allowed within the Newport Center Statistical Area would remain unchanged. b. Although the Project would convert 79 un -built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units, hotel rooms have a higher peak hour traffic generation rate as compared to multi- family residential; thus, the conversion of un -built hotel rooms to multi -family residential dwelling units would have a reduced impact on transportation and traffic as compared to that evaluated in the General Plan Update Final Program EIR. c. The Project's related discretionary actions, including but not limited to an amendment to the NCCP Development Plan, an amendment to the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City and the Irvine Company, and an amendment to an existing AHIP, would not result in any new significant environmental impacts beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. d. Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR, no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken have occurred. e. Subsequent to the certification of the General Plan EIR, no new information of substantial importance has become available which was not known at the time the General Plan EIR was prepared. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-5 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical reports that evaluate the proposed Project were prepared for the subject areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, traffic, water supply, and local sewer capacity. Copies of these reports are contained within the appendix of this document. These technical reports do not identify any new impacts or substantial increases in impacts to the environment beyond that which was disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Specifically, these technical reports concluded as follows: I . The Air Quality Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix A), prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. and dated June 6, 2012, concludes that the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or more severe impacts associated with air quality than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR; 2. The Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Technical Appendix B), prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. and dated June 6, 2012, concludes that the proposed Project would not generate substantial amounts of greenhouse gases that could result in a new impact or more severe significant impact on the environment than would otherwise occur with implementation of the City's General Plan, nor would the Project conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions; 3. The Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix C), prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. and dated June 6, 2012, concludes that the proposed Project would not generate a new impact or more severe impact related to construction or operational noise than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in transportation -related ambient noise levels or expose persons to noise levels in excess of City standards; 4. The North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis (Technical Appendix D), prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. and dated May 2012, concludes that the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact to any study area intersection and finds that the proposed Project would generate less traffic than currently allowed under the General Plan; 5. The Water Supply Assessment (Technical Appendix E), prepared by T&B Planning, Inc. and dated June 13, 2012, concludes that the City will receive a sufficient supply of water from imported, groundwater, and recycled sources in average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions to service the proposed Project and other existing and planned development in the City with domestic water through the horizon analysis year of 2035. As such, the Project would not create a new impact or more severe impact than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. 6. The Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increase Allocation of Residential Development (Technical Appendix F), prepared by RBF Consulting and dated May 10, 2012, concludes that the proposed Project would not result in or require any physical upgrades to the local sewer system. As such, the Project would not create a new impact or more severe impact than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. g. Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR would be appropriate and feasible for the proposed Project. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-6 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Based on these facts, the City determined that an Addendum to the previously certified General Plan EIR is the appropriate type of CEQA document to prepare for the proposed Project. The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate the proposed Project's level of impact on the environment in comparison to the approved 2006 General Plan and its accompanying Final Program EIR. 1.7 Format and Content of this EIR Addendum The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality: a. This Introduction (Section 1.0) and the Project Description (Section 2.0). b. The completed Environmental Checklist Form and its associated analyses (Sections 3.0 and 4.0), which concludes that the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity environmental impacts beyond the levels disclosed in the General Plan Update 2006 Final Program EIR. c. Six (6) technical reports that evaluate the proposed Project, which are attached as EIR Addendum Technical Appendices A — F. Appendix A: Air Quality Analysis Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Appendix C: Noise Study Appendix D: Traffic Report Appendix E: Water Supply Assessment Appendix F: Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability d. The General Plan EIR, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to the General Plan EIR, Findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2006-75, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov. e. Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. f. The Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County staff report, entitled "City of Newport Beach: Request for Consideration of Proposed Planned Community Zoning Amendment" and dated November 15, 2007, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. g. An analysis conducted by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., entitled "San Joaquin Plaza — Trip Generation Comparison" and dated May 16, 2012, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-7 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 1.8 Preparation and Processing of this EIR Addendum The City of Newport Beach Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this EIR Addendum. Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this EIR Addendum reflect the sole independent judgment of the City. This EIR Addendum will be forwarded for review, along with the previously certified General Plan EIR and Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR, to the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. A public hearing(s) will be held before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, which will provide a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed Project. A public hearing(s) will then be held before the City Council to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this EIR Addendum. Public comments will be heard at the hearing(s). At the conclusion of the public hearing process, the City Council will take action to approve, conditionally approve, or deny approval of the proposed Project. If approved, the City Council also will adopt findings relative to the Project's environmental effects. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-8 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 2.0 Project Description The Project evaluated by this EIR Addendum is located in the City of Newport Beach, within the City's Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area LI). This area is commonly known as Newport Center/Fashion Island, which is a mixed use district that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential uses in a master -planned development. The Newport Center Statistical Area consists of several sub -areas with separate and distinct zoning designations, including multiple planned communities. The sub -areas involved in this Project include: 1) the NNCPC, which is the largest planned community and includes Fashion Island (located in the central portion of Statistical Area L I), as well as Blocks 100, 400, 500, 600, 800, and San Joaquin Plaza (located northerly, southerly, and easterly of Fashion Island); and 2) the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (a 532 -room resort hotel located immediately west of Fashion Island). Other sub -areas within Newport Center include the Newport Beach Country Club and golf course (located westerly of Fashion Island), existing single-family neighborhoods (located westerly and southwesterly of the golf course), other professional office complexes (located northerly and southerly of Fashion Island), and the Corona del Mar Shopping Center and future Civic Center (located along the eastern edge of the Newport Center boundary). In February 2012, the Project Applicant submitted an application to the City's Planning Division requesting to assign un -built development intensity permitted by the City's General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area to the NNCPC, and to vest the resulting additional development intensities through an amendment to an existing Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement. That application is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to CEQA. The Newport Beach City Council will consider the following actions requested by the Project Applicant. In advance of the City Council's consideration, advisory recommendations regarding the actions listed below will be considered by the City's Planning Commission. I. Convert un -built non-residential development intensity (79 hotel rooms) to multi -family residential development intensity (79 multi -family units) and transfer the converted development intensity into the NNCPC; 2. Assign 15 residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of the Newport Center to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC; 3. Amend the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by a total of 94 units and to allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza; 4. Amend the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations; 5. Approve a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and 6. Amend the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). Each of the proposed actions is described in more detail below. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-1 No ■ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 ♦ Convert Un -built Non -Residential Development Intensity (79 Hotel Rooms) to Multi - Family Residential Development Intensity (79 Multi -Family Units) and Transfer the Converted Development Intensity to the NNCPC The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element describes the City's existing and planned development pattern. It includes maps and tables that specify where certain land uses can occur and allocates maximum development limits (also called development "intensity") to specific locations. Certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU I and LU2. The General Plan recognizes that although Newport Beach is mostly built -out, growth and change will continue to occur; therefore, to allow flexibility, the City Council may allow transfers of un -built development intensity. Anomaly Location 43 in Statistical Area LI is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un -built. The Project Applicant requests to convert the 79 un -built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 4.3(d), transfers of development rights or development intensity in Newport Center are governed solely by General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 allows development rights or development intensity to be transferred within Newport Center, subject to a finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in adverse traffic impacts. A General Plan Amendment is not required to accomplish the proposed conversion and transfer of development intensity, but the conversion and transfer must be approved by the City Council. Refer to Figure I for a graphic depiction of the proposed development intensity transfer. ♦ Assign 15 Residential Units Currently Allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 Portions of Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza In addition to the land use and development intensity designations assigned to certain locations of the City by the 2006 General Plan, several areas of the City are regulated by planned community development plans. The NNCPC Development Plan, which is applicable in the case of the proposed Project, specifies more detail than the General Plan and includes development standards, design guidelines, and administration procedures that must be adhered to when development actions occur within the NNCPC boundaries. The NNCPC serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for activities within its boundaries. The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU -H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU -H3 category throughout the Newport Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU -H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are allowed to be developed within the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza and are vested through an existing Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement. The additional 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU -H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. The City previously assigned five (5) of the 20 MU -H3 units to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development, which are vested to that property through a development agreement. The other 15 MU -H3 units have not been NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-2 ON ■ 1:1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 LEGEND 0 Newport Center / Fashion Island (Statistical Area 1_1) 0 North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) 0 Marroitt Hotel Block 900 [=San Joaquin Plaza Portion of NNCPC Donor Sites / Receiver Site Development Limit Before Transfer or Vesting Development Limit After Transfer or Vesting Marriott Hotel Block 900 (General Plan Anomaly 611 Hotel Units 532 Hotel Units Location 43) Un -Built and Un Vested Multi -Family Units 15 Multi -Family Units 0 Multi -Family Units Allocated Statistical Area Ll By General Plan San Joaquin Plaza (General Plan Anomaly 430 Residential Units 524 Multi -Family Units Location 48 Figure 1 „ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY TRANSFER NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-3 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 assigned to any particular property in Newport Center. As discussed below, the Project Applicant requests to assign and vest the 15 un -built MU -1-13 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC through an amendment to the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement, consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.8 (Development Agreements). Refer to Figure I (previously presented) for a graphic depiction of the proposed development intensity transfer. ♦ Amend the NNCPC Development Plan to Increase the Allowable Residential Development Intensity by 94 Units and to Allocate the 94 Units Plus the 430 Residential Units Currently Allocated to the MU -H3 Portions of the NNCPC Solely to San Joaquin Plaza As described above, the Project Applicant proposes to increase the residential development intensity allowed in the NNCPC by transferring 79 converted hotel units and assigning 15 un -built multi -family units from outside the NNCPC to inside the NNCPC. In addition, the Project Applicant seeks to modify NNCPC Table 2, Development Limits, to specifically allocate 524 residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza. These 524 units consist of the 430 residential units already allocated to the NNCPC's MU -H3 -designated areas (Block 500, Block 600, and the San Joaquin Plaza), the 79 converted and transferred hotel units, and the 15 un -built units of allowed MU -1-13 development intensity that are proposed to be assigned to the NNCPC. The proposed increase in the maximum number of residential units would require that the City approve an Amendment of the NNCPC Development Plan. Specifically, NNCPC Table 2, Development Limits, is proposed to be amended as follows: Table 2 — Development Limits (A) A. square tootage indicated in i able [ may not retiect current development limits because of the transter of development rights provision described in Sections ILC and IV.0 herein. Transfers may result in increased or decreased development limits, so long as the transfers are consistent with the General Plan and do not result in greater intensity than allowed in the Newport Center statistical area. A transfer of development rights must be approved by the City Council and is recorded on the City's Tracking Development Rights table for North Newport Center Planned Community. B. Hotel rooms are permitted in Fashion Island through the transfer of development rights. Q R.Pqqd_Pntqa' unots are peffffltted iR -Bleck -900, Bleck 600 and SaR jeaquin Plaza if the tet;il number ef dn,,q Rnt exceed 430 units. 8C. The maximum development for Block 100 may not exceed 121,114 square feet. Transfers of development rights shall be permitted, provided the maximum development limit of 121,114 square feet is not exceeded. Transfers have resulted in no remaining intensity in Block 100. D. Per City Council Action on 1 I/8/1 1 via Resolution 201 I-102, the maximum permitted office/commercial development for Block 500 is 599.659 sq. ft., Block 600 is 1.340.609 sq. ft., and for San Joaquin Plaza is 95.550 sq. ft. No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. The Project does not propose to change the boundaries of the NCCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NCCPC Development Plan Amendment. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-4 Fashion San Joaquin Land Use Island Block 100 Block 400 Block 500 Block 600 Block 800 Plaza Total Regional 1,619,525 sq. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,619,525 sq. ft. Commercial ft. Movie Theater 1,700 seats 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,700 seats (27,500 sq. (27,500 sq. ft.) ft.) Hotel (B) 0 0 0 295 0 0 295 Residential 0 0 0 438(E30 (q0 245 524(0 675769 Office/ 0 -0- sq. ft. 91,727 sq. ft. 599,659 sq. 1,340,609 sq. 286,166 95,550 sq. ft. 2,413,711 sq. ft. Commercial (D}Q ft. �W ft. A. square tootage indicated in i able [ may not retiect current development limits because of the transter of development rights provision described in Sections ILC and IV.0 herein. Transfers may result in increased or decreased development limits, so long as the transfers are consistent with the General Plan and do not result in greater intensity than allowed in the Newport Center statistical area. A transfer of development rights must be approved by the City Council and is recorded on the City's Tracking Development Rights table for North Newport Center Planned Community. B. Hotel rooms are permitted in Fashion Island through the transfer of development rights. Q R.Pqqd_Pntqa' unots are peffffltted iR -Bleck -900, Bleck 600 and SaR jeaquin Plaza if the tet;il number ef dn,,q Rnt exceed 430 units. 8C. The maximum development for Block 100 may not exceed 121,114 square feet. Transfers of development rights shall be permitted, provided the maximum development limit of 121,114 square feet is not exceeded. Transfers have resulted in no remaining intensity in Block 100. D. Per City Council Action on 1 I/8/1 1 via Resolution 201 I-102, the maximum permitted office/commercial development for Block 500 is 599.659 sq. ft., Block 600 is 1.340.609 sq. ft., and for San Joaquin Plaza is 95.550 sq. ft. No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. The Project does not propose to change the boundaries of the NCCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NCCPC Development Plan Amendment. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-4 No ■ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 ♦ Amend the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company to Vest the Revised Development Intensities and Allocations to the San Joaquin Plaza Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.8 (Development Agreements), the Project Applicant proposes an amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled Amendment to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company LLC Concerning Addition of Properties and Residential Units to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement (Portions of Newport Center Blocks 100, 400 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza) (Amendment). Pursuant to this Amendment, the Project Applicant would have a vested right to develop the 94 new residential units, of which 15 currently are not assigned to a specific property within North Newport Center and 79 currently are assigned to Block 900 as hotel rooms. Such 79 hotel rooms would be converted to residential units and transferred from Block 900 into North Newport Center Planned Community and allocated to San Joaquin Plaza subsequent to conversion, as reflected in the amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan. The Amendment also specifies public benefit fees to be contributed by the developer, pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 6.14.8. ♦ Approve a Traffic Study for 94 Units Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance The Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), as set forth in Chapter 15.40 of the City's Municipal Code, is the City's primary tool for analyzing the short-term traffic impacts associated with new development. The TPO is intended: "1) To provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; 2) To identify the specific and near-term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; 3) To ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval pursuant to [Chapter 15.40], make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and 4) To provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts." A traffic study was prepared for the proposed Project in compliance with the TPO methodology and requirements. See Appendix D of this document. A total of 430 multi -family units already are permitted within the San Joaquin Plaza pursuant to the General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan; accordingly, and in conformance with the TPO, the traffic study evaluates only the proposed assignment of 94 additional un -built multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza. As part of its consideration of the proposed Project, the City Council will consider whether to approve the traffic study and make appropriate findings pursuant to § 15.40.030 of the Municipal Code. ♦ Amend the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) Housing Program No. 2.2.1 of the City's General Plan Housing Element includes a goal that 15% of all new housing units in the City of Newport Beach be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. New residential projects with more than 50 units are required to prepare an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) that specifies how the project will meet the city's 15% goal. The General Plan Housing Element allows for the affordable units to be for -sale or for -rent, to be provided on either the same site or a different site than the proposed market -rate units, and to be encumbered City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 15.40.020 (Objectives). Available on-line at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/. Accessed June 4, 2012. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-5 No E ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 with restrictions that maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Although the Project Applicant's proposal is limited to a development intensity conversion, transfer, and assignment and does not involve the construction of a residential project, the Project Applicant proposes to amend their existing AHIP to demonstrate how the City's 15% affordable housing goal would be satisfied as it applies to the 524 residential units that would be allocated to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The NNCPC AHIP was originally approved by the City of Newport Beach in December 2007, when the NNCPC Development Plan was adopted. The proposed AHIP Amendment specifies that the Project Applicant will restrict rental costs for existing apartment units located in The Bays, a nearby apartment complex owned by the Project Applicant located at the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road. No physical changes at The Bays apartment complex would occur as a result of the proposed AHIP Amendment. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-6 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 3.0 Project Information 1. Project Title North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 3300 Newport Boulevard, Building C Newport Beach, CA 92663 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209 4. Project Location The proposed Project involves the transfer of development intensity for 79 multi -family units (which would be converted from hotel units as part of the Project) from Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area LI) to the NNCPC and specifically to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The Project also involves the assignment of 15 residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of Statistical Area L I to San Joaquin Plaza. Statistical Area LI is commonly known as Newport Center/Fashion Island, which is a mixed use district that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential uses in a master - planned development. The Newport Center Statistical Area is bounded on the southwest by Coast Highway, on the southeast by MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeast by San Joaquin Hills Road, and on the northwest by Jamboree Road. The Newport Center Statistical Area consists of several sub -areas with separate and distinct zoning designations, including multiple planned communities. The sub -areas involved in this Project include: 1) the NNCPC, which is the largest planned community and includes Fashion Island (located in the central portion of Statistical Area LI) and Blocks 100, 400, 500, 600, 800 and San Joaquin Plaza (located northerly, southerly, and easterly of Fashion Island); and 2) the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (a 532 -room resort hotel located immediately west of Fashion Island). Other sub- areas within Newport Center include the Newport Beach Country Club and golf course (located westerly of Fashion Island), existing single-family neighborhoods (located westerly and southwesterly of the golf course), other professional office complexes (located northerly and southerly of Fashion Island), and the Corona del Mar Shopping Center and future Civic Center (located along the eastern edge of the Newport Center boundary). The NNCPC comprises the northern portions of the Newport Center Statistical Area, including Block 100, Block 400, Block 500, Block 600, Block 800, Fashion Island Regional Center, and San Joaquin Plaza. San Joaquin Plaza, which is the proposed Project site evaluated in this Initial Study and EIR Addendum, is generally bounded on the south by San Clemente Drive, on the east by Santa Cruz Drive, on the northeast by San Joaquin Hills Road, and is located just southeasterly of Jamboree Road. The Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (also referred to herein as General Plan Anomaly 43) is located at the southwestern corner of Santa Barbara Drive and Newport Center Drive, and abuts the Newport Beach NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-1 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Country Club golf course on the east. Figure 2, Project Location Map, depicts the Newport Center Statistical Area, the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel, the NNCPC area, and the San Joaquin Plaza. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address Irvine Company c/o Mr. Dan Miller 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation Mixed -Use Horizontal 3 (MU -H3) 7. Zoning North Newport Center Planned Community (PC -56) 8. Description of Project; (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Please refer to Section 2.0 for a detailed description of the proposed Project. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting; Briefly describe the Project's surroundings: As previously noted, the Project site consists of the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The Project site and surrounding land uses are depicted on Figure 3, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses. The San Joaquin Plaza is approximately 23 acres in size. It is currently developed with multi -tenant commercial office land uses, surface parking lots, a parking structure, and ornamental landscaping. Abutting the site on the northwest is the Newport Beach Police Department, the Newport Beach Fire Department Fire Station 3, and an automotive dealership. To the south is a commercial office building and the Orange County Museum of Art, beyond which and further to the south is the Fashion Island shopping mall. To the southwest is a commercial office building and a rental apartment complex. To the northeast of the San Joaquin Plaza, across San Joaquin Hills Road, is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the southeast, across Santa Cruz Drive, is Block 600 of the NNCPC, which is developed with multi -tenant office/commercial land uses, a hotel with 295 rooms presently operated as the Island Hotel, and several parking structures. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) The proposed Project would require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport QWA). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-2 No WF—] Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addenduim No. 2 Marriott Hotel Block 900 (General Plan Anomaly 43) San Joaquin Plaza —SANTA CRUZ DR. Block 800 Block 600 Fashion Island Regional Center P tV U, �G $ N � a a Block n 100 f U� r 6; 4pN QR. Z P yd' LEGEND Q Newport Center / Fashion Island (Statistical Area L1) Q North Newport Center Planned Community Q Marroitt Hotel Block 900 0 Proposed Project Site (San Joaquin Plaza Portion of NNCPC) .PO Block Soo SANTA ROSA DR. � ° a ID Figure 2 „ PROJECT LOCATION MAP NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-3 OlIr ?Re,i retial =Revsilentiai ° \ 1 44,V,! oll o der yy4 't �.t'�ts_In Rue Fonf; r z.6 P Is ol, D I i J1z t J 3 a' CbrMrlhercia�l W o Kif co 1-< — � , 1 F Comm Px �� m rcial e►rente Dti Q Newport ResideBeach-h ial-,, , 4 Golf Course k � �� � o F '� � � 4�r r _ ,HotelAl , or>rnercial:,v qport Center Dr y NW No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 4.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" not identified in the previous EIR as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality 4.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Resources I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but Biological Resources none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15162 exist. An Cultural Resources ADDENDUM to a previously -certified EIR or Negative Declaration will be prepared. Geology/Soils I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not Greenhouse Gas Emissions be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the Hazards & Hazardous project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Hydrology/ Water Quality I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Materials I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless ❑ mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier Land Use and Planning document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based Mineral Resources on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is Noise required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Population and Housing I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all Public Services potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE Recreation DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to Transportation/ Traffic that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are Utilities/ Service Systems imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously -certified EIR or Negative Declaration will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ❑ be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless ❑ mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Signature Date NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-1 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 4.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 4.3.1 Aesthetics The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on aesthetics/visual quality if it would result in any of the following. • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Aesthetic and visual impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista As noted in the General Plan EIR, there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City. However, the General Plan EIR notes that many areas in the City provide open coastal views, which are local scenic vistas.2 The General Plan EIR identifies prominent coastal viewing locations throughout the City. Major roadway corridors near the proposed Project site include San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road. San Joaquin Hills Road and segments of Jamboree Road within close proximity of the Project site are not identified in the General Plan EIR as providing for public scenic coastal views.3 Although the General Plan EIR identifies nearby segments of Coast Highway, Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Newport Center Drive as providing scenic coastal views, the Project site is located inland relative to these roadway segments and future residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would therefore have no potential to interfere with coastal views from these roadway segments. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR states that "...existing and future development would be regulated by the proposed General Plan Update policies, and scenic vistas would not be adversely affected. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant." Future development within the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the General Plan policies regulating scenic views and aesthetics. Finally, development within San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the NNCPC Development Plan and North Newport Center Design Regulations, which incorporates the following requirement related to view corridors: 2 General Plan EIR, Page 4.1-16. 3 Ibid, Page 4.1-9. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-2 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 "a. New development should preserve views of major retail tenants in Fashion Island from Newport Center Drive."4 Mandatory compliance with the NNCPC Development Plan and North Newport Center Design Regulations would further ensure that adverse effects to scenic vistas would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway There are no officially designated scenic highways in the City of Newport Beach, although State Route I (Pacific Coast Highway or Coast Highway) is eligible for a State Scenic Highway designation.5 The Pacific Coast Highway is not contiguous to the proposed Project site, nor is San Joaquin Plaza visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Furthermore, because San Joaquin Plaza is already developed with multi -tenant commercial office uses, surface parking lots, a parking structure and ornamental landscaping with species typically found in urbanized areas of Newport Beach and Orange County, development on the Project site would not substantially affect any scenic trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or other scenic resources that may be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. The Project site does not contain any such scenic resources. In addition, the General Plan EIR concludes as follows: "if in the future, the City decides to pursue these actions [pursue designation of Pacific Coast Highway as a State scenic highway], it would also be required to take actions to preserve views within the corridor. However, these procedures are beyond the scope of the proposed General Plan Update. Consequently, because no scenic highways are currently designated within the City, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would have no impact."6 Since certification of the General Plan EIR in 2006, Pacific Coast Highway has not been formally designated as a State scenic highway. Accordingly, a significant impact to scenic resources that may be visible from a State scenic highway could not occur with implementation of the proposed Project and residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings The General Plan EIR states that Newport Center/Fashion Island (which includes the proposed Project site): "...might be considered to have high overall visual quality. In these areas, new development allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to ft into the existing visual " North Newport Center Design Regulations, Page 23. 5 General Plan EIR, Page 4.1-13. 6 I bid, Page 4.1-17. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-3 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 setting. [General Plan] Policy LU 1.1 requires that new development `maintain and enhance' existing development." 7 New development within the San Joaquin Plaza would be required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan Policy LU 1. 1. Additionally, all development within the NNCPC would be subject to the NNCPC Development Plan and North Newport Center Design Regulations, which establish design regulations related to building location, building massing, landscape design, streetscapes, and orientation/identity (gateways, view corridors, signage, etc.). Mandatory compliance with the North Newport Center Design Regulations would ensure that any future residential development resulting from approval of the proposed Project would be compatible with, and of similar quality to, existing development within the NNCPC. Furthermore, the NNCPC Development Plan restricts buildings within San Joaquin Plaza to 65 feet in height. Accordingly, buildings constructed within San Joaquin Plaza would not have a potential to create shade or shadow impacts on the existing residential uses north of San Joaquin Hills Road. As concluded in the General Plan EIR: "in general, the proposed General Plan Update would provide development opportunities which would complement and enhance the City's existing visual character. Development would be required to conform to `[a] development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhood, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment' (Proposed General Plan Update, Goal 3 of the Land Use Element). Therefore the proposed General Plan Update would have a less -than -significant impact on the visual character of developed urban areas." 8 With mandatory adherence to the requirements given in the General Plan and the NNCPC Development Plan, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views Glare Impacts General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 requires "...that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid ... the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures [or] result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces..." In addition, the North Newport Center Design Regulations Policy D.5.c. requires that "Light fixtures should not cast off-site glare." 9 Future residential development on the proposed Project site would be required to demonstrate compliance with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 and would be reviewed for conformance with the Design Regulations of the NNCPC Development Plan. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not have the potential to create any new sources of substantial glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or 1 bid, Page 4.1-18. s I bid, Page 4.1-19. 9 North Newport Center Design Regulations, Page 36. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-4 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Lighting Impacts As noted in the General Plan EIR, "...the majority of new development would be located in areas that commonly experience at least minimal impacts from existing light sources."10 The proposed Project site is fully developed under existing conditions with commercial office land uses containing urban -scale lighting. Although the General Plan EIR notes the potential for lighting impacts due to new construction and the co -location of residential and commercial uses as allowed by the General Plan, the General Plan also includes several policies to address these lighting concerns. General Plan Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting) requires that outdoor lighting "...be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location." Other policies, such as LU 5.1.1 (Compatible but Diverse Development), LU 6.1.3 (Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses), and LU 6.2.5 (Neighborhood Supporting Uses), require new development to be compatible with existing land uses, which would preclude incompatibilities due to artificial lighting. Any new development in San Joaquin Plaza also would be subject to Municipal Code Section 20.30.070 requirements for lighting, which require lighting to be shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, "with implementation of the above-mentioned policies, nighttime lighting impacts and potential spillover would be less than significant."I In addition, future development on the proposed Project site would be subject to the North Newport Center Design Regulations, which includes the following design guidelines related to lighting (refer to NNCPC Design Regulations Section D.S., Lighting): "d. Building walls may be illuminated by downlights and uplights; light sources should not be visible from public view. f. Utilitarian light fixtures, such as floodlights and wallpacks, may only be used in service areas. i. In pedestrian areas such as courtyards, plazas, and walkways, lighting fixtures should be pedestrian scale." 12 Future development on the proposed Project site would be required to demonstrate compliance with General Plan policies related to lighting and land use compatibility, and would be reviewed for conformance with the Design Regulations of the NNCPC Development Plan. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not create any new sources of substantial light that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimizes impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. 1° General Plan EIR, Page 4.1-21. Ibid, Page 4.1-22. 12 North Newport Center Design Regulations, Page 36. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-5 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which states, "...all other project impacts associated with aesthetics and visual resources would be less than significant under the proposed Newport Beach General Plan Update."13 Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to aesthetics. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to aesthetics, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the Initial Study to the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR Appendix A), which states: "7n determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? • Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use?" In addition, since certification of the General Plan EIR in 2006, Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines was revised to include thresholds of significance related to forestry resources, as follows: "In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: • Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? • Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? " Visual impacts associated with Banning Ranch were found to be unavoidable. The proposed Project is not located within Banning Ranch. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-6 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use?" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. A detailed analysis of potential impacts to Agricultural Resources was not included in the General Plan EIR because a) the City of Newport Beach contains no designated farmland by the California Department of Conservation (CDC), Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), b) no designated Farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of implementing the 2006 General Plan, c) no sites in the City are zoned for agricultural use, and d) no sites would be affected by a Williamson Act contract. Although impacts to forest resources were not evaluated as part of the 2006 General Plan EIR, the City of Newport Beach similarly does not have any lands zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production, and implementing the General Plan would not directly or indirectly result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use. Summary Analvsis Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use The proposed Project site consists of urban, developed land that is not designated by the FMMP as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance14. Accordingly, no impact to agricultural resources would occur as a result of future residential development in San Joaquin Plaza. As such, the proposed Project is in conformance with the conclusion reached in the Initial Study to the 2006 General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract The NNCPC Development Plan serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for development activities within its geographical boundary. The NNCPC Development Plan designates San Joaquin Plaza for development with residential and office/commercial land uses. No area of the NNCPC contains an agricultural zoning designation. Additionally, the Project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use No Farmland exists in the vicinity of the proposed Project site that could be converted to nonagricultural use as a result of the Project. All lands within the Project vicinity already are designated by the General Plan for non-agricultural use15. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not involve changes to the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result is California Department of Conservation, 2010. Orange County Important Farmland 2010. Available on-line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/oraIO.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2012. 15 City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan, Figures LU 10 and LU 13. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-7 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20, Planning and Zoning, Part 2, Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards, sets forth the zoning districts throughout the City and does not include any zoning for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Additionally, the NNCPC Development Plan does not designate any forest areas or timberlands within its boundaries. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use The proposed Project site comprises a fully developed site that contains no forest land resources. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use No forest land exists in the vicinity of the proposed Project site that could be converted to non -forest use, and no lands in the Project vicinity are designated for forest land production 16. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not involve changes to the existing environment which, due to its location or nature, could result in conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program As indicated above, an analysis of impacts to Agricultural Resources were focused out of the General Plan EIR based on substantial evidence that no farmlands or agriculturally zoned properties are located in the City of Newport Beach; accordingly, no mitigation measures related to Agricultural Resources were included in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the issue of forestry resources was not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; as such, no mitigation related to forestry resources was identified in the General Plan EIR. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the Initial Study to the 2006 General Plan EIR, which states, "The City of Newport Beach does not contain any significant agricultural resources as the City is almost entirely built out. No impact would occur on agricultural resources and this issue area will not be analyzed in the EIR." 16 Ibid. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-8 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to agriculture and forestry resources, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.3 Air Quality The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would result in any of the following: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Air quality impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis In order to evaluate whether the proposed Project would result in air quality impacts that were not examined in the General Plan EIR, an air quality impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This study, entitled, North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis, and dated May 29, 2012, is provided as Appendix A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or "Basin"). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is principally responsible for air pollution control in the SCAB. The SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-9 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table I, Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB, summarizes the current state and federal attainment status of the SCAB for criteria pollutants. As shown, state and federal air quality standards are not attained in most parts of the Basin for Ozone (I -hour and 8 -hour standard), Inhalable Particulate Matter (PMio), Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), and Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx)• In response, the SCAQMD adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. The AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the Draft Final 2007 AQMP for the SCAB on June 1, 2007. In September 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the SCAQMD's 2007 AQMP as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). On September 27, 2007, the CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan and the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan as part of the (SIP). On November 22, 2010, U.S. EPA published its notice of proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2007 AQMP PM2.5 Plan. The proposed disapproval is primarily due to the fact that the attainment demonstration relies heavily on emissions reductions from several State rules that have not been finalized or submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. No timetable for full adoption of the 2007 AQMP is available at this time. The SCAQMD is currently working on a 2012 AQMP but it is not yet adopted so the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP remains the applicable air quality plan for the proposed Project. Table 1 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the SCAB Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone - 1 hour standard Nonattainment No Standard Ozone - 8 hour standard Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment' PM" Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment/Maintenance Nitrogen Dioxide Nonattainment2 Attainment/Maintenance Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment/Nonattainment3 Attainment/Nonattainment4 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: California Air Resources Board 2010 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/arealO/arealO.htm, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm) I The USEPA approved re -designation from Severe 17 to Extreme Nonattainment on May 5, 2010 to be effective June 4, 2010. 2 The SCAB was reclassified from attainment to non -attainment for nitrogen dioxide on March 25, 2010. 3 Los Angeles County was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for lead on March 25, 2010; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard. 4 The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is classified as nonattainment; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard. The 2007 AQMP is based on assumptions on motor vehicles provided by CARB and on demographics information provided by SCAG. These assumptions are reflected in the most recent EMFAC2007 computer model. The air quality levels projected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities would be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2007 AQMP also assumed that such development projects would implement applicable regulatory requirements to reduce air emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-10 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Criteria for determining consistency with the 2007 AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The indicators for consistency are discussed below: • Consistency Criterion No. l: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. According to the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP if the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Construction Emissions Discussion No specific development project is proposed as part of the Project at this time; therefore, it is not possible to calculate specific emission quantities that may be associated with future construction activities. Nevertheless, it is recognized that construction effects would be expected to follow approval of the Project (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). Construction -related impacts to air quality were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in construction activities that would exceed the SCAQMD's construction -related air quality standards. As such, the General Plan EIR disclosed construction -related air emissions as a significant and unavoidable impact17. Any future Project -related construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan policies NR 8.1 through 8.5, which when implemented would help to reduce construction -related air pollutant emissions. Further, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the proposed Project site would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and current California Building Code requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), some provisions of which are more stringent now than when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2007. Construction -related air emissions and resulting impacts associated with the proposed allocation of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of analysis previously provided in the General Plan EIR. Of the 524 units, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within the Newport Center Statistical Area. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units. Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or "General Plan EIR, Pages 4.2-13 and 4.2-14. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-11 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction -related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR.18 Operational Emissions Analysis Although the General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP, the conflict was related only to the increase in population that would be associated with buildout of the General Plan (and is discussed below under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. 2). As indicated in the General Plan EIR: "Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the AQMP." 19 The General Plan EIR determined that VMTs would be reduced through compliance with the General Plan goals and policies, and that the reduction in VMTs would be consistent with the AQMP. For example, the General Plan would "...promote a mixed-use pedestrian -friendly district for Balboa Peninsula, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, Mainers Mile, and which would contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled." 20 Additionally, the General Plan EIR identifies several other policies, including Policies LU 3.3 (Opportunities for Change), LU 6.15.9 (Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density), 6.14.5 (Urban Form), NR 6.1 (Walkable Neighborhoods), NR 6.2 (Mixed -Use Development), NR 6.3 (Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures), NR 6.4 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance), and NR 6.5 (Local Transit Agency Collaboration), that would serve to reduce VMTs within the City. The proposed Project would contribute to the mixed-use nature of Newport Center/Fashion Island by locating multi -family residential uses within the San Joaquin Plaza where commercial and office land uses exist. The Project also would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan goals and policies. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not increase the amount of daily trips as compared to what was assumed under the General Plan EIR21. Accordingly, VMTs associated with the proposed Project would be within the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR, and would not contribute to a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP. Project -related air quality emissions were calculated to determine whether the proposed Project could result in a direct increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. To provide consistency with the Project's traffic study (Appendix D) that was prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the air quality analysis (Appendix A) assumes that the Project would result in a net increase of 94 multi -family units in San Joaquin Plaza. This represents a "worst case" (conservative) assumption of potential operational air quality impacts associated with allowed development in Newport Center as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR because no credit is taken in the Project -specific analysis for reducing by 79 the number of hotel units allowed within Statistical Area LI, nor credit for the 15 MU -H3 units 18 Ibid. " Ibid, Page 4.2-12. 20 Ibid, Page 4.2-12. 21 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012b. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-12 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 already allowed in Newport Center by the General Plan. An analysis of operational impacts associated with the other 430 multi -family residential units allocated to San Joaquin Plaza is not necessary because these 430 multi -family units are already allowed in San Joaquin Plaza under existing conditions and were assumed in the General Plan EIR and Addendum No. I. Table 2, Summary of Peak Operational Emissions, summarizes the proposed Project's estimated operational emissions of criteria pollutants associated with assigning an additional 94 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza for both summer and winter months, and compares those emissions to the SCAQMD Regional Thresholds. (Refer to Section 3.5 of the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis [Appendix A] for a discussion of the operational activities assumed in the analysis.) As shown in Table 2, air emissions associated with the allocation of 94 additional multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PMio, or PM2.5; therefore, it follows that the Project's emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PMio, PM2.5). Because Project emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP, nor would the Project's operational emissions create a substantially more severe impact due to conflict with the AQMP than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Table 2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Summer Months Operational Activities VOC NO. CO SOX PM,o PM2.5 Area Source Emissions a 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 5.01 5.01 Energy Source Emissions b 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Emissions ` 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.64 0.33 Maximum Daily Emissions 14.31 4.63 58.20 0.12 9.70 5.39 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter Months Operational Activities VOC NO. CO SOX PM,o PM2.5 Area Source Emissions a 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 5.01 5.01 Energy Source Emissions b 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Emissions ` 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.64 0.33 Maximum Daily Emissions 14.42 5.00 57.70 0.12 9.70 5.39 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? NO NO NO NO NO NO mote: vawes snown are pounds per day. Please refer to Appendix A to the Air Quality Impact Analysis (see Appendix A) for the CaIEEModTM output files and additional supporting information for the estimated emissions. a. Includes emissions of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings emissions b. Includes emissions of natural gas consumption C. Includes emissions of vehicle emissions and fugitive dust related to vehicular travel On the basis of the preceding discussion, the proposed Project would be consistent with the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR and is determined to be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. I. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of project build -out phase. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-13 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 The General Plan EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP because buildout of the General Plan "...would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP." 22 Assumptions of the AQMP used in projecting future emissions levels are based in part on land use data provided by lead agency general plan documentation. Projects that propose general plan amendments and changes of zone may increase the intensity of use and/or result in higher traffic volumes, thereby resulting in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP assumptions. If however, a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applicable local General Plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As discussed under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. I, construction -related emissions that may be associated with future development at the proposed Project site would be consistent with the assumptions previously evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed growth assumptions for construction -related activities. The proposed Project does not involve a General Plan Amendment, but it does involve a zoning amendment associated with a proposed amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for properties within its geographic boundaries. The amendment proposes to allocate a total of 524 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of NNCPC, including 430 units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, the assignment of 15 un -built units to the San Joaquin Plaza, and through the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family units and the transfer of those units to the San Joaquin Plaza. Population growth associated with the 430 multi -family residential units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza and the 15 un -assigned and un -built multi -family units within Statistical Area LI are consistent with the growth projections assumed in the General Plan EIR, and are therefore accounted for as part of the significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2003 AQMP as disclosed by the General Plan EIR. By contrast, the conversion of 79 un -built hotel units to residential units would result in an estimated increase in the City's permanent population by 173 persons (based on a person per household [pph] value of 2.19 cited in the General Plan EIR).23 It should be noted that the increase in the permanent population would be somewhat off -set by the reduction in transient population (i.e., hotel patrons) due to the reduction in the number of hotel units allowed within the City (79 units). The 79 residential units proposed by the Project to be converted from hotel room units would not result in a net increase in daily trips24, and therefore would not result in increased operational air emissions beyond emissions that would be associated with the 79 hotel rooms that already were assumed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, because the 2007 AQMP relied on land use and demographic data from the General Plan and the proposed Project would generate fewer emissions than assumed for General Plan buildout, the Project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. Based on the discussion presented above, the proposed Project is in compliance with Consistency Criterion No. 2 and would not result in greater emissions than what is already assumed in the General Plan or evaluated in the General Plan EIR. 22 General Plan EIR, Page 4.2-13. 23 Ibid, Page 4.10-5 24 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012b. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-14 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Since the project satisfies Consistency Criterion No. I and Consistency Criterion No. 2, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a Project -specific conflict with the AQMP, nor would the proposed Project result in a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable conflict with the AQMP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard The current attainment status for criteria pollutants within the SCAB was previously presented in Table I. As shown, the SCAB violates the CAAQS and/or NAAQS standards for ozone, NOx, PMio, and PM2.5• Provided below is a discussion of construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed Project, and an analysis of whether those emissions would violate any air quality standards, contribute to any existing or projected air quality violations, or cumulatively contribute to the net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is in non -attainment (as presented in Table 1). Emissions Associated with Construction Activities Emissions associated with construction activities resulting from buildout of the General Plan were previously evaluated and disclosed as a significant unavoidable impact as part of the General Plan EIR due to their potential to violate the SCAQMD construction -related air quality standards25 and because it could not be assured that the General Plan policies would achieve the performance standard for annual emissions reductions determined necessary by the SCAQMD to obtain attainment status for criteria pollutants.26 Because no specific development project is proposed in San Joaquin Plaza at this time, it is not possible to calculate air emissions that may be associated with future construction activities. Regardless, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the Project site would clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units. Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction - related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. " General Plan EIR, Page 4.10-5. 26 Ibid, Page 4.2-15. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-15 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 As previously stated, the General Plan EIR disclosed a significant and unavoidable impact because the City could not assure that the General Plan policies would achieve the performance standard for annual emissions reductions determined necessary by the SCAQMD to obtain attainment status for criteria pollutants.27 Long -Term Operational -Related Emissions Operational impacts were not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as a General Plan Update.28 Emission quantities associated with operational activities that may result from allocating an additional 94 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza were previously presented in Table 2. As previously noted, in order to provide consistency with the Project's traffic study (refer to Appendix D) that was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO, the values presented in Table 2 relate only to the proposed increase of 94 dwelling units allocated to San Joaquin Plaza. The values presented in Table 2 reflect a "worst case" (conservative) analysis because no credit was taken for reducing by 79 the number of hotel units that are allowed within Statistical Area LI, nor credit for the 15 MU -H3 units already allowed in Newport Center by the General Plan. An analysis of operational impacts associated with the other 430 dwelling units allocated to San Joaquin Plaza is not necessary because these 430 multi -family units are already allowed in San Joaquin Plaza under existing conditions and were assumed in the General Plan EIR and Addendum No. I. As presented in Table 2, the addition of 94 units to San Joaquin Plaza would not result in any exceedances of the SCAQMD regional thresholds during either summer or winter months. Accordingly, Project -related emissions would not violate the SCAQMD standards for criteria pollutants. Furthermore, if Project emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PMio, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, NOx, PMio, and/or PM2.5). Additionally, and according to the Project's Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A), operational activities associated with the proposed Project would not result in a violation of the CAAQS or NAAQS standards for CO "hot spots."29 There are no other air quality standards or violations relevant to Project operational activities. Accordingly, operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would not result in the violation of any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, Project -related operational emissions would not result in a new or more severe impact associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. The only sensitive receptors within the Project vicinity include the existing multi -family and single-family residential uses located south, west, northwest, and northeast of the proposed Project site (refer to 27 Ibid, Page 4.2-15. 28 Ibid, Page 4.2-14. 29 Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Pages 28-29. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-16 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Figure 3). None of these uses directly abut the Project site and all nearby sensitive receptors are separated from the Project site by public roadways and some also are separated from the Project site by intervening land uses. As previously discussed, because no specific development project is proposed in San Joaquin Plaza at this time, it is not possible to calculate air emissions that may be associated with future construction activities. Regardless, construction activities associated with future residential development on the Project site fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction and operation of 79 multi- family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in pollutant concentrations. Airborne pollutants associated with hotel room construction and operation and multi -family dwelling unit construction and operation are similar. Additionally, the conduct of residential construction and operational activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate airborne pollutant concentrations that would be different or more severe than the conduct of similar activities in other parts of Newport Center. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, with respect to potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors, "...the SCAQMD is primarily concerned with high localized concentrations of CO" also known as CO "hotspots."30 As concluded in the Air Quality Impact Analysis, even very busy intersections within the SCAB do not result in any CO "hotspots" since the region has achieved attainment status for CO since 2007, and because CO "hotspots" do not occur at the busiest intersections within the SCAB (where traffic volumes are much greater than those that would ever occur in the Project area).31 Furthermore, the proposed Project would not exceed the applicable regional thresholds during long-term operational activity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in or contribute to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The General Plan EIR acknowledges that construction activities would result in the generation of airborne odors (e.g., odors from architectural coatings), but concludes that such odors would not represent a significant impact because "...these odors are not generally considered to be especially offensive" since they would occur only during daytime hours and only would occur in close proximity to construction activities.32 Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, construction activities that may be associated with the proposed Project would occur only during daytime hours, and any odors generated would only affect a limited number of people who are living and working in close proximity to construction activities. Therefore, construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. " General Plan EIR, Page 4.2-16 31 Air Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix A), Pages 28-29. 32 General Plan EIR, Page 4.2-17. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-17 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 The General Plan EIR also acknowledges that under long-term operating conditions some odors could be generated from residential cooking activities or through the use of trash receptacles. Odors associated with residential cooking are not considered to be "objectionable." As noted in the General Plan EIR, trash "...receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to develop."33 There are no characteristics of the proposed Project that would introduce any new sources of objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, long- term operation of residential units in San Joaquin Plaza that may result from approval of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted associated with buildout of the City of Newport development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation as a mitigation program that minimized impacts Beach, including the implementation of future Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact of increased population on implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan; to reduce cumulative impacts associated with construction emissions; or to reduce operational activities. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to air quality. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to air quality, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.4 Biological Resources The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would result in any of the following. • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-18 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Biological resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed parcel of land that includes commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping. The Project site does not contain any sensitive biological resources, nor is the site identified within an Environmental Study Area that has the potential to contain candidate, sensitive, or special status species.34 Although ornamental landscaping existing within the Project site includes several species of trees, these trees are small in stature and do not have the characteristics to serve as habitat for migratory birds or raptors. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or the CDFG or USFWS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed parcel of land comprising existing commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping. All drainage from San Joaquin Plaza is currently diverted into man-made drainage structures (i.e., storm drains), thereby precluding the presence of any riparian habitat or wetlands. Additionally, the only vegetation community existing on the proposed Project site consists of ornamental landscaping, which is not a sensitive natural community identified in any local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and 14 Ibid, Figures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-19 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Game (CDFG) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would have no effect on any riparian habitats, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites The proposed Project site comprises a fully developed parcel of land surrounded by existing urban development and roadways that exhibit moderately high traffic volumes. The proposed Project site does not provide for any wildlife movement corridors under existing conditions, nor does the site comprise a wildlife nursery site. In addition, there are no wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites within the Project vicinity that could be impacted, either directly or indirectly, by Project development. As such, development of the proposed Project site would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species, nor would it impede the use of any native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed parcel of land comprising existing commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping, including low stature trees. Abutting public roadways also include trees in the public right-of-way ("City trees"). Applicable Newport Beach policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources include City Council Policy G- I (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl). Council Policy G- I was adopted to establish definitive standards for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, tree trimming standards, and supplemental trimming of City trees. If construction activities occur in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the permitted residential development intensity proposed by the Project, such activities would be required to comply with the provisions of Council Policy G-1, which includes a requirement to preserve all existing City trees to the extent practical; if trees must be removed, the approval of a tree removal request would be required from the City's Municipal Operations Department Director addressing the replacement of any such trees. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with City Council Policy G-1. Municipal Code Chapter 7.26 provides for the protection of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds, such as ducks, gulls, terns and pelicans. The proposed Project site does not contain any natural habitat for migratory waterfowl or other water -related bird species. As such, the proposed Project would have no potential to conflict with Municipal Code Chapter 7.26. The proposed Project also would not conflict with any General Plan policies related to biological resources, which are primarily contained within the General Plan Natural Resources Element. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-20 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan The proposed Project site is located within the Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) & Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the County of Orange Central & Coastal Subregion (July 17, 1996). Policy NR 10.1 of the General Plan requires the City to cooperate with state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect terrestrial and marine resources, which would require compliance with local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. In addition, according to NCCP Figures 9 and 10, NCCP Habitat Evaluation Map, the proposed Project site is not identified as having any conservation value. Additionally, and according to NCCP Figure 12, Proposed Habitat Reserve System, the proposed Project site is not identified for inclusion within the NCCP/HCP Reserve System. There are no other policies of the NCCP/HCP that are applicable to the proposed Project; accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations would mitigate biological resources impacts to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to biological resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to biological resources, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.5 Cultural Resources The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on cultural resources if it would result in any of the following: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-21 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Cultural resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed, to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 Nationally, state, and locally recognized historical resources within the City of Newport Beach are identified in the Historical Resources Element of the General Plan. None of the existing historical resources identified by the Historical Resources Element occur within the proposed Project site or in areas immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site.35 In addition, the proposed Project site has been fully disturbed by development activities that have occurred over the past 40 years, indicating that there is no potential for previously undiscovered historical resources in San Joaquin Plaza. Furthermore, none of the existing buildings in San Joaquin Plaza are recognized as historical resources, nor are they eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, no historical resources would be impacted by the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature San Joaquin Plaza is fully developed with commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping. When the property was developed approximately 40 years ago, native soils were graded and disturbed, indicating that there remains no potential for the presence of any surficial archaeological resources or paleontological resources. Although the property was previously subjected to mass grading and the likelihood to discover subsurface resources is low, there is still a potential for previously undiscovered subsurface resources to be uncovered in the event that future grading activities to implement permitted residential development intensity on the property extend to depths of previously undisturbed subsurface soils. The City's General Plan contains several goals and policies that are intended to ensure that archaeological and paleontological resources are protected and preserved. General Plan Policies NR 18.1 and HR 2.1 require that new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. General Plan Policy HR 2.2 requires "...a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources..." Policy HR 2.3 requires notification of cultural organizations of any proposed developments with the potential to adversely impact cultural resources, " City of Newport Beach General Plan, Figure HR I. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-22 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 and Policy HR 2.4 requires that any recovered resources be donated to an appropriate organization for preservation. The Newport Beach City Council has also established "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" requiring that the City prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, compliance with General Plan Goals NR 18 and HR 2 would ensure that potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR with respect to impacts to archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries The proposed Project site has been fully disturbed by past grading and development, indicating that there is no potential for the presence of any surficial human remains. Although the site has been subject to previous mass grading and the likelihood to discover buried human remains during future construction activities is low, there is still a potential for previously undiscovered human remains to be uncovered in the event that grading activities encounter previously undisturbed subsurface soils. The California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq., require that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a formal cemetery, no further excavation of disturbance of the site or site vicinity can occur until the County Coroner has examined the remains and makes a report. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is required to be notified within 24 hours if the Coroner determines or suspects the remains to be of Native American descent. Additionally, further development of the proposed Project site would be required to comply with General Plan Goals HR 2 and NR 18, which are intended, in part, to protect human remains. Accordingly, in the event that human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq., and General Plan Goals HR 2 and NR 18, which would ensure that any discovered human remains are properly treated. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted associated with buildout of the City of Newport development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation as a mitigation program that minimized impacts Beach, including the implementation of future The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources, and human remains could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to cultural NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-23 No N 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to cultural resources, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.6 Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a significant impact if the project would: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: o Rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault o Strong seismic ground shaking o Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction o Landslides • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse • Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State • Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Geology, soils, and mineral resources impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-24 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ♦ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ♦ Strong seismic ground shaking ♦ Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction ♦ Landslides There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the City of Newport Beach.36 Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts due to the rupture of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, and as also noted in the General Plan EIR, the City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach, including the proposed Project site.37 As concluded in the General Plan EIR, policies contained in the General Plan's Safety Element would attenuate impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Specifically, Policy S 4.1 requires the City to conduct regular updates to the building and fire codes to address fire safety and design. Policy S 4.7 requires further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur. In addition, the construction of new residential buildings in San Joaquin Plaza that could occur to implement the residential development intensity proposed by the Project would be required to comply with the seismic safety standards of the California Building Code, which requires compliance with special structural design standards to attenuate hazards associated with credible seismic ground shaking events that are anticipated in the Project area. Accordingly, with mandatory compliance with General Plan Goal S4 and the California Building Code, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would not be significant. Areas within the City of Newport Beach subject to strong seismic ground shaking associated with liquefaction hazards are limited to West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands, and lands adjacent to these areas. The proposed Project site is located in the Newport Center portion of the General Plan, and is not identified as being subject to liquefaction hazards.38 Accordingly, a significant impact associated with seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, would not occur. The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed parcel that does not contain significant areas of slopes. The General Plan EIR notes that landslide conditions are possible in the area between Los Trancos Canyon and the Crystal Cove State Park boundary, the sedimentary bedrock that crops out in the San Joaquin Hills, along stream banks and coastal bluffs (e.g., Big Canyon), around San Joaquin " General Plan EIR, Page 4.5-13. 31 Ibid, Page 4.5-3. 38 Ibid, Page 4.5-14 and Figure 4.5-2. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-25 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Reservoir, Newport and Upper Newport Bays, and Corona del Mar.39 The proposed Project site is located in Newport Center and is not located in any of the areas that are identified as having the potential for hazards associated with landslides. Accordingly, a significant impact due to landslide hazards would not occur. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, "With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant." The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR with respect to seismic -related hazards. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil Soil erosion and the loss of topsoil can occur when soils are exposed to erosive elements (i.e., wind and water) and in the absence of stabilizing vegetation. Under existing conditions, substantial soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil does not occur in San Joaquin Plaza because the proposed Project site is developed with commercial office buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping. Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to compliance with state, regional, and local regulations that would serve to minimize the potential for erosion of topsoil, including, but not necessarily limited to, California Building Code (CBC) standards, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites. Additionally, any future construction activities would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies NR 3.1 through NR 3.22, and Policies NR 4.1 through NR 4.4, which address water quality and soil erosion and would further serve to prevent substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil during Project construction. Near-term impacts due to substantial soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that such impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Under long-term operating conditions, the Project site would continue to be fully developed with buildings, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping, and would not be subject to substantial amounts of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. As such, a significant impact associated with erosion would have no potential to occur. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 39 Ibid, Pages 4.5-9 and 4.5-15. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-26 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property Potential impacts associated with liquefaction hazards are addressed above under the analysis of the first threshold under Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources, which concludes that such impacts would not be significant. Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to comply with California Building Code (CBC) requirements for soil stability and grading plans are required to incorporate remediation measures for any expansive or compressible materials (e.g., replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.). Additionally, the design of structures must conform to CBC criteria for foundational design and support. Furthermore, the City's Municipal Code requires the provision of a detailed site-specific soils engineering report and engineering geology report prior to the issuance of grading permits and further requires that measures be incorporated into the grading plans to address potential unstable soil conditions such as landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse. Construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that with compliance with the CBC and Municipal Code requirements, impacts due to unstable geologic units or soils (including expansive soils) would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water The proposed Project site is fully developed under existing conditions and is served by a sanitary sewer system.40 Future residential development that could occur in San Joaquin Plaza resulting from approval of the proposed Project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. As such, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents o f the State The California Geological Survey (CGS) classifies the proposed Project site as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is applied to areas containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance.41 Although portions of the City contain active oil wells and oil fields, these areas are concentrated in the western portions of the City within the Banning Ranch subarea. Although General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-3 identifies one existing oil well near the proposed Project site (near the 40 Ibid, Figure 4.14-2. 41 Ibid, Figure 4.5-4. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-27 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 intersection of Newport Center Drive and Corporate Plaza Drive), there are no active oil wells present within San Joaquin Plaza and the Project site is not located in an identified oil field. General Plan policies related to oil fields generally encourage continued oil production within the Banning Ranch portion of the City, while General Plan Policy NR 19.1 and Section 1401 of the City's Charter prohibit any new drilling for exploration or extraction of oil resources within the City 42 Accordingly, and as concluded in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of the availability of any known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan" The City of Newport Beach General Plan indicates that the only important mineral resources within the City are related to oil; however, Section 1401 of the City's Charter does not allow new drilling or production or refining of oil, gas, or other hydrocarbon substances within the City.43 Additionally, the discussion on the previous threshold regarding the lack of impact to known mineral resources would be equally applicable to locally important mineral resource recovery sites. As such, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts to any locally important mineral resource recovery sites, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to geology and soils could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No impacts to mineral resources were identified. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to geology, soils, and mineral resources. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to geology, soils, and mineral resources, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. " City of Newport Beach General Plan, Page 10-16. as Ibid. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-28 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 4.3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Since certification of the General Plan EIR in 2006, Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines was revised to include thresholds of significance related to greenhouse gas emissions, as follows: "Would the project: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Although climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not specifically evaluated as part of the 2006 General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of the City, inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR also addressed vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption, which are the most common sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As such, GHG emissions and the issue of global climate change (GCC) do not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City certified the General Plan EIR. GCC and GHG emissions were identified as environmental issues since as early as 1978 when the U.S. Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act (Pub L 95-367, 92 Stat 601). In 1979 the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. Information also was widely published in a series of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) dating back to the 1990s, including IPPC's "2001 Third Assessment Report." California adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. As such, information about GCC and GHG emissions was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. During the public review period and public hearings associated with the General Plan EIR, no objections or concerns were raised regarding the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions, and no legal challenge was filed within the statute of limitations period established by Public Resources Code §21 167(c). Similarly, no objections were raised on the topics of GHG emissions and GCC as part of Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR in 2007. Pursuant to CEQA case Iaw44 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the issue of project -related GHG emissions does not provide new information of substantial importance or substantial evidence of a new impact to the environment that was not or could not have been known at the time General Plan EIR was certified; thus, minor additions are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis In order to evaluate whether the proposed Project would result in GHG impacts that were not examined in the General Plan EIR, a GHG analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This study, entitled, North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis, and dated May 29, 2012, is provided as Appendix B. Refer to Appendix B for a detailed discussion of as See Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 196 Cal. App. 4`h 515 (201 1). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-29 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 GHGs, the regulatory context for GHG emissions, and for a description of the methodology utilized to calculate the proposed Project's GHG emissions. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Introduction to Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases GCC is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, including CO, methane (CH4), NOx, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as GHGs. GHGs are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average temperature would be approximately 61 ° Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature. GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of I. The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized in Table 3, Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs. As shown in Table 3, GWP range from I for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride. For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of CO, CH4, and NOx are evaluated because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although other substances such as fluorinated gases also contribute to GCC, sources of fluorinated gases are not well defined and no accepted emissions factors or methodology exist to accurately calculate these gases. A detailed description of GHGs and their associated health effects is provided in Sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Project's Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B). Regulatory Setting The State of California, through its Governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40 -plus years, primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. Other statewide and federal regulations related to GCC and GHG emissions are discussed in detail in the Project's Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B). Threshold of Significance for Evaluating Project -Related GHG Emissions GCC is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical development project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. However, development activities may participate in the potential for GCC by incremental contribution of GHGs NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-30 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Table 3 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential (100 year time horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 ± 3 21 Nitrous Oxide 120 310 HFC -23 264 11,700 HFC -134a 14.6 1,300 HFC -152a 1.5 140 PFC: Tetraflucromethane (CH4) 50,000 6,500 PFC: Hexaflucroethane (C2F6) 10,000 9,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: EPA 2006 (URL: http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html) Note: HFC = Hydrofluorocarbon; PFC = Perfluorocarbon. For purposes of analyzing the cumulative significance of the proposed Project's GHG emissions, the City relies on guidance from the SCAQMD. Currently, the SCAQMD has not adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for residential development projects within the SCAQMD region. However, the SCAQMD has convened a Working Group to identify GHG thresholds for use by jurisdictions in the SCAB. For projects where the SCAQMD is serving as the CEQA Lead Agency and that are not exempt from CEQA, or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD applies a screening level threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) annually for all land use types. This threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e per year and require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance. Although the City is not required to utilize the SCAQMD screening threshold, the SCAQMD screening threshold is used in this analysis to determine whether the proposed Project's GHG emissions require additional analysis.45 If the proposed Project's GHG emissions are below 3,000 MTCO2e, then such emissions do not represent a substantial increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan. Analysis of Project Impacts due to GHG Emissions As discussed in detail in Section 2.0, the Project proposes to vest 524 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC, and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within the Newport Center Statistical Area. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units represents the Project's only potential to change the level of greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the General Plan, since the remaining 445 multi- family units were assumed by the General Plan EIR. In order to provide consistency with the Project's as Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista, 197 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2011). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-31 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 traffic study (Appendix D) that was prepared in accordance with the City's TPO, the greenhouse gas analysis (Appendix B) assumes that the Project would result in a net increase of 94 multi -family units, which represents a "worst case" (conservative) assumption of potential impacts to the environment because no credit is taken for the reduction of 79 hotel rooms or for the 15 units already allowed by the General Plan. No specific residential development project is proposed in San Joaquin Plaza at this time; therefore, it is not possible to calculate GHG emissions that may be associated with future construction activities. However, construction -related emissions associated with the assignment of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR assumed 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within the Newport Center Statistical Area, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. There would be no substantial difference in GHG emissions when comparing buildout of the General Plan with and without the proposed Project. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities for hotel units and multi -family units are similar. Also, GHG contributions to GCC are cumulative in nature and thus the specific location of the emissions source, whether it be Newport Center generally or San Joaquin Plaza specifically, has no material bearing. Accordingly, construction -related emissions of GHGs would not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. There would be no new or more severe construction related GHG emissions impact than would otherwise occur with implementation of the City's General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. GHG emissions generated by long-term operation of the Project would be associated with area sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) to serve residential units, transportation emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the Project site, and indirect emissions associated with purchased energy, energy associated with water (conveyance, treatment, distribution, and treatment of wastewater), and waste disposal. GHG emissions from Project -related operational activities are summarized in Table 4, Total Annual Project GHG Emissions. As noted above, Table 4 reflects a conservative analysis and depicts future GHG emissions associated with the implementation of 94 multi- family units. As shown in Table 4, the proposed Project would generate approximately 935.04 MMTCO2e per year. Because the GHG emissions associated with the Project would be below the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold of 3,000 MMTCO2e, the proposed Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant and would not comprise a new significant environmental effect. Additionally, because the Project's GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD's screening threshold, the Project's GHG emissions would not represent a significant increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan. In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?" CARB adopted a Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32 (i.e., 1990 levels of GHG emission by year 2020). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-32 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 of AB 32. GHG emissions in the City, including development activities on the Project site, would be thereby reduced from mandatory compliance with these statewide measures. Table 4 Total Annual Project GHG Emissions Emissions (metric tons per year) Emission Source CO2 CH, N20 Total CO2E Area Source Emissions 69.88 0.03 71.00 Energy 244.28 0.01 245.79 Mobile Sources 556.77 0.02 557.25 Waste 8.78 0.52 19.67 Water Usage 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total CO2E (All Sources) 935.04 Threshold MTCO2E/Yr 3,000 Significant? NO Source: CalEEModTM model output, See Appendix "A" to the Greenhouse Gas Analysis (Appendix B) for detailed model outputs. Note: Totals obtained from Ca1EEModTm and may not total 100% due to rounding. Development activities in the state of California are currently regulated by the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Code, which require a greater degree of energy efficiency than the 2005 version of the state building code that was in effect when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. Although no specific development project is proposed at San Joaquin Plaza at this time, future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Currently, development activities are required to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Standard is 15 percent more energy efficiency compared to the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (which were the standards in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified). CARB and the EPA have also adopted new vehicle fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The CARB Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley 11. Because the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold for GHG emissions (refer to Table 4) and residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to achieve efficiency standards mandated as part of the state building code in effect at the time of future construction, the proposed Project would not have the potential to interfere with the State's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Furthermore, the proposed Project would result in fewer GHG emissions than would have been assumed in the General Plan EIR since the 2008 efficiency standards and other statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions were not in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. Various characteristics of the Project serve to render its contribution to GCC less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main issues raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contributes to GCC). The Project is an infill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting, thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips. In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-33 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program As noted, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with the buildout of future development in the City, inclusive of the NNCPC area. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. No mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions were identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, the following Policies: LU 6.4.6 (Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood); LU 6.15.19 (Walkable Streets); LU 6.15.20 (Connected Streets); NR 6.1 (Walkable Neighborhoods); NR 6.2 (Mixed -Use Development); NR 6.3 (Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures); NR 6.4 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance); NR 6.5 (Local Transit Agency Collaboration); NR 6.6 (Traffic Signal Synchronization); NR 6.7 (City Fleet Vehicles); NR 6.8 (Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure); NR 6.9 (Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques); NR 7.1 (Fuel Efficient Equipment); NR 7.2 (Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices); NR 7.3 (Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction); NR 7.4 (Use of Blowers); NR 8.1 (Construction Equipment); NR 8.2 (Maintenance of Construction Equipment); NR 8.3 (Construction Equipment Operation); NR 9.1 (Efficient Airport Operations); NR 9.2 (Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction); CE 1.1.1 (Comprehensive Transportation System); CE 1.2.2 (Shuttle Service); CE 1.2.4 (Public Transit); CE 4. 1.1 (Public Transit Efficiency); CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); CE 4.1.5 (Airport Shuttles); CE 4.1.6 (Transit Support Facilities); CE 5. 1.1 (Trail System); CE 5.1.2 (Pedestrian Connectivity); CE 5.1.3 (Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects); CE 5.1.4 (Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods); CE 5.1.5 (Bikeway System); CE 5.1.6 (Bicycle Supporting Facilities); CE 5.1.9 (Integrated Bicycle Improvements); CE 5.1.1 1 (School Access); CE 5.1.12 (Pedestrian Street Crossings); CE 5.1.14 (Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways); CE 6. 1.1 (Traffic Signals); CE 6.1.2 (Intelligent Transportation Systems); CE 6.2.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes); CE 6.2.2 (Support Facilities for Alternative Modes); and CE 6.2.3 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes). Additionally, and although the proposed Project would not create a new GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the SCAQMD aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions. Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are: • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB 1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-34 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. Level of Significance After Mitigation The General Plan OR did not include any mitigation measures related specifically to GHG emissions. However, policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City. Mandatory compliance with the General Plan policies and regulatory requirements summarized above would ensure that Project -related emissions would not create a new GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan. Finding of Consistencv with General Plan OR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to greenhouse gas emissions, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact to the public or the environment through hazards and hazardous materials if it would result in any of the following: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment • For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-35 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hazards and hazardous materials -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials The General Plan EIR acknowledges the potential for increased transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials due to an increase in the amount of commercial development. However, although the Project is consistent with the scope of analysis in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project consists of a proposal to increase the permitted residential development intensity in the NNCPC by 94units and to vest 524 total dwelling units to the San Joaquin Plaza (including the 94 additional units and 430 units already allocated to the NNCPC). Residential uses are not associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Furthermore, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is fully regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State, Orange County, and/or City of Newport Beach. Additionally, General Plan Policy S 7.3 provides for the education of City residents to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous materials, which further serves to reduce the potential for significant health hazards associated with residential -generated hazardous materials. As such, and in conformance with the findings of the General Plan EIR, impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment No specific development project is proposed as part of the Project at this time. Nevertheless, it is recognized that construction effects would be expected to follow approval of the Project, which may include but not be limited to demolition, ground preparation, and new construction. Construction - related impacts associated with hazardous materials were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Construction activity that could be associated with the proposed Project falls within the scope of analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, which concludes that impacts due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Of the 524 units proposed to be vested to San Joaquin Plaza, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within the Newport Center Statistical Area. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. The General Plan EIR acknowledges that implementation of the General Plan Land Use Plan would require the demolition of existing structures, which could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead-based paints. The General Plan EIR also acknowledges the potential for exposing construction workers to contaminated soils, if present, during earthwork activities. The General Plan EIR concludes that compliance with existing regulations and General Plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-36 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 policies would ensure that such potential impacts are less than significant. Specifically, the General Plan EIR notes that demolition activities would be subject to: "South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403), Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos), and 1532. I (pertaining to lead) from Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 61, Subpart M of the Code of Federal Regulations (pertaining to asbestos), and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." 46 Since the certification of the General Plan EIR, revisions and additions were made to SCAQMD Rules and Regulations applicable to hazardous materials, which would apply to the proposed Project. SCAQMD Rules and Regulations are standard regulatory requirements of all construction projects in the South Coast Air Basin, including the City of Newport Beach. Any potentially contaminated sites, including contamination that may be encountered during construction activities on the Project site are required to be remediated in accordance with federal, state, and regional standards. The General Plan EIR also evaluated the potential for future impacts that may be associated with the operation of businesses that handle hazardous materials. However, the proposed Project involves an increase to the permitted residential development intensity in San Joaquin Plaza and does not involve any business operations. Operational characteristics associated with residential uses are not identified with upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; accordingly, a significant operational impact would not occur. In conclusion, the construction and operation of residential uses on the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment The General Plan EIR identified and disclosed a number of hazardous materials sites in EIR Tables 4.6-1 through 4.6-5. None of the hazardous materials sites occur on the proposed Project site. Accordingly, because San Joaquin Plaza is not on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, future residential development on the property would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The nearest school to the proposed Project site is the Corona Del Mar High School, which is located 0.5 mile to the north at 2101 Eastbluff Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed Project consists of an application to increase the permitted residential development intensity in the NNCPC by 94 units and vest development rights for 524 units (the 94 additional units and 430 units already permitted in the NNCPC) to the San Joaquin Plaza. As such, the proposed Project does not involve the use or storage of any hazardous materials; and, the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials are not typically associated with residential development projects. Furthermore, because the nearest school site is 0.5 miles away, the Project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed " General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-20. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-37 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 school. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been developed, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area The proposed Project site is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA). Although the General Plan was previously reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), the ALUC requires additional review whenever the City considers projects that require zoning (or planned community development plan) amendments that are located within the AELUP. Pursuant to standard City requirements, the proposed Project will be forwarded to the ALUC for a review of consistency with the AELUP prior to final Project approval by the Newport Beach City Council. In addition, the proposed Project site is subject to notification requirements and height regulations pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and Notification Area for jWA. The "notification surface" is defined by the AELUP by extending a slope at a gradient of 100:1 (horizontal to vertical) from the airport facility. If a development application would protrude into the notification surface, then notification to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required. Although buildings that may be proposed on-site in the future have the potential to penetrate the Part 77 notification surface, a significant environmental effect would not result since notification to the FAA would be required pursuant to FAA FAR Part 77. In addition, a precise and definitive review and assessment will be provided when building plans are submitted, and if any buildings penetrate the notification surface then the required FAA notification would be assured by the City. Based on a prior review of the NNCPC by the ALUC, the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface for the JWA is approximately 1,050 feet (North American Vertical Datum of 1988, hereafter "NAVD 88"). The maximum height of buildings allowed within the NNCPC would be 375 feet above finished grade, which equates to a maximum elevation of approximately 575 feet (NAVD 88).47 Furthermore, buildings within the San Joaquin Plaza are restricted by the NNCPC Development Plan to a maximum height of 65 feet, equating to a maximum elevation of approximately 265 feet (NAVD 88).48 Accordingly, future buildings on-site have no potential to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface, and a significant impact would therefore not occur. Based on the foregoing analysis, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 4' Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County, 2007. City of Newport Beach: Request for Consideration of Proposed Planned Community Zoning Amendment. November 15, 2007. Available for review at the Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915. 4' NNCPC Development Plan, Page 16. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-38 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area As concluded in the General Plan EIR, there are no existing private airstrips within the City of Newport Beach or within the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site 49 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to safety hazards associated with a private airstrip, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The Newport Beach Fire Department Emergency Services Office maintains the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan, which was most recently updated in 2011. The Emergency Management Plan is intended to provide guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies in or affecting the City of Newport Beach.50 According to the Emergency Management Plan, Jamboree Road is identified as an evacuation route for tsunami hazards.51 Although the proposed Project site is located near this evacuation route, there are no components of the proposed Project that would interfere with the use of Jamboree Road in the event of an evacuation. Additionally, the Project site is not identified within any of the primary hazard zones identified by the Emergency Management Plan (e.g., tsunami inundation zones, wildfire hazard zones, etc.).52 Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes a "Wildfire Susceptibility Map" that indicates areas of the City that are subject to wildland fires. According to this map, the proposed Project site is identified as having a "Low/None" susceptibility to wildfires.53 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, and a significant impact would not occur. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in San Joaquin Plaza. 49 General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-1. so City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan (2011), Page 3. Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=506. Accessed May 17, 2012. 51 Ibid, Page 101. 12 Ibid, Pages 41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 54, 55, 69, 70, and 100. sa Ibid, Page 50. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-39 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to hazards and hazardous materials relevant to the Project could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. No impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were identified for the proposed Project. Finding of Consistencv with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to hazards and hazardous materials, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on hydrology and water quality if it would result in any of the following. • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality • Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map • Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows • Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-40 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 • Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Hydrology and water quality -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements Otherwise substantially degrade water quality The General Plan EIR acknowledges that buildout of the City in accordance with the General Plan would increase the potential for degradation of water quality during both construction and long-term operation of planned land uses. Construction activities throughout the City are required to comply with state, regional, and local regulations, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit 99-08-DWQ, which requires preparation of and compliance with a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) to help reduce the potential for polluted runoff exiting construction sites. The mandatory SWPPPs also are required to incorporate an erosion control plan to prevent runoff of excessive amounts of sediment from construction sites. Additionally, construction activities that could be associated with the proposed Project to implement the residential development intensity proposed in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code, which prohibits the discharge of any runoff that would contribute to degradation of water quality. Construction activities also would be subject to compliance with the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which sets forth management strategies (including the incorporation of BMPs) to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters in the Santa Ana drainage area. Finally, the City's General Plan includes policies that are designed to minimize stormwater and erosional impacts during construction, including Policies NR 3. 10, NR 3.1 1, NR 3.12, and NR 4.4, which require the preparation and enforcement of WQMPs and the incorporation of BMPs to prevent or minimize erosional hazards. Compliance with the regulations and policies described above would ensure that construction -related water quality impacts are less than significant, when and if construction activities occur in San Joaquin Plaza to implement permitted residential development intensity. Such activities would be consistent with the construction -related water quality effects identified and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Under long-term operating conditions, the potential development of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza is not anticipated to substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces relative to existing conditions; however, no specific development project is proposed at this time so the coverage percentage is unknown. As disclosed in the General Plan EIR, the potential for infill development (such as the proposed Project) to contribute to polluted runoff "...would be minimal."54 14 General Plan EIR, Page 4.7-30. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-41 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 With implementation of the proposed Project and the residential development intensity that would be permitted in San Joaquin Plaza, there would be an increase in residential population producing a concomitant increase in the amount of wastewater contaminated with household chemicals. Wastewater conveyed from San Joaquin Plaza is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Treatment Plan No. 2, which treats the collected effluent as required to meet applicable State and Federal standards prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. Furthermore, all development in the City of Newport Beach is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), which prohibits discharge that would contribute to the degradation of water quality. Operation of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the provisions of the DAMP, including requirements to incorporate nonstructural BMPs to control typical runoff pollutants. General Plan policies also are established to promote water quality, including General Plan Policies NR 3.1 through 5.4. Mandatory compliance with the Orange County DAMP, the City's Municipal Code, and General Plan policies would ensure that operational impacts to water quality are less than significant, and such effects would be consistent with the water quality effects identified and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new operational impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) The proposed Project would be served by a potable water system and would not involve the use of any groundwater wells, and would have no effect on groundwater supplies. General Plan EIR Figure 4.7-1 depicts areas within the City that are underlain by the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin), which provides groundwater for much of central and north Orange County, including the City of Newport Beach. According to Figure 4.7-1, the proposed Project site is not located above the Basin, indicating that water infiltrating the Project site does not substantially contribute to groundwater resources. In addition, the General Plan EIR notes that "...the City of Newport Beach is in the pressure area of the Basin, which is an area that is not used for recharge. There are no designated recharge areas in the City." ss The proposed Project could involve an increase in the City's population should the residential development intensity proposed by the Project and vested to San Joaquin Plaza be implemented. As such, the proposed Project could result in an increased demand for potable water (including domestic water received from local groundwater resources). The City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the projected use of groundwater supplies, combined with imported and recycled domestic water supplies, will meet projected water demand throughout the City through the Plan's horizon year of 2035.56 The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the proposed Project (refer to Appendix E of this document) similarly concludes that sufficient water supplies are available and the implementation of the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on local groundwater. In addition, the General Plan includes several goals and related policies addressing water conservation (Goal NR 1) and water supplies (Goal NR 2) that will help ensure that future demand for potable water does not result in a deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in ss ibid, Page 4.7-7. 16 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Section 3.3 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-42 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of new storm drain infrastructure that would cause significant environmental effects Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff f The proposed Project site is fully developed with commercial office buildings, parking areas, and ornamental landscaping. Under existing conditions, the existing storm drain infrastructure is adequate to handle runoff from the site during periods of heavy rainfall. Pursuant to the Residential Open Space Requirements set forth in the NNCPC Development Plan, future residential development on the Project site to implement permitted residential development intensity would be required to provide for common outdoor open space comprising 5 percent of the residential lot area, of which 10 percent must comprise landscaped areas. Additionally, the NNCPC Landscaping Development Standards require that surface parking lots must contain a minimum of one 24 -inch box tree for each five parking spaces.57 Compliance with the NNCPC Development Plan requirements for landscaping would ensure that impervious surfaces do not substantially increase, thereby ensuring that peak runoff from the site does not substantially increase as compared to existing conditions. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not require new or expanded storm drain infrastructure beyond that assumed by the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR acknowledges that new stormwater infrastructure may be needed to support new development within the City. Policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that residential development, when and if implemented in San Joaquin Plaza, can be adequately supported by utilities such as storm drainage infrastructure. The General Plan EIR concludes that although the installation of storm drain facility upgrades could result in short-term construction impacts, construction of storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would not result in impacts not already identified in association with buildout of the General Plan Land Use Plan. As such, the General Plan EIR concludes that such impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR with respect to hydrology and water quality impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 57 NNCPC Development Plan, Pages 19 and 24. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-43 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map Place within a I00 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flows Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site The City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan identifies areas subject to flood hazards as part of the Flood Hazard Areas and Local Flooding Map exhibits. The proposed Project site is not identified as an area subject to regional or local flood hazards. In addition, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the proposed Project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is defined as "Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain." 58 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not have the potential to place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, nor would the Project place structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flows. Impacts due to flood hazards would not occur. Under existing conditions, the proposed Project site is fully developed with commercial office buildings, parking, and ornamental landscaping. With implementation of residential development in San Joaquin Plaza as would be permitted by the proposed Project, it is not anticipated that the site's existing drainage pattern would be substantially altered, and any such alterations would not affect the course of any streams or rivers. In addition, and as discussed under the analysis of the previous thresholds, any future residential development associated with the proposed Project would be required to maintain landscaped areas that would ensure that runoff from the site does not substantially increase over existing conditions, thereby preventing any potential for substantial increases to long-term erosion hazards off-site. Furthermore, all runoff from the site is diverted to the City's storm drain system. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner that increases the potential for flooding either on- or off-site, nor would the revised drainage pattern result in substantial erosion or siltation either on- or off-site; accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a levee or dam The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes a Dam Failure Inundation Map that identifies areas within the City that are subject to inundation in the event of a dam failure. According to this exhibit, the proposed Project site is located south of the Big Canyon Reservoir Inundation Pathway and east of the Prado Dam Inundation Pathway.59 Accordingly, the proposed Project site is not subject to flooding associated with any levees or dams, and a significant impact to people or structures would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or 58 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0382J, December 3, 2009. Available on-line at www.fema.gov. Accessed May 16, 2012. s9 City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan, Page 69. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-44 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan includes an exhibit entitled, Tsunami Inundation Map for Newport Beach, which indicates that the proposed Project site is not subject to tsunami hazards, nor would future residents of the Project be subject to evacuation in the event of a tsunami hazard.60 Seiche hazards are associated only with enclosed bodies of water. The only enclosed bodies of water located upstream from the proposed Project site is the Big Canyon Reservoir; as noted in the previous threshold, the proposed Project site is not located within the inundation pathway for the Big Canyon Reservoir. Furthermore, mudflow hazards are primarily associated with steep slopes, which are not prevalent in the Project area. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to hydrology and water quality could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to hydrology and water quality. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to hydrology and water quality, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.10 Land Use and Planning The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on land use and planning if it would result in any of the following. • Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses • Physically divide an established community bo Ibid, Page 100. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-45 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Land use and planning -related impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Intensify development within the Planning Area that creates incompatibilities with adjacent land uses The proposed Project has the potential to intensify residential development in the NNCPC and would vest development rights for an additional 94 residential units in the San Joaquin Plaza where only commercial office, parking lots, and ornamental landscaping exist today. With the addition of 94 units of residential development intensity and allocation of 430 units of residential development intensity already permitted in the NNCPC to San Joaquin Plaza, the Project site would have the maximum development potential of 524 multi -family residential units. Property surrounding the Project site has a mixed-use character. Residential uses occur immediately to the southwest and to the northeast of the San Joaquin Plaza, with additional residential uses located westerly of Jamboree Road. Other land uses in the area include office, commercial retail, public facility, and commercial lodging (hotel). As concluded in the General Plan EIR's discussion of Newport Center/Fashion Island: "Residential units have existed in this area since the 1970s, and increased through the 1990s. No conflicts of use between the residential and commercial uses have existed previously in this area, as evidenced by the lack of complaints by area residents." 61 Although the proposed Project would incrementally increase the number of residential units allowed within North Newport Center and consolidate those units to San Joaquin Plaza, such an increase would not result in any incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Accordingly, a significant impact due to incompatible adjacent land uses would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Physically divide an established community The proposed Project site is located within the Newport Center portion of the City of Newport Beach, which consists of an existing, established mixed use district. The proposed Project involves an increase in the permitted residential development intensity for San Joaquin Plaza (from 430 units to 524 units). Under existing conditions, San Joaquin Plaza contains a multi -tenant commercial office development with parking and landscaping. No residential units are currently constructed on the Project site. San Joaquin Plaza is approximately 23 acres in size and no major public roadways traverse the site. It is generally bounded on the south by San Clemente Drive, on the east by Santa Cruz Drive, on the northeast by San Joaquin Hills Road, and is located just southeasterly of Jamboree Road. On the opposite sides of these roadways, an established apartment complex occurs to the south and an established residential neighborhood occurs to the northeast. The proposed Project would not physically divide either of 61 General Plan EIR, Page 4.8-11. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-46 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 these residential areas, nor any other established community. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect The proposed Project site is located within the NNCPC and the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for properties within its boundaries, is proposed to be amended as part of the Project to increase permitted residential development intensity by 94 units. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NCCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NCCPC Development Plan Amendment. Future residential development within San Joaquin Plaza, if and when it occurs, would be required to demonstrate consistency with the NNCPC Development Plan; accordingly, no conflict with the NNCPC Development Plan would occur with implementation of the proposed Project. The NNCPC Development Plan was previously evaluated as part of Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR (dated November 2007), which included an extensive analysis demonstrating how existing and planned development in the NNCPC is consistent with all applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations of other agencies with jurisdiction over the NNCPC area. Provided below is a consistency analysis for the proposed Project. As part of the proposed Project, 79 un -built hotel rooms presently allocated to General Plan Anomaly Location 43 would be converted to residential units and then transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. In addition, the Project proposes to assign 15 un -built and unassigned multi- family residential units permitted in the MU -H3 designation of the Newport Center Statistical Area to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 4.3(d) (Transfer of Development Rights), transfers of development rights or development intensity in Newport Center are governed by Policy 6.14.3. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 allows development rights or development intensity to be transferred within Newport Center, subject to a finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. The proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.3 as follows: LU 6.14.3 Development rights may be transferred within Newport Center, subject to the approval of the City with the finding that the transfer is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and that the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts. Project Consistency: Consistent. The Newport Beach Marriott site (General Plan Anomaly 43) has a General Plan Land Use designation of CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) and the reduction of allowable development intensity by 79 hotel units would not result in any physical changes at the Newport Beach Marriott site nor would it result in a change in land use. With approval of the proposed Project, the hotel would continue operating with 532 rooms and serve visitors to the City consistent with the intent of the General Plan's CV land use designation. The San Joaquin Plaza sub -area of NNCPC is designated MU -H3 (Mixed Use Horizontal), which allows residential uses. Both the General Plan and the NNCPC Development Plan identify the San Joaquin Plaza for potential development with multi -family residential uses. The Project's proposal to assign additional multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in a conflict with the General Plan's MU -H3 land use designation. Although the proposed Project NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-47 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 would allow for the development of 79 more multi -family units than currently anticipated in that location by the General Plan and 94 multi -family units more than anticipated in the NNCPC Development Plan, this increase in the number of permitted multi -family units would be consistent with General Plan allowed intensity, goals and policies, including, but not limited to, the following: • General Plan Policy LU 3.3, which encourages the provision of residential uses in proximity to jobs and services. • General Plan Policy LU 5.3.4, which encourages the provision of appropriate acreage for the mixture of residential and nonresidential uses. • General Plan Policy 6.14.2 which encourages provisions for limited residential development in accordance with General Plan Tables LU I and LU2. • General Plan Goal H 2.2, which encourages the provision of housing units that assist in achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals. • General Plan Goal H 2.3, which encourages mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. • General Plan Housing Program Policy 3.2.1, which directs the City to make appropriate provisions for the development of housing within the Newport Center. Furthermore, and as concluded in Section 4.3.15, no significantly adverse traffic impacts would result from implementation of the proposed Project. Additionally, and as indicated under the analysis of Hazards and Hazardous Materials in Section 4.3.8, mandatory compliance with the development standards included in the NNCPC Development Plan and Design Regulations and review of the Project by the ALUC would ensure that the proposed Project is fully consistent with the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport. Based on the foregoing analysis and the analysis contained in Addendum No. I to the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, and/or regulations, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan As indicated under the analysis of Biological Resources in Section 4.3.4, the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted associated with buildout of the City of Newport development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation as a mitigation program that minimized impacts Beach, including the implementation of future The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that land use and planning impacts could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-48 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to land use and planning. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to land use and planning, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.11 Noise The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse noise impact if it would result in any of the following. • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project • For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels • For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Noise impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis In order to evaluate whether the proposed Project would result in noise impacts that were not examined in the General Plan EIR, a noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This study, entitled, North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis, and dated May 29, 2012, is provided as Appendix C. Refer to Appendix C for a discussion of noise fundamentals, noise standards, and for a detailed description of the methodology utilized to calculate the proposed Project's traffic -related noise. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-49 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Methods and Procedures In evaluating the proposed Project's potential for impacts due to noise from vehicular traffic, the projected roadway noise impacts were calculated using a computer program that replicates the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. Please refer to Section 5.1 of the Project's Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C) for a description of the noise prediction model inputs used in the analysis. Threshold of Significance for Evaluating Noise Impacts Noise standards within the City are established by the General Plan Noise Element and the City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control, and Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations). Project -related construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan Policy N 4.6 (Maintenance or Construction Activities) and Policy N 5.1 (Limiting Hours of Activity). Policy N 4.6 directs the City to enforce the City's Noise Ordinance limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, while Policy N 5.1 directs the City to enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 restricts the timing of construction activities within the City to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and prohibits "loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity" on Sundays and holidays. Land use compatibility for noise is governed by General Plan Goal NI, which requires analysis of new development to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. General Plan Policy N 1.5, which addresses "Infill Projects" such as the proposed Project, establishes an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA CNEL. General Plan Noise Policy N 1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. Due to the nature of the proposed Project (i.e., multi -family residential uses), only future traffic generated by the proposed Project warrants analysis for compliance with Policy N 1.8 since multi -family residential development is not anticipated to result in any stationary noise sources that could exceed the noise level limits established by the policy. For purposes of analysis (and as required by General Plan Policy N 1.8), off-site transportation -related noise increases would be considered "substantial" if Project -related traffic results in any of the following: a noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 55 to 60 dBA CNEL; a noise level increase of 2 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; a NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-50 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 noise level increase of I dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 65 to 75 dBA CNEL; and/or any off-site transportation project related noise level increase where the existing without project ambient noise levels are over 75 dBA CNEL. If the Project's transportation - related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's contribution would be considered to comprise a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(3)(b)). If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were not previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's noise contribution would be considered a significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(3)(a)). Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) establishes allowable exterior noise standards for sensitive land uses, as shown in Table 5, Allowable Exterior Noise Levels. In cases where ambient noise levels exceed the allowable exterior noise level shown in Table 5, then the ambient noise level is the exterior noise standard. Municipal Code Section 10.26.030 (Interior Noise Standards) establishes allowable interior noise level, as presented in Table 6, Allowable Interior Noise Levels. In cases where ambient noise levels exceed the allowable interior noise levels presented in Table 6, then the ambient noise level is the interior noise standard. Table 5 Allowable Exterior Noise Levels Land Use Allowable Exterior Noise Level (Leq) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Residential Single- two- or multiple family 55 dBA 50 dBA residential 50 dBA 11 Commercial 65 dBA 60 dBA Residential portions of mixed- 60 dBA 50 dBA use properties Industrial or manufacturing 70 dBA 70 dBA Source: Municipal Code Section 10.26.025. Table 6 Allowable Interior Noise Levels Land Use Allowable Interior Noise Level (Leq) 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Residential 55 dBA 50 dBA Residential portions of mixed- use properties 60 dBA 50 dBA 11 Source: Municipal Code Section IU.26.USU. Impact Analysis Since no specific development project is proposed at this time, it is not possible to calculate noise levels that would be associated with future construction activities at the proposed Project site. However, construction activity is an expected secondary effect of the Project and therefore considered in this analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section IS 146). Consistent with the conclusions of the General Plan EIR for construction impacts, mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would ensure that construction activities on the proposed Project site do not result in a significant noise impact that would exceed any established and applicable standards governing construction -related noise. Furthermore, NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-51 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 construction -related noise that may be associated with the proposed allocation of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR assumed future construction in Newport Center, inclusive of the proposed Project site. Of the 524 units proposed to be vested to San Joaquin Plaza, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within Statistical Area L1. Therefore, constructing 79 residential units instead of 79 hotel units and the construction of an additional 94 units in the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC represent the Project's only potential to create construction - related noise impacts beyond the level previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. However, the construction of additional multi -family residential units at the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of construction -related noise as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR. As noted in the General Plan EIR, construction activities would be subject to compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, which regulates the allowable days and hours of construction. Any construction noise generated during the days and hours permitted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would otherwise be exempt from the Noise Ordinance requirements, and thereby has no potential to result in any new or more severe impacts as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR's analysis. Furthermore, the construction of 94 additional units at the San Joaquin Plaza would only increase the duration of construction activities and would not measurably increase the intensity of construction -related noise, as it is reasonable to conclude that residential units would be constructed using the same types of construction equipment and building materials. Since the General Plan EIR concludes that mandatory compliance with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 would result in less than significant construction -related noise impacts, future Project - related construction noise would not result in any new noise impacts or substantially increase the severity of construction -related noise impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Operational noise impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which identified significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of existing development to future traffic related noise that would exceed the General Plan noise standards and/or would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The General Plan EIR notes that compliance with General Plan Goal N-2 (Transportation Noise) would reduce this impact, but not to a level below significant.62 Although the proposed Project would involve the allocation of 94 additional units to the San Joaquin Plaza, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a net increase in the amount of traffic beyond what was assumed in the General Plan EIR.63 To substantiate this conclusion, future noise conditions for study area roadway segments were calculated based on the Project's Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix D) to determine whether traffic generated by the Project would cause or contribute to transportation -related noise levels that could exceed the General Plan standards and/or result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Under existing entitlements, the proposed Project site could be developed with up to 430 multi -family residential units. Accordingly, the analysis presented herein focuses on the Project's proposal to allocate an additional 94 dwelling units to the San Joaquin Plaza (as was done for the Project's traffic study prepared in accordance with the City's TPO; see Appendix D). 62 Ibid, Page 4.9-42. 63 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012. San Joaquin Plaza Trip Generation. May 16, 2012. Available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-52 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Existing noise contours without the addition of Project traffic are presented in Table 6-1 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix C), while Noise Impact Analysis Table 6-2 presents the existing plus Project traffic noise contours. Table 6-3 of the Noise Impact Analysis presents the year 2016 without Project noise contours, while Table 6-4 presents the year 2016 noise contours with the addition of Project traffic. It should be noted that noise contours presented in the Noise Impact Analysis do not take into consideration the noise reducing effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient or projected noise levels. Table 7, Existing Off Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of the existing conditions noise levels for study area road segments for with and without the addition of Project traffic associated with adding 94 residential dwelling units to San Joaquin Plaza. Table 8, Year 2016 Off Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts, presents a comparison of year 2016 conditions noise levels for study area road segments for with and without the addition of Project traffic. As previously noted, a significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive land uses. According to the significance thresholds specified by Noise Element Policy N 1.8 and shown in Table 7 and Table 8, 72 of the 73 roadway segments within the Project's study area are not expected to be significantly impacted by off-site transportation related noise. According to the noise impact analysis, the Newport Center segment north of San Miguel is the only roadway identified with a potentially significant impact. However, the land uses neighboring this roadway segment consist primarily of commercial retail and office uses that are not considered existing sensitive uses that would require additional off-site noise mitigation. As such, a significant impact for this roadway segment does not exist for future Year 2016 conditions (as shown in Table 8). For all of the 73 study area roadway segments, Project -related noise level increases are expected to be less than 1.0 to 3.0 dBA CNEL in year 2016, which is considered "barely perceptible." All noise level increases attributable to Project -related traffic are also below the thresholds established by General Plan Policy N 1.8, or the projected increase would not impact a sensitive receptor. As such, the proposed Project's contributions to off-site roadway noise increases for both existing and year 2016 conditions would not result in the exposure of persons to or result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies. Additionally, Project -related traffic would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. For General Plan buildout conditions, noise level increases attributable to Project -related traffic would be less than the noise level increases presented in Table 8. This is because buildout of the General Plan would result in an overall increase in background traffic volumes, which would thereby result in an increase in background noise levels as compared to year 2016 conditions. As background traffic -related noise levels increase, noise increases attributable to Project traffic would decrease. Therefore, since Project -related noise increases would be less than the values presented in Table 8, Project -related traffic under General Plan buildout conditions would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies, nor would it result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Based on the analysis presented above, traffic associated with the proposed project would not result in any new significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor would Project traffic result in a NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-53 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 7 Existing Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) No With Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold dBA Potential Significant Im act72 Jamboree North ofEastbluff 68.8 68.9 0.0 1,0 No Jamboree Eastbluffto San Joaquin Hills 69 8 69 8 00 1 0 No Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.0 68.0 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 68 3 68 3 00 1 0 No Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Coast Highway 67 5 67 5 00 1 0 No Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.3 63.3 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 54.5 0.0 3.0 No Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.0 63.4 0.4 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 62.9 62.9 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 61 9 61 9 00 1 0 No Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 61.7 61.7 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.5 58.5 0.0 2.0 N.o Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 60.9 60.9 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.3 61.3 0.0 1..0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.6 60.5 0.0 1 .0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.2 60.2 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 59 9 59 9 00 2 0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 60.6 60.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.0 62.1 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.0 62.1 1.1 1.0 Yes Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.7 62.7 0.0 1 ,6 No Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 61.9 61.9 0.0 1.0 N.o Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 63.6 63.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 642 64 2 00 1 0 No Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 58.0 0.0 2.0 No Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 63 8 63 8 00 1 0 No Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.0 63.0 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 60.5 60.5 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of San Miguel 57 0 57 0 00 2 0 No Avocado South of San Miguel 62.0 62.0 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of Coast Highway 604 604 00 1 0 No Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.1 71.1 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur South of Bonita Canyon 70.3 70.3 0.0 1 :0 No Macarthur North of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.3 1 70.3 0.0 1.0 No NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-54 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 7 Existing Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts (Cont'd) Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) No With Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold dBA' Potential Significant Impact? Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of San Miguel 67 9 679 0 0 1 0 No Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.0 67.0 0:0 1.0 No Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.0 67.0 0.0 10 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of.Jamboree 63 8 638 0 0 1 0 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 62.8 62.8 0.0 1.0 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 62.1 62.2 0.0 1.0 No Fastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Fast of Bonita Canyon 67 9 679 0 0 1 0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 59.3 59.3 0.0 2.0 No San Joaquin Hills East. of Jamboree 64.9 65.0 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 65 9 65.9 0 0 1 0 No San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 63.8 63.9 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.4 64.4 0.0 1.6 No San Joaquin Hills Fast of Santa Rosa 65 8 658 0 0 1:0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 65.7 65.7 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.0 No San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 58.3 0.1 2.0 No San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.4 58.5 0.1 2.0 No Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.0 54.0 0.0 3.0 No Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61 6 61.7 0.0 1.0 No Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61 6 61 6 0 0 1 0 No Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 594 59.4 0.0 2.0 No Santa Barbara West of Newport. CTR 58 8 588 0 1 2 0 No Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.0 56.0 0.0 2.0 No San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61 1 61.1 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.2 63.2 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel West of Avacado 64.3 64.3 0.0 1.0 No San Migual East of Avacado 66.0 66.0 0.0 1,0 No San Miguel West of Macarthur 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel Fast of Macarthur 62 9 629 0 0 1:0 No Coast Highway West of Jamboree 70.2 70.2 0.0 1.0 No Coast.Highway East of Jamboree 69.2 69.2 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 68 9 689 0 0 1 0 No Coast Highway Fast of Newport CTR 68 0 680 0 0 1 0 No Coast Highway West of Avacado 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Avacado 68.1 68.1 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.1 68.1 0.0 1.0 No Coast.Highway East of Macarthur 69.5 1 69.5 0.0 1.0 No I. Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8. 2. Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-55 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 8 Year 2016 Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) No With Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold dBA' Potential Significant Im act?2 Jamboree North of Eastbluff 69.6 69.7 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 70.5 70.5 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of.San Joaquin Hills 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 69.0 69.0 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 68.6 68.6 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Coast Highway 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63 6 636 0 0 1 0 No Santa Cruz North of SanJoaquin Hills 54.5 54.5 0.0 3.0 No Santa Cruz: Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.1 63.2 0.1 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 63.1 63.1 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 62.1 62.2 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 62.0 62.0 0.0 1.0 No Santa. Cruz. South of Newport CTR 58.8 58.8 0.0 2.0 No Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 61 1 61 1 00 1 0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61 4 61.4 0.0 1.0 No Newport C.TR North of Santa Barbara 60.8 60.8 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.5 60.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 60 1 60.1 0.0 1:0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 61 1 61 1 0 0 1 0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.5 62.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport .CTR North of San Miguel 61 3 61.3 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.8 62.8 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 62.0 62.0 0.0 1:0 No Newport CTR South of Newport CTR tCircle 64.0 64.0 0.0 1.0 No Newport C.TR North of Coast Highway 64.6 64.6 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58 0 580 0 0 2 0 No Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 64.4 64.4 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.7 63.7 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 61 2 61.2 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of San Miguel 57.8 57.8 0.0 2.0 No Avocado South of San Miguel 62.7 62.7 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of Coast Highway 61 2 61.2 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71 5 71 5 0 0 1 0 No Macarthur ISouth of Bonita Canyon 1 70.9 1 70.9 1 0.0 1 1.0 F:NEo Macarthur North .of San Joaquin Hills 70.8 70.8 0.0 1.0 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-56 No ■ Q Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 8 Year 2016 Off -Site Project -Related Traffic Noise Impacts (Cont'd) Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) No Wth Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold dBA' Potential Significant Im act?2 Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of San Miguel 68 3 683 0 0 10 No Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.5 67.6 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.5 67.6 0.0 1:0 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 64.0 64.0 0.0 1.0 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 63.0 63.1 0.0 1.0 No Fastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 624 624 0 0 1.0 No Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 68.1 68.1 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 594 594 0 0 2 0 No San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 65.5 65.6 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin.Hills West of Santa Cruz 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 64.2 64.2 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.8 64.8 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills Fast of Santa Rosa 66 0 661 0 0 1:0 No San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No San Joaquin Hills Fast of Macarthur 65 7 657 0 0 1 0 No San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 58.3 0.1 2.0 No San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.4 1 58.5 0.1 2.0 No Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.4 54.4 0.0 3.0 No Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61.9 61.9 0.0 1.0 No Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61.8 61.8 0.0 1.0 No Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 59.8 59.8 0.0 2.0 No Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 59.2 1 59.2 0.0 2.0 No Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.5 56.5 0.0 2.0 No San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61.8 61.8 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.8 63.8 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel West of Avacado 64.8 64.8 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel East of Avacado 66.5 66.5 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel West of Macarthur 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No San Miguel Fast of Macarthur 63 1 631 0 0 1:0 No Coast Highway West of Jamboree 71.0 71.0 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway Fast of Jamboree 70 1 70 1 0 0 1 0 No Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 69.0 69.0 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Avacado 68.9 68.9 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway Fast of Avacado 69 0 690 0 0 1 0 No Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.7 69.0 0.3 1.0 No Coast.Highway East of Macarthur 70.4 70.4 0.0 1.0 No Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8 2. Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-57 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 substantial increase in the severity of any noise impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels The General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for exposure of persons to or the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, which were considered significant if they exceeded 72 vibration decibels (VdB). Impacts associated with the exposure of existing residential developments to noise levels in excess of 72 VdB were disclosed in the General Plan EIR as a significant and unavoidable impact, and indicated that mitigation measures for such impacts are not available. Table 9, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, presents the typical vibration levels for common types of construction equipment.64 Existing residential uses within close proximity to the proposed Project site include existing single-family residential uses to the west (across Jamboree Road), multi -family uses to the northwest (across Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road), single-family uses to the northeast (across San Joaquin Hills Road), and immediately south of the proposed Project site (across San Clemente Drive). Of theses existing residential land uses, and based on the values presented in Table 9, only the existing multi -family uses to the south of the site are located in close enough proximity to the Project site (i.e., approximately 90 feet) to be affected by vibration from future Project construction, as the remaining residential uses are located more than 150 feet from the proposed Project site. As shown in Table 9, the existing multi -family land uses located south of the site could be exposed to vibration -related noise levels approaching 77 VdB (which is the vibration level given for large bulldozers at a distance of 75 feet). Table 9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ox. ate VdB Equipment 25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75 Loaded Trucks 86 80 76 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 48 46 SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration 1995; EIP Associates 2006 Although future construction activities that may occur as a result of the proposed Project have the potential to expose the existing multi -family residential uses to the south to noise levels in excess of 72 VdB, construction activities that would result from implementation of the proposed Project fall within the scope of analysis presented in the General Plan EIR. The addition of up to 94 additional multi -family units on the Project site, in addition to the 430 multi -family units already assumed by the General Plan EIR, would not result in a substantial increase in the amount of construction equipment that would be required, and thus would not result in a substantial increase in vibration -related impacts as presented in the General Plan EIR. With respect to long-term operating conditions, multi -family residential uses are not associated with the generation of vibration -related noise. As such, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 14 General Plan EIR, Table 4.9-7. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-58 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project Since no specific development is proposed at this time, it is not possible to calculate noise levels that may be associated with future construction activities at the proposed Project site. However, construction activities that may be associated with future development at the proposed Project site are within the scope of analysis for the General Plan EIR, since the General Plan EIR assumed future construction on the proposed Project site and because the construction of additional units on-site (i.e., 94 multi -family units) would not substantially increase daily noise levels. As concluded in the General Plan EIR, "...existing and future construction noise levels at individual construction sites may not substantially differ, but previously unexposed areas could experience new sources of construction noise. Both existing and future noise would be exempt from the [Municipal Code] and when construction occurs, impacts would be considered less than significant." 65 Accordingly, since construction activities that may be associated with future construction activities allowed as a result of the proposed Project would be regulated by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, and because impacts associated with construction activities at the proposed Project site were assumed in the General Plan EIR, construction activities would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. For long-term operating conditions, the General Plan EIR notes the following: Other sources of noise that occur on a periodic or temporary noise could involve neighborhood or commercial landscape maintenance equipment, street and parking /at maintenance vehicles, loudspeakers, alarm systems, and automobiles and motorcycles with modified exhaust systems. Noise from these uses may be dealt with on a case-by-case basis through enforcement of the City Noise Ordinance provisions.66 The General Plan EIR concludes that such impacts would be less than significant. Operational characteristics that may be associated with future development pursuant to the proposed Project would be within the scope of the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR, since the long-term operation of 94 additional multi -family units on-site (in addition to the 430 multi -family units already allowed by the NNCPC Development Plan) would not result in a substantial increase in the need for landscape maintenance equipment, use of street and parking lot maintenance vehicles, loudspeakers, alarm systems, or automobiles with modified exhaust systems. Moreover, to the extent that the Project would result in an increase in these sources (e.g., increased vehicles with modified exhaust systems), such sources would be addressed through enforcement of the provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. Accordingly, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. bs Ibid, Page 4.9-34. 66 Ibid, Page 4.9-35. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-59 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels According to General Plan EIR Figures 4.9-5 and 4.9-6, and the John Wayne Airport Impact Zones exhibit contained in the AELUP,67 the proposed Project site is subject to airport -related noise levels that are less than 60 dB CNEL. As indicated in the AELUP, areas located outside of the 60 dB CNEL contour are not subject to significant airport -related noise levels.68 Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of people residing or working in the area to excessive airport -related noise levels. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels As concluded in the General Plan EIR, there are no existing private airstrips within the City or the vicinity of the Project site.69 Accordingly, the proposed Project site would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels associated with a private airstrip, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to noise impacts related to John Wayne Airport and construction activities could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Groundborne construction vibrations and long-term exposure to increased noise levels were identified to remain significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to noise. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to noise, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 6' Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (April 17, 2008), Appendix D (Impact Zones Map). Available on-line at: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/IWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2012. 68 Ibid, Page 12. 69 General Plan EIR, Page 4.6-1. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-60 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 4.3.12 Population and Housing The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on biological resources [sic] if it would result in any of the following: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Population and housing impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) The Project's proposal to assign 15 un -built multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza would not result in an increase in the City's population beyond the projected population for North Newport Center previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. The conversion of 79 un -built hotel units to residential units would, however, result in an estimated increase in the City's permanent population by 173 persons (based on a person per household [pph] value of 2.19 cited in the General Plan EIR).70 It should be noted that the increase in the permanent population would be somewhat off- set by the reduction in transient population (i.e., hotel patrons) due to the reduction in the number of hotel units allowed within the City (79 units). The General Plan EIR disclosed that buildout of the land uses allowed by the General Plan Land Use Plan would result in a future 2030 population of 103,753 persons, while SCAG projected a future 2030 population of only 94,167 persons, or a difference of approximately 9,586 persons. The General Plan EIR identified this increase in the City's population as compared to SCAG's 2030 forecast to be a significant and unavoidable impact of the 2006 General Plan. The future development of residential uses in San Joaquin Plaza as a result of implementing the proposed Project would result in an estimated increase in the City's projected population by 173 persons, which would be in addition to the projected population identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the increase in permanent population attributable to the proposed Project would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the City's unavoidable cumulative impact to population and housing, considering the proposed Project's population increase of 173 persons would comprise less than two-tenths of one percent (0.17%) of the projected and estimated General Plan buildout population. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 70 Ibid, Page 4.10-5 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-61 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere Under existing conditions, the San Joaquin Plaza is developed with commercial office land uses, and does not include any housing units or residents. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program No policies were identified in the 2006 General Plan to reduce the substantial increase in growth in the City. Measures were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with resource impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increases in population and the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to population and housing would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to population and housing. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to population and housing, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.13 Public Services The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on [public services] if it would result in any of the following. • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-62 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. • Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered libraries, the need for new or physically altered libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries." It should be noted that impacts to parks, although included as a public service in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, are analyzed separately in Section 4.3.14 (Recreation) of this Initial Study/EIR Addendum. No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Public service impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. Summary Analysis Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives The proposed Project site is served by Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) Fire Station 3, which is located at 868 Santa Barbara Drive and immediately adjacent to the proposed Project site.71 The desired personnel to population ratio for fire protection services is 0.48 firefighters for each 1,000 residents.72 According to this standard, the Project's projected future population increase of 173 persons73 would result in the need for 0.08 new firefighters. However, as stated in the General Plan EIR, "irrespective of the personnel to population ratio, in the NBFD's estimation, the NBFD's current staffing level adequately suits the current needs of the City's residential population."74 In addition, NBFD's desired response time for emergency response (including a three- to four -person engine company) is five minutes for 90 percent of all structure fire calls within the City75. According to General Plan EIR Table 4.11-4, Fire Station 3 had a response time of 4 minutes 32 seconds in 2002, which meets the NBFD's five minute standard. It should be noted that given the San Joaquin Plaza's close proximity to Fire Station 3, service times to the proposed Project site would be substantially less than the average response time. Furthermore, it should be noted that the construction of 1,201 dwelling units within Newport Center was assumed in the General Plan EIR (which assumed 751 units allocated to portions of the Newport Center designated as Multiple Residential [RM] and 450 units allocated to portions designated as MU- 1 ­13), and the General Plan EIR also assumed the construction of 79 more hotel units than were actually constructed at Anomaly Number 43 (Marriott Hotel). Thus, the construction of 524 multi -family dwelling units at the San Joaquin Plaza, which includes 445 of the 450 dwelling units allocated to the MU - 71 Ibid, Table 4.1 1-1. 72 Ibid, Page 4.1 1-5. 73 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19. 74 Ibid, Pages 4.11-5 and -6 75 Ibid, Page 4.11-6. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-63 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 H3 portions of Newport Center and the conversion and transfer of 79 hotel units, would not represent a substantial increase in demand for fire protection services. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in or require the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which would result in substantial adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives As discussed in the analysis of the previous threshold, implementation of the proposed Project could result in an increase in the City's projected permanent population by 173 persons as compared to what was estimated in the General Plan EIR; 76 however, it should be noted that this increase in the estimated permanent population would be partially off -set by a reduction in the City's transient population because the proposed Project also would result in a reduction of 79 hotel units allowed within Newport Center. Nonetheless, the potential increase in the estimated permanent population would require additional police protection services. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) has a ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents77. When and if residential development occurs in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, there would be an estimated 173 person population increase, which would require an additional 0.29 officers to maintain the City's service ratio. Maintaining the NBPD's current ratio of 0.60 non -sworn personnel per sworn officer78 would require the addition of 0.18 non -sworn personnel. Although the General Plan EIR identified that buildout of the General Plan would require new or expanded police facilities, the Project -related demand for 0.29 sworn officers and 0.18 non -sworn officers would not result in or require any new or physically altered police protection facilities beyond what was evaluated and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in nor require new or physically altered police protection facilities or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. The proposed Project is located within the Newport Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), and any future school-age children residing in San Joaquin Plaza would attend the Lincoln Elementary School, Corona Del Mar Middle School, or the Corona Del Mar High School should they attend public schools. 76 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19. 77 Ibid, Page 4.11-16. 78 Ibid. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-64 No M 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Utilizing the ratios provided in the General Plan EIR, the conversion of 79 hotel rooms to 79 multi- family residential proposed by the Project would result in 35 more students than were assumed in the General Plan EIR (consisting of 17 elementary school students, 9 middle school students, and 9 high school students).79 As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would result in approximately 4,347 total students within NMUSD, which would require the construction of new school facilities.80 However, the General Plan EIR concludes that adherence to policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to the provision of new educational facilities would be less than significant. Furthermore, the 35 additional students generated by the proposed Project would not result in the need for additional school facilities beyond those assumed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, demand for school facilities associated with the proposed Project in conjunction with the cumulative demand throughout the entire school district would be consistent with the level of impacts identified and disclosed as part of the General Plan EIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered libraries, the need for new or physically altered libraries, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for libraries." As concluded in the General Plan EIR, it is increasingly difficult to project the potential need for resources required to adequately serve the future population because the types of resources used at Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) is changing (i.e., hardcopies vs. electronic documents). "...[I]ncreased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space."81 Accordingly, although the proposed Project could result in an increase in the projected future population of the City by 173 persons as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR,82 if and when residential development occurs in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, such population increase would not directly result in the need for new or expanded library facilities that would have a significant effect upon the environment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increased public service demands associated with the City's projected population, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. 79 Ibid, Page 4.11-23. The General Plan EIR assumes that the 14,215 dwelling unit increase associated with the General Plan Update would result in 6,230 new students, consisting of 3,115 elementary school students, 1,557 middle school students, and 1,558 high school students. This represents a ratio of 0.219135 elementary students 0.109532 middle school students, and 0.109603 high school students per household. 80 Ibid, Page 4.11-23. 81 Ibid, Pages 4.11-27 and 4.11-28. 12 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-65 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to public services would be less than significant. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to public services. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to public services, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.14 Recreation and Open Space The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on parks and recreational facilities if it would result in any of the following: • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment • Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Park and recreational facility impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-66 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government services, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for parks At the time the General Plan EIR was certified (2006), the City had a deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of park and beach acreage citywide. The proposed Project site is located within Service Area 9 (Newport Center), which is identified as having a projected need for 10.9 acres of parkland to serve the future population with buildout of the Service Area. The Service Area contains a total of 19 acres of existing parkland, which represents a surplus of 8.1 acres.83 Based on the standards provided in Municipal Code Section 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard), the City requires five acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents. Implementation of the proposed Project could result in an estimated increase of 173 persons as compared to what was projected by the General Plan.84 If and when residential development is constructed in San Joaquin Plaza to implement the proposed Project, the resulting increase of 173 persons beyond that previously assumed by the General Plan would result in a demand for 0.9 acres of parkland. With implementation of the Project, total demand for parkland within Service Area 9 would increase to 11.8 acres, which would be more than accommodated by the 19 acres of existing parkland within the Service Area. Although the Project would not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities, per the General Plan Open Space policies, a Per -Unit Public Benefit Fee for Parks would be paid for each of the 94 additional units in exchange for vested development rights as stipulated in the Amendment to the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement. The in -lieu fees would be used to maintain existing or acquire new parkland within the City. Accordingly, because there is more than adequate parkland to serve the projected population within Service Area 9, and because a Per -Unit Public Benefit Fee for parks would be required to be paid as an additional public benefit to assist the City in maintaining or expanding parkland within the City should residential development occur in San Joaquin Plaza, the proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment. The proposed Project also would not result in any substantial adverse physical impacts to the environment associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 83 Ibid, Table 4.12-1 (Parkland Acreages). 84 Ibid, Page 4.10-5. Based on a pph value of 2.19. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-67 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including increases in parkland and the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to recreation and open space. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to recreation and open space, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.15 Transportation/Traffic The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation or circulation if it would result in any of the following. • Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) • Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) • Result in inadequate emergency access • Result in inadequate parking capacity • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Transportation impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-68 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) As required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), a TPO traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed Project. This study, entitled, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis, and dated May 2012, is provided as Appendix D. The TPO traffic analysis includes an analysis pursuant to the TPO, a cumulative conditions analysis, and a General Plan analysis. Provided below is a summary of the methodology used in the TPO traffic analysis, an overview of existing conditions for study area intersections, and a summary of the findings for the TPO analysis, cumulative conditions analysis, and General Plan Analysis. TPO Traffic Analysis Methodology The proposed Project involves conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family units, which would then be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza. The Project also would result in the assignment of 15 un -built and un -assigned units to the San Joaquin Plaza. These 94 units, along with an additional 430 dwelling units already allowed in the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC, would be allocated specifically to the San Joaquin Plaza. However, since the 430 dwelling units already are allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, and impacts associated with transportation and traffic associated with such allocation was evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR and Addendum No. I thereto, the analysis of impacts to traffic in this section focuses on impacts associated with the increased development intensity within San Joaquin Plaza (i.e., 94 multi -family units) that would be allowed as a result of the proposed Project. Based on the scope of the proposed Project, the City's traffic engineers identified a total of 20 intersections requiring analysis, as depicted on Figure 4, TPO Analysis Study Intersections. Existing intersection levels of service were calculated based on existing traffic counts collected in March 2012 and utilizing intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity ratios (V/C), with a V/C ratio of .90 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS D) in the City of Newport Beach. The analysis assumes existing lane configurations and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) per lane with no clearance factor. Although no specific development project is proposed at this time, the proposed Project is assumed for purposes of the traffic analysis to be complete in 2015; therefore, the study year is 2016 consistent with the TPO guidelines. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes along Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Coast Highway. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area (including the 430 dwelling units currently allocated to the San Joaquin Plaza) were added to the existing -plus -growth peak hour volumes to obtain year 2016 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of Project -generated traffic. Table 10, Approved Projects Summary, summarizes the approved projects included in the analysis. Trip rates and the resulting ADT for the proposed Project are summarized in Table 11, Trip Generation Summary. These trips were distributed to the surrounding circulation system according to the general distribution shown in Figure 5, General Project Trip Distribution and Project ADT. Existing -plus -Project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the Project -generated peak hour trips to the existing peak hour volumes. Similarly, background -plus -Project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project -generated peak hour trips to the 2016 background peak hour volumes discussed above. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-69 No O❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addenduim No. 2 rigure 4 �C TPO ANALYSIS STUDY INTERSECTIONS NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-70 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 10 Approved Projects Summary Project Fashion Island Expansion Percent Complete 40 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0 St. Mark Presbyterian Church 77 OLQA Church Expansion 0 2300 Newport Blvd 0 Newport Executive Court 0 Hoag Health Center 75 North Newport Center 0 Santa Barbara Condo 0 Newport Beach City Hall 0 328 Old Newport Medical Office 0 Coastline Community College 0 Bayview Medical Office 0 Mariner's Pointe 0 4221 Dolphin Striker 0 Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Table 11 Trip Generation Summary Land Use AM Peak Hour PM -- ak Hour Amount In Out Total In F—Out Total ADT Trip Rates Residential ITE 232 DU .06 .28 .34 .24 .14 .38 4.18 Trip Generation Residential 94 DU 6 26 32 23 13 36 393 Source: Trip Generation 8 Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-71 No O❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addenduim No. 2 rigure o �C GENERAL PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECT ADT NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-72 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Cumulative traffic volumes were determined based on trip generation and distribution characteristics associated with a list of known but not approved projects compiled by City staff. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 12, Cumulative Projects Summary. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the 2016 background peak hour volumes discussed above, and the proposed Project's peak hour trips were added to the resulting 2016 background -plus -cumulative peak hour volumes. Table 12 Cumulative Projects Summary Project- Existing 741C Amount Mariner's Medical Arts Medical Office 12.25 TSF Banning Ranch Single Family Detached 423 DU 4. Jambaree & Coast Hwy Condominium/Townhouse 952 DU 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy- Retail 75.00 TSF 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy Hotel 75 Rm Sunset Ride Park Park 13.67 Acre Marina Park Marina/Park 10.45 Acre Koll-Conexant Apartment 974 DU Newport Coast TAZ 1 - 4 Single Family Detached 954 DU 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hllls Condominium/Townhouse 389 DU 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente Multi -Family Attached 175 DU Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Existing Conditions Existing ICU values for the study area intersections are summarized below in Table 13, Existing ICU Summary. As shown in Table 13, all study area intersections operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions. Table 13 Existing ICU Summary 1. Jamboree & Ford/E astbl uff Existing 741C .611B 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 601A 7018 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 441A 571A 4. Jambaree & Coast Hwy 561A .651B 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy- .361A 441A 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy 441A .501A 7. MacArthur & FordlBonita Canyon .731C .8210 S. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .65113 .801C 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 531A 441A 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 6618 641B 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hllls .261A 351A 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente 141A 251A 13. Santa Cruz & New art Center .151A .311A 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 29/A 491A 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 121A .341A 16. Newport Center & San Miguel 141A 321A 17. Avocado & San Mi gueI 311A .49/A 18. Newport Center & Newport Center 181A 361A 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente 271A 331A 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 121A 211A Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61- .70 B .71- .80 C .81- .90 ❑ .91 -1.00 F Above 1.00 F Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-73 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 TPO Analysis Summary The ICU values for existing -plus -Project conditions are summarized in Table 14, Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed Project must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required for that intersection and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed Project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for each intersection which fails to pass the one percent test. Table 14 Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary 1. Jamboree & ForcVEastbIurf Existing 741C 611B Existing .741C + Pro ect .611E Project Increase 00 DO 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 601A 70113 .601A 7011 00 .00 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 441A 571A .441A 571A 00 .00 4. Jamboree & Coast H 561A .6511 .561A .6511 .00 .00 5. Newport Center & Coast H 361A .441A .371A 451A 01 .01 6. Avocado & Coast H 441A 501A 441A 501A 00 .00 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon .7310 .82JD .7310 .821D 00 .00 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 6518 .801'C 658 .8010 .00 .00 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 531A 441A .531A 441A 00 .00 10. MacArthur & Coast H .66/8 .6411 .6616 .6411 AO .00 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 261A 361A .271A 371A 01 .01 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .141A .251A .141A .26/A .00 .01 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .151A .311A .151A .311A .00 .00 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .291A .491A .291A .501A .00 .01 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .121A .341A .121A .341A .00 .00 16. Newport Center & San Miguel 141A .321A 141A 321A 00 .00 17. Avocado & San Miguel .311A .491A .311A .491A .00 .00 18. N ewpo rt Center & New po rt Center 181A .361A 181A 361A 00 .00 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente 271A .331A 271A 331A 00 .00 20. N ewpo rt Center & Santa Barbara 121A .211A .121A 211A 00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Table 15, One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary, summarizes the results of the one percent analysis for the proposed Project. As this table indicates, the proposed Project does not pass the one percent analysis at 12 study intersections during the AM or PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required and was performed for the 12 intersections that did not pass the one percent test. Table 16, Year 2016 ICU Summary, summarizes the existing, 2016 background, and 2016 background - plus -project ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours. As indicated in Table 16, each of the study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours with the addition of Project traffic. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no significant direct impact on the study intersections, and no mitigation would be required. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-74 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 15 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary Less Than I % AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Of Projected 2016 Intersection NE3 S13 EB VVB N13 SB EB W13 Peak Hour Volumes? 1. Jamboree & FordlEastbluff 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,892 2,207 865 697 2,766 1,891 514 386 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 10 2 0 1 5 7 ❑ 2 Yes 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,406 2,549 395 199 1,644 2,250 143 912 Pro ect Peak Hour Trips 8 2 0 3 6 9 0 1 No 3_ Jamboree & Santa Barbara 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,528 1,819 60 181 1,481 1,687 81 726 Pro ect Peak Hour Tris 2 ❑ 0 14 6 1 ❑ 7 No 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 465 1,243 2,596 1,194 432 1,5199 2,623 2,284 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 7 1 1 0 3 4 2 Yes 5. Newport Ctr & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 0 113 2,188 1.292 0 849 1,704 1,690 Pro' ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 3 No S. Avocado & Coast Hydy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 361 191 1,374 1,455 295 603 1;456 1,548 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 ❑ 4 2 0 0 2 3 Yes 7. MacArthur & FordBonita Cyn 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 2 133 3,156 415 2,080 2,773 3,744 425 1,165 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri 4 1 2 0 2 5 2 1 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaq uin Hllls 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1;493 3,203 509 1,071 1;1313 2,811 1;172 728 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 1 5 0 0 4 3 1 No 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,554 1,536 330 470 1,125 1,513 1,225 455 Pro ect Peak Hour Trips 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Yes 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 0 1,092 1,653 2,092 0 1,359 1,680 2,028 Pro ect Peak Hour Tris 0 1 4 2 0 0 2 4 Yes 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills 2416 Projected Peak Hour Volume 118 82 932 399 781 39 783 584 Pro ect Peak Hour Trilps 4 0 5 1 2 0 7 5 No 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 144 360 95 35 577 315 336 102 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 3 5 ❑ 2 6 3 3 No 13. Santa Cruz & N ort Ctr 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 60 269 140 178 254 255 280 317 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 3 0 ❑ 1 ❑ 0 1 No 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 169 132 583 1,015 797 143 789 767 Pro ect Peak Hour Trips 0 0 5 1 ❑ ❑ 3 5 Yes 15. Newport Ctr & Santa Rosa 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 204 107 84 400 509 320 270 508 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 1 0 ❑ 1 ❑ 0 ❑ No 16. Newport Ctr & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 255 106 39 288 423 298 347 609 Pro ect Peak Hour Trips 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 No 17. Avocado & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 381 120 218 1;212 720 321 734 893 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri ps 0 0 1 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 1 Yes 18. Newport Ctr & Newport Ctr 2416 Projected Peak Hour Volurne 461 24 128 191 428 192 361 472 Pro ect Peak Hour Trips 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 No 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 100 724 0 65 404 278 0 406 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri 1 0 0 6 1 2 0 4 No 20. Newport Ctr & Santa Barbara 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 256 146 204 40 281 334 280 148 Pro ect Peak Hour Tri pis 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 No Note: 2316 Projected peak hour volume consists of existin g volume, regi o na I g rowth, and a pproved projects volume. Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency, City of Newport Beach Page 4-75 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 16 Year 2016 ICU Summary Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Cumulative Conditions Analysis The previously -presented one percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst-case one percent analysis since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project passing the one percent analysis. If an intersection passes the one percent analysis prior to the addition of cumulative traffic, then the intersection will pass the one percent analysis with the addition of cumulative traffic and no further analysis is required at that location. The results of the ICU analysis for cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 17, Cumulative ICU Summary. As indicated in Table 17, all study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to study area intersections, and no mitigation would be required. General Plan Analysis The proposed Project's consistency with the General Plan also was evaluated. San Joaquin Plaza is currently allocated up to 430 multi -family units by the General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan. The General Plan also allows a total of 79 un -built hotel rooms to General Plan Anomaly 43, and allows 15 multi -family units within the portions of Newport Center that are designated for MU -H3 land uses. As discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed Project would result in the conversion of the 79 un -built hotel rooms from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and the transfer of the converted units to the San Joaquin Plaza. In addition, the proposed Project would assign 15 un -built multi -family residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza. The peak hour and daily trips generated by 79 multi -family dwelling units would not be greater than the trips generated by 79 hotel rooms.85 85 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012. San Joaquin Plaza Trip Generation. May 16, 2012. Available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-76 Existing + Approved + Growth � M� 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .6518 .8010 .5516 .80lC .00 .00 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 481A 611B 481A 611B 00 00 5. Newport Center & Coast H .391A .481A .391A .49/A .00 .01 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 691B .861D 69B .87/a .00 .01 11. Santa Cruz & San Joa uin Hills .291A .381A .301A .38/A .01 .00 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente 14/A 261A 141A 26/A .00 .00 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center 151A 311A 151A 31/A .00 .00 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa 151A 401A 151A 40/A .00 .00 16 Newport Center & San Miguel 151A 341A 151A 341A .00 .00 18. Newport Center & Newport Center 18/A 381A 181A 381A .00 .00 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente 281A 331A 281A 331A .00 .00 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara 13/A 22/A 131A 221A .00 .00 Level of service ranges. .00- .50 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Cumulative Conditions Analysis The previously -presented one percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst-case one percent analysis since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project passing the one percent analysis. If an intersection passes the one percent analysis prior to the addition of cumulative traffic, then the intersection will pass the one percent analysis with the addition of cumulative traffic and no further analysis is required at that location. The results of the ICU analysis for cumulative conditions are summarized in Table 17, Cumulative ICU Summary. As indicated in Table 17, all study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to study area intersections, and no mitigation would be required. General Plan Analysis The proposed Project's consistency with the General Plan also was evaluated. San Joaquin Plaza is currently allocated up to 430 multi -family units by the General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan. The General Plan also allows a total of 79 un -built hotel rooms to General Plan Anomaly 43, and allows 15 multi -family units within the portions of Newport Center that are designated for MU -H3 land uses. As discussed in Section 2.0, the proposed Project would result in the conversion of the 79 un -built hotel rooms from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and the transfer of the converted units to the San Joaquin Plaza. In addition, the proposed Project would assign 15 un -built multi -family residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza. The peak hour and daily trips generated by 79 multi -family dwelling units would not be greater than the trips generated by 79 hotel rooms.85 85 Stantec Consulting Services, 2012. San Joaquin Plaza Trip Generation. May 16, 2012. Available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-76 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Table 17 Cumulative ICU Summary 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff Existing + Growth + Approved Approved- + Cumulative + Project .821D 70113 .821D .70113 Project Increase .00 .00 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 68113 .8311D .68113 .831D DO OD 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 501A 6318 .511A 6311 .01 .00 4. Jamboree & Coast H .66113 .8311D .67113 .831D 01 OD 5. Newport Center & Coast H .421A 531A 421A .531A 00 .00 6. Avocado & Coast H .561A .59fA 561A .591A 00 OD 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon .7810 .8911 .7810 .891D 00 OD 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 7110 .8911 .7110 .8911 .00 .00 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .60/A 501A 601A .501A 00 DO 10. MacArthur & Coast H .7810 .751C 7810 .7510 .00 .00 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .291A 38fA 301A .391A 01 .01 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .151A 261A 151A .261A 00 00 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .161A 321A 16/A .321A 00 00 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .351A 541A 351A .541A 00 DO 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .161A .401A .161A .401A .00 .00 16. Newport Center & San Miguel .161A 351A 16/A .351A 00 .00 17. Avocado & San Miguel .341A .551A 341A .551A 00 .00 18. IN ewpo rt Center & Newport Center .191A .381A 191A .391A .00 .01 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente .281A .331A .281A .331A .00 .00 20. IN ewport Center & Santa Barbara .131A .231A .131A .231A .00 .00 Level of service ranges- DO - .60 A 61 - .70 B 71 - .80 C 81 - .90 ❑ 91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F Source: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (May 2012). Traffic -related impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan were evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that, with the improvements identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, and without consideration of regional growth, buildout of the General Plan would result in a less than significant impact associated with the projected increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions.86 Because the proposed Project would generate less traffic than was assumed in the General Plan EIR, Project traffic under General Plan buildout conditions would not result in any new significant effects, nor would it substantially increase the severity of any significant effects. Conclusion As demonstrated in the above analysis, the proposed Project would not result in any direct or cumulatively significant impacts to study area intersections. In addition, implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in the amount of average daily traffic generated within the Newport Center, thereby demonstrating that the proposed Project would be consistent with the assumptions used in the General Plan EIR's analysis of impacts to traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with implementation of the improvements identified in the Circulation Element. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 86 General Plan EIR, Page 4.13-32. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-77 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) serves as the congestion management agency for Orange County. The OCTA publishes and regularly updates a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Orange County, which identifies level of service standards and designates regionally significant intersections, highways, and freeways. The CMP requires that all CMP highway system facilities must maintain a LOS grade of "E" or better.87 Accordingly, a project would have a significant adverse effect on the level of service standards established by the CMP if it would cause or contribute to a LOS below LOS E at any CMP -designated intersection. The 201 1 CMP identifies the following facilities within the City of Newport Beach as part of the CMP highway system:88 1. Coast Highway (SR -1) throughout the City 2. MacArthur Blvd from Coast Highway to Jamboree 3. Newport Boulevard (SR -55) from north City limit to Coast Highway 4. Jamboree from northern City boundary to MacArthur Boulevard As indicated previously on Figure 4, portions of all of these CMP facilities occur within the study area for the proposed Project's traffic impact analysis, with exception of Newport Boulevard. As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I% of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to all intersections along Coast Highway, with exception of the intersection of Newport Center Drive and Coast Highway. As indicated in Table 17, this intersection would operate at an LOS A during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for Coast Highway. As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I% of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to all intersections along MacArthur Boulevard, with exception of the intersection of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills. As indicated in Table 17, this intersection would operate at an LOS D or better during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for MacArthur Boulevard. As indicated previously in Table 15, the proposed Project contributes less than I% of projected 2016 peak hour volumes to the intersections of Jamboree Boulevard at both Coast Highway and Ford/Eastbluff, but contributes more than 1% to the intersections with San Joaquin Hills and Santa Barbara. As indicated in Table 17, the intersection of Jamboree at San Joaquin Hills would operate at LOS D or better during all study scenarios, while the intersection of Jamboree at Santa Barbara would operate at LOS B or better during all study scenarios; therefore, Project traffic would not result in or contribute to the exceedance of a CMP level of service standard for MacArthur Boulevard. Impacts to CMP facilities associated with buildout of the General Plan were evaluated in the General Plan EIR, which concluded that such impacts would be less than significant since all such facilities would 87 Orange County Transportation Authority (2011). 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program, Page 5. Available on-line at http://www.octa.net/pdf/201 I-CMP.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. 88 Ibid, Figure 2 (201 1 Congestion Management Program Highway System). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-78 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 operate at LOS E or better.89 Because the proposed Project would not cause any new impacts to CMP facilities, and because the General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan also would not impact any CMP facilities, the proposed Project would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks As indicated under the discussion and analysis of the AELUP for the JWA in Section 4.3.8, the proposed Project would have no potential to penetrate the FAA FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface. If future buildings proposed in San Joaquin Plaza protrude into the FAA FAR Part 77 notification surface, then notification to the FAA would be required; however, this would not result in a significant impact to air traffic patterns since the buildings would be well below the Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface. There are no other components of the proposed Project that would have the potential to affect air traffic patterns in a manner that would result in substantial safety risks; accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in or require any design features that could pose a significant hazard to the public. The proposed Project site is currently surrounded by fully improved roadways, and would not require any improvements or expansions to the existing roadway network. Future access points serving on-site multi -family residential units would be subject to review by the City's Transportation and Development Services Division for compliance with Municipal Code standards related to intersection safety and traffic control. Accordingly, the proposed Project would have no potential to substantially increase any hazards due to a design feature, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The proposed Project would consist of increasing the allowable residential development intensity in Newport Center, which is a mixed-use development that includes commercial, office, public facilities, and residential uses under existing conditions. The potential future addition of new multi -family residential units would not represent an incompatible use that could increase safety hazards in the area. Accordingly, safety impacts would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in inadequate emergency access The proposed Project would not result in any changes to existing access routes providing emergency services to the Project site or surrounding area. Future applications for development within the San Joaquin Plaza in accordance with the amended NNCPC Development Plan would be subject to review by the NBFD for compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 9.04 (Fire Code), thereby ensuring that 89 General Plan EIR, Page 4.13-42. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-79 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 future development provides for adequate emergency access routes. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Result in inadequate parking capacity Future plans for development within the San Joaquin Plaza pursuant to the proposed Project would be subject to the parking requirements of the NNCPC, which establishes requirements for off-street parking spaces associated with new development. All future development plans would be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the NNCPC. Accordingly, a significant impact related to inadequate parking capacity would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) The General Plan incorporates a number of policies related to alternative transportation modes, transportation systems management, and transportation demand management, including the following policies that are applicable to the proposed Project: Policy CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); Policies CE 5.1.1 through CE 5.1.12 (Trail System, Pedestrian Connectivity, Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects, Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods, Bikeway System, Bicycle Supporting Facilities, Bicycle Safety, Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians, Integrated Bicycle Improvements, Bicycle Trail Signage, School Access, Pedestrian Street Crossings); Policy CE 5.1.16 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety); Policy CE 6. 1.1 (Traffic Signals); and Policies CE 6.2.1 through CE 6.2.3 (Alternative Transportation Modes, Support Facilities for Alternative Modes, Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes). The proposed Project consists of a proposal to assign 15 previously un -built multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza, and to convert 79 previously un- built hotel units to residential units which would be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. As such, although the Project would not conflict with any of these policies, a review for consistency with alternative transportation policies would be conducted by the City in association with precise development plans (e.g., site plans, building permits, etc.), if and when a specific development proposal for residential use in San Joaquin Plaza is submitted to the City Newport Beach for review and consideration. The only policy listed above that is directly applicable to the currently proposed Project is Policy CE 4.1.4, which encourages the provision of residential densities that support public transit. The proposed Project would result in an increase in the residential density allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, and would thereby be consistent with Policy CE 4.1.4. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-80 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project would be consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, which identifies that traffic impacts related to intersections, Congestion Management Plan arterials, air traffic patterns, design hazards, emergency access, and parking would be less than significant with mitigation. No feasible mitigation has been identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce impacts to freeway mainlines and ramps; this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to transportation and traffic. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to transportation and traffic, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 4.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems The following thresholds of significance are as set forth in the General Plan EIR, which states: "For purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on [utilities and services systems] if it would result in any of the following. • Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts • Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board • Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs • Fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste • Require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects • Require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact" No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. Utility and service system impacts have been previously analyzed as part of the General Plan EIR, which was prepared and certified pursuant to State and City CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous document adequate to cover the actions that are currently proposed, which are documented below and serve as an Addendum to the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-81 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Summary Analysis Require or result in the construction and/or expansion of water supply facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed The water demand for development in the City of Newport Beach, including development within Newport Center and the NNCPC, is included in the water demand forecasts for the City as identified in the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and within the planning documents of water districts, authorities, and agencies that directly or indirectly supply and/or manage the City's water supplies, including the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). As such, water demand and supply evaluations conducted by Metropolitan, MWDOC, OCWD, as well as the City of Newport Beach itself are directly applicable to the proposed Project. The General Plan EIR relied on water management plans in effect at the time the General Plan EIR was certified (2006), but because updated information is now available in the form of revised Urban Water Management Plans, that updated information is used as the basis of analysis in this EIR Addendum. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project, which is included as Appendix E. The Assessment determined that increasing the permitted residential development intensity in San Joaquin Plaza would result in an increased water demand of 24.02 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is less than one-tenth of one percent of the City's projected year 2035 total demand of 17,474 AFY (refer to Technical Appendix E for a detailed discussion of the increased water demand that would result from Project implementation). Based on the information contained in the Water Supply Assessment regarding the existing and future availability and reliability of imported water supplies as surmised from the Urban Water Management Plans of Metropolitan (2010), MWDOC (201 1) and the City of Newport Beach (2010), and the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (2009), there is an availability of sufficient supplies from imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to service the proposed Project and other existing and projected development in the City of Newport Beach in normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Additionally, there has been a trend of per capita water use reduction since 2005 and that trend is expected to continue to reach the City's water usage reduction goal of 202.8 GPCD by year 2020. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects Wastewater Treatment Facilities The Project Applicant's engineering consultant, RBF Consulting, conducted an analysis of existing localized sewer facilities that would serve the proposed Project site with implementation of the proposed Project. A copy of this analysis is provided as Technical Appendix F. The results of this analysis conclude that the addition of 94 residential units to the San Joaquin Plaza would equate to approximately 15 percent of the most constrained pipe segment capacity within the existing sewer system proximate to the proposed Project. Since the subject segment of the sewer system serves only NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-82 No E 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 the subject site and the existing Orange County Museum of Art, RBF Consulting concludes that there is adequate capacity within the most capacity constrained portion of the existing sewer system in the vicinity of the Project to serve the additional units. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any localized sewer conveyance infrastructure, and a significant environmental effect would not occur. Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed via the City of Newport Beach's existing collection system, and would be conveyed via existing pump stations to the OCSD's Plant No. 2 for treatment. Using the wastewater generation rates provided in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-12 for multi -family residential uses, the 79 additional multi -family residential units that would be permitted within the NNCPC (beyond those already assumed by the General Plan EIR) would generate approximately 16,827 gallons of wastewater per day. The 79 hotel units that would no longer be constructed (but that were assumed in the General Plan EIR) would generate 1 1,850 gallons per day. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project, total wastewater generated within the City of Newport Beach's wastewater service area would increase by 4,977 gallons per day as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd), and treated an average flow of 153 mgd as of 2003 (55% of total design capacity).90 As concluded in the General Plan EIR, if "...the entire City's sewage were directed to Treatment Plant No. 2, its average flow would increase to approximately 157 mgd, an increase of 2.8 percent, and the plant would operate at 57 percent of its design capacity."91 With an additional increase of 4,977 gallons per day (or 0.005 mgd), Treatment Plant No. 2 would continue to operate at approximately 57 percent of its design capacity. Accordingly, and similar to the conclusion reached in the General Plan EIR, because the increase in wastewater generation that would result from implementation of the proposed Project can be accommodated within the existing treatment infrastructure, expansion would not be required. As such, the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction/expansion of wastewater treatment that could cause significant environmental effects. Wastewater that would be treated by the OCSD would be required to be treated in accordance with federal, state, and regional requirements for water quality prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. The incremental increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project would not inhibit the ability of the OCSD to achieve required water quality objectives. Accordingly, a significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to wastewater treatment or facilities, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to wastewater facilities, as compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Recycled Water Conveyance Systems The proposed Project site consists of a fully developed site that contains ornamental landscaping. With implementation of the proposed Project, the amount of area devoted to ornamental landscaping would not change substantially from existing conditions. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the demand for recycled water, nor would it require the construction of any new recycled water conveyance systems. Furthermore, and as concluded in the General Plan EIR, if "...expansion or creation of new recycled water infrastructure is necessary, further 90 Ibid, Page 4.14-23. 9' Ibid, Page 4.14-32. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-83 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 environmental review would be required when specific details are known regarding the infrastructure."92 Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction/expansion of recycled water conveyance systems that could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts related to recycled water conveyance infrastructure, or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact related to recycled water conveyance infrastructure, as compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs Fail to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste Based on the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-14 for multi -family residential uses (MFR), the 79 additional units that would be transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza as part of the proposed Project would result in the generation of approximately 506.39 pounds per day of solid waste. The 79 hotel units that would no longer be constructed (but that were assumed in the General Plan EIR) would generate approximately 197.5 pounds per day of solid waste. Therefore, with implementation of the proposed Project, the total amount of solid waste generated within the City of Newport Beach would increase by 308.89 pounds per day as compared to what was assumed in the General Plan EIR. The analysis contained in the General Plan EIR concluded that buildout under the General Plan would result in a future generation of 21,659.10 tons of solid waste per year, while the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill (prior to the proposed expansion) was 44.6 million tons. Furthermore, the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR do not take into consideration Assembly Bill (AB) 939 mandates to divert a minimum of 50% of solid waste from Iandfi11s.93 The projected increase of 308.89 pounds per day associated with the proposed Project, which would represent 0.26% of the City's total daily solid waste generation, would not exceed the planned capacity of any regional landfill facilities on a direct or cumulative basis. Accordingly, a significant direct impact to permitted landfill capacity would not occur with implementation of the proposed Project. However, buildout under the General Plan, when considered in the context of cumulative development within the region, would incrementally contribute to the ultimate need for new or expanded landfills, which the General Plan EIR identifies as a significant and unavoidable impact. Consistent with the finding of the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would contribute to this significant and unavoidable impact. However, the increase in solid waste attributable to the proposed Project would not represent a substantial increase in the severity of the City's unavoidable cumulative impact to solid waste, considering the annual increase in solid waste attributable to the proposed Project would represent only 0.00013% of the remaining capacity at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill. Public Resources Code §40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The City of Newport Beach consistently meets the objective of Public Resources Code §40000 et seq.94 In addition, the proposed Project would be subject to the City's Recycling Service Fee pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, which is intended to assist the City in meeting 92 Ibid, Page 4.14-33. 93 Ibid, Page 4.14-44 94 Ibid. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-84 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 the 50 percent diversion objective. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage), which mandates that all multi -unit projects with five or more dwelling units "...provide enclosed refuse and recyclable material storage areas with solid roofs." Accordingly, the proposed Project would be fully compliant with all applicable Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and significant impact would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects As indicated previously, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a net increase of 79 multi -family residential dwelling units and a net decrease of 79 hotel units within the City, indicating that the proposed Project would result in only a slight incremental increase in the amount of electricity consumed within the City. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, all land uses within the City would be subject to compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Development within the City also would be subject to General Plan Goal NR 24.1, which requires increased efficiency in private developments. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, mandatory compliance with current Title 24 energy efficiency standards and adherence to General Plan Goal NR 24.1 would ensure that no impacts related to electricity supply occur with implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Would the project require or result in the construction of new natural gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact As noted in the General Plan EIR, the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC): "...declares itself a "reactive" utility and will provide natural gas as customers request its services. SCGC has also indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve additional development, and that the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the proposed General Plan Update. Any expansion of service necessitated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would be in accordance with SCGC's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made."95 Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed available or planned supplies of natural gas, and new or upgraded natural gas infrastructure would not be needed to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. " Ibid, Page 4.14-50. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-85 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Mitigation Program Policies of the 2006 General Plan were adopted as a mitigation program that minimized impacts associated with buildout of the City of Newport Beach, including the implementation of future development in the San Joaquin Plaza. Level of Significance After Mitigation The proposed Project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan EIR, the General Plan EIR identifies that all utility and service system impacts can be mitigated to a level of, less than significant with the exception of cumulative impacts to landfill capacity; this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Finding of Consistency with General Plan EIR Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has determined, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, that the proposed Project would not involve new significant impacts or a substantial increase in previously identified impacts to utilities and service systems. Additionally, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known when the General Plan EIR was certified has since been identified. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet the standards for a subsequent or supplemental EIR with regards to utilities and service systems, as provided pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-86 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 5.0 References Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2008). Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. (Available on-line at: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/aluc/docs/IWA_AELUP-April-17-2008.pdf. Accessed May 17, 2012). Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2007). City of Newport Beach: Request for Consideration of Proposed Planned Community Zoning Amendment. November 15, 2007. (Available for review at City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663). California Department of Conservation, 2012. Orange County Important Farmland 2010. (Available on- line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/oraIO.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2012.) Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista, 197 Cal. App. 4th 327 (2011). Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego, 196 Cal. App. 411 515 (2011).. EIP Associates (2006). City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report ("General Plan EIR'). April 21, 2006. (Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=196. Accessed June 6, 2012). Federal Emergency Management Agency (2009). FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06059C0382J. December 3, 2009. (Available on-line at www.fema.gov. Accessed May 16, 2012). Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (201 1). City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. (Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid= 10 182. Accessed June 5, 2012). National Climate Program Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2901 (2000). Newport Beach, City of (2012). Newport Beach Municipal Code. As amended through April 10, 2012. (Available for review online at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/. Accessed June 4, 2012). Newport Beach, City of (2011). North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (and Design Regulations). As amended on May 24, 2011. (Available on-line for review at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/PLN/MAP_DOCUMENTS/PC_TEXT/PC_56_North_Newport _Center.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2012). Newport Beach, City of (2007). Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report. November 2007. (Available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-1 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Newport Beach, City of (2006). City of Newport Beach General Plan ("General Plan'). Adopted July 25, 2006. (Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=173. Accessed June 5, 2012). Newport Beach Fire Department (2011). City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. (Available On-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid= l 1 179. Accessed June 5, 2012). Orange County Transportation Authority (2011). 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program. (Available on-line at http://www.octa.net/pdf/201 I-CMP.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012). RBF Consulting (2012). North Newport Center Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increased Allocation of Residential Development. May 10, 2012. (Technical Appendix F). Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (2012a). North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis. May 16, 2012. (Technical Appendix D). Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (2012b). San Joaquin Plaza — Trip Generation Comparison. May 16, 2012. (Available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Division; 3300 Newport Boulevard; Newport Beach CA 92663). T&B Planning, Inc. (2012). Water Supply Assessment - North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions. May 17, 2012. (Technical Appendix E). Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012a). North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix A). Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012b). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix B). Urban Crossroads, Inc. (2012c). North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis. May 29, 2012. (Technical Appendix C). NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-2 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 6.0 Persons Contributing to Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Preparation 6.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) James W. Campbell, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Planning Division Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Planning Division T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant and Water Supply Assessment Preparer) Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal Jeramey Harding, AICP, Project Manager Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Technical Consultant-) Haseeb Qureshi, Senior Associate (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Consultant) Bill Lawson, Principal (Noise Technical Consultant) Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Traffic Engineering Consultant) Joe Foust, PE, Principal Cathy Lawrence, PE, Transportation Engineer RBF Consulting (Sewer Capacity Assessment) John Nagle, PE, Senior Associate/Senior Engineer 6.2 Resumes for Key Personnel Resumes for the technical consultants responsible for preparing the Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 and/or its associated technical studies are provided on the following pages. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-1 .I� TmcyZINN,AICP `` I _.J PRINCIPAL P L A N N I N G FPhone:714) 397-4224 E-Mail: tzinnPftlannin Tracy Zinn, AICP, joined T&B Planning in 1993 and became a Principal in 2006. She is responsible for providing quality control for a majority of the company's environmental documents, as well as preparing and managing specific plans, design guidelines, zoning ordinances, and other planning documents. Summary of Experience Proiect Management & Public Meeting Facilitation: Tracy takes a strong leadership role in project team meetings, represents clients at public hearings and workshops, manages coordination efforts among public agencies, and directs a staff of analysts, planners, and technical support personnel. Tracy is often looked to by T&B Planning's staff and clients, as well as government officials, to provide overall project management and bring focus to the task at hand. Tracy also is highly experienced with leading large project teams and facilitating public meetings. She is respected for keeping projects within budget and on schedule. Environmental Compliance Documents: Tracy prepares, edits, and directs the preparation of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and supporting technical studies. Over her career, Tracy has prepared over 100 CEQA documents and has directed the preparation of several hundred technical studies for a wide range of project types, including residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, for both public and private clients. She is respected for preparing environmental documents that are easily understood, accurate, and legally defensible. Master Planning/Historic Preservation Planning/Permitting: Tracy's working knowledge of local and regional planning issues, design standards, zoning laws, and public policies are invaluable. She has processed hundreds of land use permits and prepared dozens of Specific Plans and zoning ordinances in Southern California, in addition to design guidelines and development standards for a variety of project types. She has also prepared several historic preservation action plans, and roadway corridor plans. Due to her experience in both planning and environmental projects, Tracy can critique a project's feasibility comprehensively, saving her clients' time and money. Design Guides: Tracy is skilled in assisting communities with managing their eco -tourism and geo-tourism assets. She has directed the preparation of several regional and local Design Guides in established communities as well as Design Guides for Specific Plans and Master Plans for new construction in Southern California. In 2008, she was recognized by the Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Planning Association for her authorship of The Pennsylvania Wilds Design Guide for Community Character Stewardship. The Urban Land Institute endorsed the Design Guide as "one of the best and most comprehensive regional design guides" and the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) has identified the Design Guide as a model for other regional initiatives. Certifications American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Affiliations American Planning Association • Green Building Alliance • Indiana University of Pennsylvania Planning Department Accreditation Committee • Municipality of Murrysville Zoning Hearing Board • California Association of Environmental Professionals Education Bachelor of Science — Urban and Regional Planning, Indiana University of Pennsylvania .I� ` JERAMEY HARDING, AICP `` I J SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER P L A N N I N G IF Phone: (760) 452-2300 E -Mail: iharding�Dtbplannin- com Jeramey joined T&B Planning in 2002 and provides supervision, oversight, and management of the firm's environmental services in Southern California. He is primarily focused on ensuring project compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Serving as a Senior Project Manager, Jeramey is responsible for managing the production and review of technical studies and leading project teams in the preparation of all forms of CEQA documentation. Jeramey is a results -oriented manager with a record of successful team coordination and leadership. His problem -solving skills and technical accuracy often exceed the expectations of clients, agencies, and project applicants. Summary of Experience Project Management: Jeramey effectively and efficiently manages project teams during the preparation of CEQA documents. He represents clients at public hearings and workshops and manages coordination efforts among public agencies. Jeramey is also experienced with reviewing technical reports for adequacy pursuant to local and state requirements and directs teams of technical experts to ensure projects are completed on-time and on -budget. Environmental Compliance Documents: Jeramey prepares and edits CEQA documents, including Initial Studies/Environmental Assessments (IS/ES), EIRs, Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (MMRPs), CEQA legal notices, and other environmental documents for residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and public facility projects for both public and private clients. Recent CEQA documents managed by Jeramey include the San Lorenzo Sewer Lift Station EIR in the City of Santa Ana, the Batiquitos Bluffs Residential Project EIR in the City of Encinitas, and the EI Sobrante Landfill Expansion Supplemental EIR in the Temescal area of Riverside County. The knowledge and talent that Jeramey brings to each project results in an effective and efficient process and an environmental compliance document that is accurate and defensible. Visual Quality and Lighting Analysis: Jeramey has prepared several visual quality analyses for projects throughout Southern California. These analyses are often utilized in CEQA documents, such as EIRs, to analyze a proposed project's potential impacts to aesthetics, dark skies, and community character. This analysis addresses topics such as visual quality from surrounding public roadways and lighting issues. Planning/Entitlement Documentation: In addition to environmental compliance documentation, Jeramey prepares planning reports and processes entitlement permits for new construction. Most often, this work is performed in combination with CEQA compliance documents for the same project. He has prepared Change of Zone, Specific Plan, and General Plan Amendment applications; Specific Plans; Zoning Ordinances; and public notices. Certifications American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Affiliations • California Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) • American Planning Association (APA) Building Industry Association (BIA) Education Masters in Urban Regional Planning - Eastern Washington University, 2001 Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources Planning - Natural Resources Planning/Humboldt State University, 1999 Ll� Haseeb Qureshi, MES URBAN CROSSRO_ns Senior Associate/ Senior Air Quality & 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Climate Change Specialist Irvine, CA 92606 ph: (949) 660.1994 Since joining Urban Crossroads in June 2004, Mr. Qureshi has worked on a Areas of Expertise variety of projects, including mobile source (cancer) health risk assessments, Air Quality Analysis/Permitting air quality impact analyses, and air quality conformity analyses for Dispersion Modeling, Health transportation improvement projects. Risk Assessment Since 2006, Mr. Qureshi has been actively involved in responding to various Air Quality Conformity Analysis for Interchange projects needs to address Global Climate Change in their CEQA Documents. Projects Mr. Qureshi co-authored an informational newsletter detailing the passage of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) and how it will continue to impact development Evaluation/Inventory projects. Climate Action Planning Mr. Qureshi has a strong technical background in utilizing various air-quality Education models such as the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS), the California Line M.S./Environmental Science/CSUFBAIEn Source Dispersion Model CALINE-4 , U.S. EPA -approved CAL3QHC, the ers p ( ) pp Industrial Source Short Term (ISCST3) Model, and the AMS/EPA Regulatory ntal Analysis & UC Model (AERMOD). Design Ir Design/ UC Irvine Affiliations At Urban Crossroads, Inc., Mr. Qureshi has participated in hundreds of air American Planning Association (APA) quality analyses studies including numerous mobile source and air toxics health risk assessments for various residential, commercial, and industrial Association of Environmental developments in Orange, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Professionals (AEP) Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. He is a current member of the Air& Waste Management American Planning Association (APA), Association of Environmental Association (A&WMA) Professionals (AEP), and the Air & Waste Management Association Prof. Accomplishments (A&WMA). San Diego County Approved Consultant List—Air Quality In addition, Mr. Qureshi is an active participant of the South Coast Air Quality Certification -Air Dispersion Management District, San Diego County, and Orange County Association of Modeling and Risk Assessment—Lakes Environmental Professionals working groups that are collaborating to g g p g Environmental establish guidance on establishing climate change thresholds for CEQA Certification-AB2588 documents. Mr. Qureshi was also an active participant in the South Coast Air Regulatory Standards—Trinity Quality Management District's working group on establishing PM2.5 Consultants significance thresholds for CEQA projects. Certificate of Completion - Principles of Ambient Air Monitoring -California Air Resources Board Certificate of Completion - Planned Communities and Urban Infill – Urban Land Institute Prof. History Urban Crossroads. Inc. Sr. Associate /Sr. Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist 2007 – Present Urban Crossroads, Inc. Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist 2004 –2006 Lit Bill Lawson P.E. AICP PTP INCE URBAN Principal CRO SSROAOS Areas of Expertise Traffic Impact Analyses During his career, Bill Lawson has developed a wide range of expertise that Parking Analysis includes transportation planning, traffic engineering, neighborhood traffic Transportation Planning control, and community noise impact analysis. As a founder of Urban Noise Impact Modeling& Crossroads, Inc. he works with public and private sector clients to provide Analysis planning and engineering consulting expertise. His work efforts focus on the GIS larger more complex technical studies or sensitive projects that increasingly Database Development require coordination with the project legal team, the applicant and the Education decision makers. MS/1993/Civil & Environmental Eng./Cal In his current role, Mr. Lawson serves as the contract City Traffic Engineer for Poly, San Luis Obispo Rancho Santa Margarita providing guidance on complex traffic issues and BS/1992/City & Regional presenting policy changes to ensure uniform application of the legal authority Planning/Cal Poly, San Luis provided by the municipal code and the California Vehicle Code. Obispo Prof. Registration Mr. Lawson is a Registered Professional Traffic Engineer (#2537), a member P. E. of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), a certified Professional PTP Transportation Planner and an associate member of the Institute of Noise AICP INCE g g ineerin ( Control En INCE). s educational His background includes a Master's Degree in Civic and Environmental Engineering and a Bachelor's Degree in Affiliations Professional Transportation City and Regional Planning from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Planner (PTP) - Institute of Transportation Engineers In addition to his transportation expertise, Mr. Lawson is a Certified (ITE) Acoustical Engineer (INCE) and has worked on hundreds of noise studies American Institute of throughout Southern California for both public and private sector clients. His Certified Planners (AICP) work as a noise consultant focuses on helping communities identify and American Planning control noise impacts by developing meaningful solutions to complex noise Association (APA) Issues. Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE) Mr. Lawson has served as member of the Rancho Santa Margarita Planning Prof. History Advisory Committee, Cityhood executive committee member, and political Urban Crossroads, Inc. action committee chairperson for Cityhood 2000. He previously served on Principal (LARMACoration t i h M R d L e aera Ranch Cor from through 2002 —Present the p ) f 2000 thh g Senior Associate 2006, serves today as President of the Santa Margarita Water District 2000-2002 (SMWD) Board of Directors and the Ladera Ranch Civic Council (LRCC). RKJK & Associates, Inc. Senior Planner 1996 —2000 Planner 1993-1996 John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer John Nagle has practiced in the field of civil engineering for over Registration: 20 years, and he has extensive experience in planning, designing, 1991, Civil Engineer, CA, 46972 and providing construction support services for major water and 2001, Civil Engineer, NV, 14762 wastewater facilities. He has been responsible for the preparation of 2009, Civil Engineer, UT, numerous construction plans, specifications and cost estimates for 7214109-2202 water and sewer pipelines, water pumping stations, wastewater lift 2009, Civil Engineer, AZ, 49684 stations, wells, and reservoirs. He has also prepared master plans Professional Affiliations: for both municipal and private -sector clients for potable water, 2001, State Water - Right sanitary sewer, and recycled water systems. Mr. Nagle has used his Surveyor, NV, 1101 combination of planning and design experience to prepare capital Member, American Water Works improvement programs, condition assessment studies, engineering Years of Experience: 25 feasibility studies, and connection fee and utility rate studies. The Member, American Public Works following summarizes Mr. Nagle's specific project experience: Education: LACCD Sewer System Management Plans (Los Angeles, CA) 2010 - Senior Project Engineer for preparation of the Sewer System Management Plans for the Los Angeles Community Colleges District's nine campuses. The State of California recently added legislation to the General Waste Discharge Requirements requiring all wastewater collection system operators (of collection systems greater than one mile) in the form of sanitary sewer order no. 2006- 0003. The studies included condition assessment using Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection and hydraulic model analysis using computer simulation techniques to ensure capacity for future campus expansion. The CCTV inspections documented the internal condition of each sewer pipeline televised, and this information was used to develop rehabilitation and replacement W... CONSULTING A - Company B.S., 1987, Civil Engineering, Loyola Marymount University RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: M.S., 1996, Civil Engineering, Rio Vista Valve #2 Vault Modifications (Santa Clarita, CA) Loyola Marymount University 2011 - Project Manager. The Rio Vista Valve #2 (RV -2) is a 72 - inch diameter butterfly valve, owned and operated by CLWA, Professional Affiliations: located on the primary transmission main. CLWA determined that American Society of Civil after approximately 15 years in service, the valve needed to be Engineers (ASCE) replaced because the valve seat was damaged and the valve did not Member, American Water Works fully seal. CLWA also needed to identify the probable cause of the Association damage to the valve to prevent the damage from reoccurring. RBF Member, American Public Works conducted a detailed analysis of existing conditions and operational Association data, including various site investigations and a detailed system Member, National Society of hydraulic analysis to determine the cause of damage to the valve; Professional Engineers identified and evaluated project alternatives for replacing the 72- Member, Orange County Water inch diameter valve, including different types of valves; and Association recommended facility improvements (e.g. modifications and/or replacement of equipment), as well as operational modifications to ensure that the valve is not damaged again. LACCD Sewer System Management Plans (Los Angeles, CA) 2010 - Senior Project Engineer for preparation of the Sewer System Management Plans for the Los Angeles Community Colleges District's nine campuses. The State of California recently added legislation to the General Waste Discharge Requirements requiring all wastewater collection system operators (of collection systems greater than one mile) in the form of sanitary sewer order no. 2006- 0003. The studies included condition assessment using Closed - Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection and hydraulic model analysis using computer simulation techniques to ensure capacity for future campus expansion. The CCTV inspections documented the internal condition of each sewer pipeline televised, and this information was used to develop rehabilitation and replacement W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer plans. Other particulars, such as sewer overflow response plans, legal authority, and chains of communication were also identified to cover the requirements of the order. Southwest District Pipeline Replacement Projects (Gardena, Hawthorne and Inglewood, CA) - Project Manager for Imperial Highway and Prairie Avenue pipelines. As part of the implementation of Golden State Water Company's capital improvement program, GSWC contracted with RBF to provide professional engineering services for their Southwest District Pipeline Replacement Project. The project includes pipeline replacements in four separate areas. Work completed as part of this project included extensive utility research and field investigation to confirm locations of existing service connections and other appurtenances, preparation of final construction drawings, coordination with the Department of Health Services for utility waivers, and coordination with Caltrans for encroachment permits as required for the temporary closure of connector ramps to I-105. Recycled Water System Tank Siting Study (Santa Clarita, CA) - Project Manager. The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) owns a 5.5 -acre hillside site where they proposed to construct two projects: 3.5 MG of recycled water storage, and a large array of solar panels. With the solar project moving forward first, CLWA contracted with RBF to prepare a siting study so the land required to construct the tanks could be reserved. RBF considered two alternative tank configurations (1 - 3.5 MG tank; and 2 - 1.75 MG tanks), developed preliminary site and grading plans, and prepared preliminary cost estimates. In addition, RBF coordinated a geotechnical field investigation to determine remedial grading and slope setback requirements. Whittier Pumping Plant No. 2 Replacement Project (Pico Rivera, CA) - Project Manager. RBF was contracted to provide engineering, surveying, and construction phase services to the Whittier Utility Authority (WUA) for the replacement of its Pumping Plant No. 2, which provides 100% of the potable water supply to WUA's 48,000 customers. Extensive preliminary engineering studies were completed, including: comprehensive hydraulic analyses of the supply and distribution systems; evaluation of pump station operations and control schemes; life -cycle cost analyses for alternative configurations of pumps, primary power, and backup power; project phasing to ensure the existing facility remains in operations throughout construction; and evaluation of remedial soil treatment alternatives to mitigate potential liquefaction to depths of 30 feet below grade. Final design is underway, and upon completion, the new facility will include: an 18.9 MGD Pumping Station (with 17,500 gpm capacity to enable WUA to pump during off-peak periods); two 2.2 MG reservoirs; a new 6,400 s.f. pump building, including office space for operations personnel. Cook-Riolo Tank and Booster Station (Sacramento County, CA) — QA / QC. This project included design of a 2.75 -MG potable prestressed concrete water storage tank and 3,500-gpm booster station. Orangethorpe Transmission Main (Anaheim/Placentia, CA) 2009 - Project Manager. RBF is providing professional engineering and surveying services to Golden State Water Company for the design and construction of approximately 6,500 LF of 16" DIP pipeline, in the cities of Placentia and Anaheim. This pipeline will provide a connection between GSWC's Placentia and Yorba Linda Service Areas, and will include three pressure regulating stations. The scope of services includes extensive utility research, topographic survey and right-of-way verification, preparation of PS&E's, and traffic control plans. The project also requires coordination with the Orange County Flood Control District for crossing of the Atwood Channel, and coordination with Orange County Transportation Agency for the future grade separation project at Lakeview Avenue. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer LVVWD C1244 - Frias 2635 Zone Reservoir and 2745 Zone Pumping Station (Clark County, NV) 2007 to Present - Project Manager. RBF is currently contracted to provide engineering, surveying, and construction phase services to Las Vegas Valley Water District for the design of the Frias 2635 Zone Reservoir and 2745 Zone Pumping Station. The major project elements include: a 30 million gallon (MG) buried, reinforced concrete reservoir; a 53 MGD pumping station (expandable to 106 MGD); pumping station building and buried wetwell (forebay) design; yard piping and valves ranging from 42 -inch to 90 - inch in diameter; disinfection facilities; associated electrical and instrumentation & control system design; and off-site street improvements on Cactus Avenue. The project required extensive coordination with Clark County, the Bureau of Land Management, the Mountains Edge Master Planned Community, NV Energy, and the Clark County Regional Flood Control District. SNWA 190-A Horizon Ridge Reservoir Expansion (Henderson, NV) 2003 - 2005 - Project Manager. RBF Consulting provided engineering services to Southern Nevada Water Authority for the expansion of their existing Horizon Ridge Reservoir Facility. The Project included a 10 MG buried, cast -in-place, reinforced concrete reservoir, and associated inlet, outlet, overflow and drain piping. Other project elements include 42 -inch and 60 -inch valves and valve vaults, telemetry system modifications, chlorine sampling and washdown system modifications and piping, and all related electrical and instrumentation & control works. RBF also completed a stray current analysis for the site, which is located next to a NV Energy substation. Northeast Interceptor Gravity Sewer (Las Vegas, NV) 2008 - 2009 — QA / QC Manager. RBF, as a subconsultant, is currently providing preliminary engineering and surveying services to the City of North Las Vegas for the Northeast Interceptor, an influent gravity sewer to the City's Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). The major project elements include extensive research of existing utilities, a Route Study of alignment options from North Las Vegas to the WRF site on Nellis Air Force Base, a hydraulic analysis to determine sewer pipeline size requirements, and an opinion of probable construction costs for each alignment alternative. Aerial topography, surveying, and right-of-way research will be performed for the chosen alignment to produce base maps. The preferred alignment will be further detailed to 30% construction drawings. SNWA 340I - McCullough Lateral Project (Clark County, NV) 2007 - Deputy Project Manager in charge of reservoirs, cathodic protection, and environmental support. As a subconsultant, RBF provided professional engineering and environmental services for the planning and preliminary design of the McCullough Lateral (MCL) Project in Clark County, Nevada. The MCL Project is a proposed 407 million gallon per day (MGD) water transmission system, which will serve the southerly portion of the Las Vegas Valley. Facilities include a 407 MGD pumping station, a Regulating Reservoir, Rate of Flow Control Stations, and approximately 25 miles of transmission main ranging from 72 -inches to 120 -inches in diameter. RBF's responsibilities included planning & predesign of the reservoir facilities and cathodic protection analysis and environmental support services for the entire project. Wigwam / US -95 24 -inch 2120 PZ Main and PRV (Henderson, NV) 2008 - 2009 — QA / QC Manager. RBF Consulting is providing professional engineering and surveying services for the design and construction of 1,700 LF of 24 -inch DIP pipeline and a 10,000 gpm PRV Station, which will supply water to the City's 2007 pressure zone. Project elements include: a cut -in 30-inchx24-inch Tee at Wigwam Avenue; construction of 24 -inch pipeline beneath a US -95 overpass and across the Pitman Channel to Eastgate Road, while parallel to an active Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The construction W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer documents included alternative designs for the PRV station. Extensive agency coordination was required with UPRR, NDOT, NV Energy, Basic Management Incorporated (BMI), and BMI's industrial tenants. In -State Groundwater Development Project (Clark, Lincoln, White Pine Counties, NV) 2004 - 2005 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional surveying services to the Southern Nevada Water Authority to establish a Geodetic Control Network for the In -State Water Resources Development Project. The project covered an area approximately 250 miles long from Northern Clark County across Lincoln County and extending into White Pine County. The specific project requirements included mobilization of field survey personnel over unfamiliar locations and terrain in order to establish control monuments along the proposed Corridors / Springs by way of GPS Static Surveys. The data was processed, tied and adjusted to the Continuous Operating Reference Station (CORS) monuments. A 17 -page Record -of -Survey was prepared and recorded by RBF to memorialize all of the various components of this extensive ground survey. This Geodetic Control Network is being utilized for the current planning and design phases of the SNWA In -State Groundwater Project. SNWA 340-C Hacienda Pumping Station On-site Improvements (Clark County, NV) 2005 - 2007 - Project Manager. RBF provided engineering services and construction phase assistance to SNWA for this project. Preliminary and final design services included: an expanded plant telephone system; a new compressed air piping system (with nine 3/a -inch service drops located on all three levels of the pumping station); on-site drainage improvements; sub -drain and sump pump installation; grading and soil compaction for a new on-site substation; an 8 -foot high perimeter block wall, and on-site retaining walls; property boundary verification; preparation of 22 legal descriptions and exhibits for wall easements and construction easements; technical support for coordination with 11 adjacent property owners and attendance at Town Board and Clark County Planning Commission meetings; and construction phase services. MacDonald Highlands Potable Water Master Plan Update (Henderson, NV) 2008 - 2009 - QA / QC Manager. The Master Plan Update addresses development changes within MacDonald Highlands since the previously prepared Utility Master Plan. MacDonald Highlands is a Master Planned community consisting of multi -family, and single-family development parcels. RBF developed projections for potable water demands and also completed an extensive analysis of the potable water system and water age with in the master plan development. The WaterCAD software was used to model the on-site distribution system. An extended period simulation was performed to evaluate water age concerns. The Canyons Utility Master Plan Update (Henderson, NV) 2006 - Project Manager. RBF prepared a comprehensive potable water and sewer master plan update for this 632 -acre Master Planned community consisting of commercial, multi -family, and single-family development parcels. RBF developed water and wastewater projections for the development and identified the on-site and off-site utility infrastructure requirements for the development. The project included extensive analysis of the City's off-site water and wastewater infrastructure. Hydraulic models were developed for the City's 2630 potable water pressure zone, the Horizon Ridge Parkway Trunk Sewer System, and the Green Valley Parkway Trunk Sewer System. The analyses included research and investigation of undeveloped parcels, development of water and wastewater generation projections, and analysis of multiple development scenarios to determine off-site system capacity constraints. RBF worked with the City of Henderson Department of Utility Services and the Project W... CONSULTING A �.. Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer Developer to identify the off-site utility upgrades that would most improve the City's ability to serve this development area. LVVWD C1106 - Montessouri 2745 Zone Pumping Station Discharge Pipeline (Clark County, NV) 2005 - 2006 - Project Manager. This project for the Las Vegas Valley Water District included: the design of approximately 4,800 LF of 42 -inch CML&C welded steel pipe; cut -in of a 42 -inch x 42 -inch tee connection at the intersection of Buffalo Drive and Badura Avenue; two 42 -inch diameter in-line valves and valve vaults; a 4,900 gpm temporary pressure reducing station located on the property of Sierra Vista High School; and all appurtenant facilities. Additional work included: aerial topographic survey; right-of- way coordination; preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits for 14 pipeline and construction easements; corrosion engineering; and scour analyses at drainage channels crossing the pipeline alignment. LVVWD C1012 - Charleston Heights 2420 Zone Pump Station Discharge Pipeline (Las Vegas, NV) 2002 - 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided engineering services to Las Vegas Valley Water District for design of approximately 7,000 LF of 20 -inch diameter domestic water main. Services included: preparation of construction drawings, specifications, and cost estimates; coordination with the City of Las Vegas for bore and jack crossing of Decatur Boulevard; scheduling coordination with the Nevada Department of Transportation for a nearby freeway improvement project; and alignment and scheduling coordination to minimize impacts with local businesses, including a regional shopping mall. LVVWD C1198 - Multi -Site Surge Tank Upgrades (Las Vegas, NV) 2007 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering services to evaluate nine pumping stations at five LVVWD sites (Gowan, Underhill, Rice, Ronzone, and Grand Canyon). RBF's Team conducted a pressure surge analysis of each pumping station and provided recommendations for required improvements to convert from manual to automated surge control systems. Included in the scope of services were site visits, review of record and shop drawings to verify the accuracy of existing information, and review and verification of LVVWD's hydraulic model data, which was used in the surge analysis. R-28 Reservoir, P-27 Pumping Station and PRV Stations 123, 124, and 125 (Henderson, NV) 2009 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, mapping, and construction phase services for the design of a potable water pumping station, reservoir, and associated inlet/outlet transmission main to serve the 2760 and 2630 Pressure Zones within Planning Areas 13 and 20 in MacDonald Highlands, in the City of Henderson. The project elements include: a 600,000 -gallon prestressed concrete reservoir; a 24 ft x 50 ft pump building; disinfection facilities; installation of a mechanical mixing system and automated sampling system in the existing R-27 Reservoir; three pressure reducing stations; and 2,600 LF of 16 -inch DIP inlet outlet pipeline; and hillside grading for the reservoir site and access road. LVVWD Pipeline Failure Analysis and Root Cause Training (Las Vegas, NV) 2005 - 2008 - Project Manager. RBF provided consulting services to Las Vegas Valley Water District to develop a Pipeline Failure Root Cause Training Program, and conduct training sessions for the District's Distribution System staff. In addition to developing the training program, other services included: Forensic engineering services on an "as -requested" basis. These services included field investigations of pipeline failures, collection and testing of pipe material and soil samples, preparation of field investigation reports, and the preparation of an annual summary report. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer Conducting a pressure monitoring study on portions of the District's distribution system. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there is a correlation between cyclical pressure transients and asbestos cement (AC) pipeline failures. Coastal Water Project (Monterey County, CA) 2007 - Project Engineer. Mr. Nagle performed alignment studies and extensive analysis of potential alternative alignments for 24 miles of pipeline in connection with the CWP. The overall project consists of a 10 million -gallon per day Desalination Plant near the Moss Landing Power Plant, conveyance pipelines, Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities, and related facilities. This $200 million project will include two booster stations, 24 miles of pipelines, and two reservoirs. A significant portion of the 36 -inch diameter conveyance pipeline will be constructed along the former Southern Pacific Railroad alignment that was acquired by the Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC). WS -1 and WS -2 Wellhead Improvements (Apex, NV) 2005 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional civil and electrical engineering services for the equipping of two raw water/fire flow supply wells (WS -1 and WS -2) and Duke Energy facility near Apex, Nevada. This project included an analysis of different alternatives of equipping the wells to meet project objectives, including the use of variable frequency drive motors versus motor operated control valves. The project also includes the design of the pump controls and instrumentation. Ivanpah Airport Utility Planning Study (Primm, NV) 2006 - Project Manager. RBF, as a subconsultant, provided utility planning and right-of-way investigation services to the Clark County Department of Aviation, for the proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport (IVP) near Primm, Nevada. RBF's Water Resources Department identified the IVP infrastructure requirements for potable water supply and transmission, wastewater collection and treatment, recycled water, and jet fuel delivery systems for this site. Planning for the requisite wet utility infrastructure required incorporating data from and basing calculations upon IVP activity projections summarized in the 2004 Conceptual Airport Layout Plan Validation Report. Local agency facility planning projections and recommendations, as well as national existing airport activity, utility and facility capacity requirement research all provided the framework for RBF's design. Comprehensive services were provided for right-of-way research to determine facility easement requirements, capital cost estimates, and development of a facility implementation plan. Extensive communication and coordination efforts were required with local agencies (including the Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas Valley Water District, Clark County Department of Aviation, Clark County Water Reclamation District, NV Energy, and Kinder Morgan). EM -21 Turnout Facility and 1305 Zone Pipeline Improvements (Temecula, CA) 2006 - 2008 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering and surveying services to the Rancho California Water District for construction of a new 80 cfs turnout facility from San Diego Pipeline No. 6 - a Metropolitan Water District of Southern California facility. As part of the turnout facility design, RBF provided electrical and instrumentation design, structural design, surge analysis, and operational evaluation. The project also included the conversion of 31,000 LF of existing 48" diameter raw water supply pipeline to a potable water transmission main, abandonment of RCWD's existing EM -19 Turnout Facility, design of 6,300 LF of new 48" diameter transmission main in Ynez Road, 1,400 LF of 36" transmission main in Butterfield Stage Road, and 1,500 LF of 24" transmission main in Margarita Road and La Paz Roads. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer EM -20 Turnout and Transmission Main (Riverside County, CA) 1999 - Project Engineer. Design engineering services for approximately 20,000 lineal feet of 54 -inch diameter welded steel pipeline and 100-cfs turnout from MWD aqueduct. The project will supplement its treated imported water supply by bringing an additional 100-cfs capacity to its service area in southwestern Riverside County. El Segundo Mitigation Monitoring Program (El Segundo, CA) 1995 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional consulting services for the City of El Segundo's Mitigation Monitoring Program of the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment. During this project, RBF's duties included: 1) Coordinating and moderating a monthly community meeting between Hyperion staff and neighboring residents; 2) Maintaining a 24-hour "hotline" to receive, document, and respond to complaints related to odor, light, and noise impacts during Hyperion Secondary Treatment Expansion Project; 3) Periodic site visits to monitor mitigation measures implemented at the Hyperion WWTP, including conducting complaint follow-up with Hyperion staff. Sea Launch Home Port Facility - Sewer Rehabilitation (Port of Long Beach, CA) 1998 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional design and construction inspection services to The Austin Company, the design/build contractor for the project site owned by the Boeing Company. The project included rehabilitation of the on-site gravity sewer collection system consisting of the following: closed circuit television inspection of sewer pipelines; verification of sewer hydraulic capacity; on-site pipeline rehabilitation using cured -in-place pipe (CIPP) lining system -- 950 linear feet of 6 -inch, 400 linear feet of 8 -inch, 900 linear feet of 12 -inch, 350 linear feet of 15 -inch; replacement of 500 linear feet of sewer 12 - inch sewer beneath pier; replacement of ship -to -shore sewer connections; on-site manhole rehabilitation using air -placed concrete and polyurethane lining system; and construction inspection services. El Dorado Colonia Sanitary Sewer System Improvements (El Centro, CA) 1998 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering services for the conversion of homes in El Dorado Colonia from private septic tank systems to the City's public sewer collection system. The project included the construction of approximately 15,000 LF of 8 -inch sanitary sewer and the extension of sewer laterals to approximately 200 residential parcels. The work for this project included utility research and the preparation of digital base maps by compiling survey data from the County of Imperial. RBF also provided professional surveying services to provide topographic data for areas not covered by the County survey and to verify the County survey data. The project also required extensive coordination with the Imperial Irrigation District and the California Department of Transportation. El Dorado Colonia Potable Water System Improvements (El Centro, CA) 1997 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering and surveying services under the Corps of Engineers 219 Program. The work for this project included preparation of digital base maps by compiling survey data from the County of Imperial. RBF also provided professional surveying services to provide topographic data for areas not covered by the County survey and to verify the County survey data. The project included the construction of 8 -inch, 10 -inch and 12 -inch potable water distribution system and the installation of water meters, and the extension of service laterals to residential parcels. The project also required extensive coordination with the Imperial Irrigation District and the California Department of Transportation. Arcadia and Sierra Madre Water Infrastructure Restoration Special Study and Final Design (Arcadia and Sierra Madre, CA) 1997 - Project Manager. Final design engineering services (PS&E) for water infrastructure restoration for the cities of Arcadia and Sierra Madre that included the following: 4.3 MG reservoir seismic rehabilitation; 1.2 MG reservoir demolition and reconstruction; new 2000 gpm well; three new 8 -inch pressure reducing stations; a water system inter -tie between cities (incl. 12 -inch pipeline); W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer new 8 -inch pipeline; conversion of a standby engine from natural gas engine to diesel fuel at an existing pumping station; and emergency electrical generator backup power performance specifications for sewer pumping station sites. A seismic vulnerability and earthquake safety evaluation for the entire water delivery system was performed, which included pipelines, valves, pump stations, emergency generators, and reservoirs. Dyer Road Surge Analysis (Santa Ana, CA) 2000 - Project Engineer. The Dyer Road Well Field (DRWF) provides one of the two major sources of supply of potable water to the Irvine Ranch Water District's (IRWD) Zone I Central System. RBF performed a surge analysis for the Dyer Road Well Field and the Zone 1 Central System. The surge analysis modeled three flow scenarios for both year 2000 and year 2025 demands for a total of six different runs, and considered the implementation of future District projects, such was the Deep Aquifer Treatment System (DATS) project. These six runs used pump curve data from IRWD and correlated it with the District's WaterCAD model to determine the flow provided by the well field. The surge analysis showed that surge protection will definitely be required for year 2025 demands with addition of the DATS project. Santa Margarita Water District South County Pipeline (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a detailed analysis of alignment alternatives for the Santa Margarita Water District's South County Pipeline Project. The analysis considered over 30 alternative alignments for a regional water transmission main, and evaluated the environmental, traffic, and institutional impacts to the City of Mission Viejo. Provided overall master planning, environmental documentation, permit processing, and design of this large -diameter pipeline project. RBF prepared plans and specifications, provided construction staking and management for a major portion of this project, including over 13 miles of 66 -inch diameter pipeline, five service connections, five flow facilities, and a regulating reservoir. RBF received the 1990 California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Grand Award of Excellence for the outstanding design and coordination efforts on the 100 million dollar construction project. Lake Mead Drive Raw Water Transmission Main (Henderson, NV) 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, and mapping services for approximately 4,000 LF of 16 -inch ductile iron pipeline constructed along Lake Mead Drive in Henderson, Nevada. The purpose of the project is to provide additional raw water transmission capacity to the Lake Las Vegas development from the City of Henderson's connection to the BMI pipeline. This project also included the design of metering facilities, pressure relief facilities, and a technical drainage study update for the extension of existing culvert crossings at Lake Mead Drive. In addition, the project required extensive coordination with the City of Henderson and NDOT for construction permitting along Lake Mead Drive. Lake Las Vegas Raw Water System Modifications (Henderson, NV) 2003 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional engineering, surveying, and mapping services for the design of approximately 3,900 LF of 16 -inch and 20 -inch raw water pipelines. The facilities are intended to increase the transmission capacity of the existing raw water delivery system, which provides irrigation and lake fill water to the Lake Las Vegas development. Also included in this project is the relocation of the Southshore R-1 pressure reducing station. RBF is responsible for the design of valving, piping and associated equipment for a new pressure reducing station, as well as the abandonment of the existing facility. Legal descriptions and exhibits for two municipal utility easements were also required for this project. Brooks Avenue Waterline Replacement (North Las Vegas, NV) 2001 - Project Manager. RBF provided professional civil engineering services for the relocation of approximately 1,600 LF of cement mortar -lined W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer and coated steel water main. The project required close coordination with City engineering department and operations staff to determine the best method for isolating the portion to be relocated, while maintaining the integrity of the existing connections and protecting an adjacent 36 -inch City transmission pipeline. Preston Waterline Replacement (Ione, CA) 2001 - Project Manager. Design engineering services to the State of California, Project Management Branch for approximately 16,500 LF of 10 -inch pipeline and pressure reducing station. Project responsibilities included coordination with multiple landowners for easements, resolution of conflicting record surveys, and coordination with numerous agencies, including Caltrans, the City of lone, the County of Amador, and the Amador Water Agency. Wastewater Utility Rate Study (El Centro, CA) 1997 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a 5 -Year Wastewater Utility Rate Study for the City of El Centro. This analysis included a review of the City's operating, administrative, and debt service costs. A final rate program was developed which implemented by the City, thereby enabling the City to proceed with their proposed five year Capital Improvement Program. RBF worked closely with City's engineering and administrative staff in developing the rate study and prepared the final presentation to City Council. Steel Tank Retrofit and Seismic Stability (Irvine, CA) - Project Manager. Analysis and design of seismic retrofit for three of the District's flat -bottom, welded steel tanks ranging from 2.5 mg to 15.0 mg capacity. The tanks include: Zone 1 - 15.0 mg domestic reservoir; Zone 4 - 2.5 mg domestic reservoir; and Zone 8 - 2.5 mg domestic reservoir. The reservoirs were originally constructed between 1983 and 1985. RBF's scope of work included: review of available record information, field verification of existing reservoir elements (such as tank dimensions, shell and floor thicknesses), comparison of original design criteria to current seismic design parameters, geotechnical investigation, preparation of a preliminary design report summarizing seismic retrofit recommendations, and contract documents, including construction drawings and a project manual, for the seismic retrofit of all three tanks. Santa Margarita Water District Master Planning (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. Mr. Nagle has prepared numerous Plan Of Works Reports for several communities within the Santa Margarita Water District, including Rancho Santa Margarita, Coto de Caza, Rancho Trabuco, portions of Mission Viejo, and Talega. The Plans of Works included development of water and wastewater planning criteria for both residential and commercial land uses, hydraulic analyses and computer modeling of both water and sewer systems, and development of capital improvement plans and facility financing programs. Santa Margarita Water District (Talega Development Wastewater Collection and Treatment Alternatives Study) (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This Study evaluated the feasibility of an on-site wastewater treatment and reclamation facility versus the conveyance of wastewater to an off-site regional facility for treatment and disposal. The project included a cost benefit analysis for each alternative. Santa Margarita Water District, Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Review (Orange County, CA) 1987 -1992 - Project Engineer. RBF provided Industrial Wastewater Engineering services for the Santa Margarita Water District, and developed the Industrial Wastewater Discharges Regulations for the District. RBF reviewed all industrial permit applications for regulatory compliance, evaluated the industrial treatment process, and made recommendations for permit conditions and monitoring. The industrial wastewater treatment permits analyzed by RBF have included laboratory facilities, research and development facilities, manufacturing, and plating, among other industrial applications. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer County of Orange, James Musick Facility Expansion Sewer Capacity Analysis (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This preliminary hydraulic analysis for the County of Orange determined the available capacity in the existing Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) sewage collection system. The analysis included verification of existing IRWD facilities, estimating current and ultimate wastewater generation tributary to the IRWD system, and development of phasing criteria for the Musick Facility expansion. Rancho California Water District Water Facilities Master Plan (Riverside County, CA) - Project Engineer. The Master Plan, for 100,000 -acre service area, included detailed land use and population inventory and projections, development of water use factors, development of a hydraulic model and analysis of the RCWD's 19 different pressure zones. The Master Plan also identified proposed capital improvements and funding requirements. Santa Margarita Water District South County Pipeline (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a detailed analysis of alignment alternatives for the Santa Margarita Water District's South County Pipeline Project. The analysis considered over 30 alternative alignments for a regional water transmission main, and evaluated the environmental, traffic, and institutional impacts to the City of Mission Viejo. Provided overall master planning, environmental documentation, permit processing, and design of this large -diameter pipeline project. RBF prepared plans and specifications, provided construction staking and management for a major portion of this project, including over 13 miles of 66 -inch diameter pipeline, five service connections, five flow facilities, and a regulating reservoir. RBF received the 1990 California Council of Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Grand Award of Excellence for the outstanding design and coordination efforts on the 100 million dollar construction project. Santa Margarita Water District, Bond Issue Reallocations (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a reallocation report for $360 Million in general obligation bonds for the Santa Margarita Water District. This analysis included verifying actual construction costs for existing water and wastewater facilities and verifying the funding capacity for remaining capital improvement projects. Jack Rabbit Trail Specific Plan (Beaumont, CA) - Project Engineer. Prepared opportunity and constraints study and subsequent master plan for water, wastewater, and reclaimed water facilities required to service the proposed Jack Rabbit Trail Project. The Project consists of approximately 1,500 dwelling units. The preliminary alignments and sizes of all onsite and offsite water, sewer, and reclaimed water facilities were identified in a report for incorporation into the Specific Plan document. Catellus Development - Hilarides Development Water and Sewer Master Plan (Chino Hills, CA) - Project Engineer. This study determined the water and sewer facilities required for a remote 300 -unit residential development in the City of Chino Hills. RBF was responsible for identifying not only on-site collection facilities, but off-site needs as well. The investigation resulted in alternative off-site collection scenarios, including up to one -and -one-half miles of sewer; these scenarios were developed from extensive research of record drawings, existing sewers, and discussions with City Staff. City of Douglas Water Master Plan (Douglas, AZ) 1996 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared a Water System Master Plan for the City of Douglas, Arizona. This Master Plan evaluated the existing water supply and distribution systems at the existing and ultimate conditions, identified areas of deficiency, recommended proposed capital improvements, and developed a phased implementation program. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer Poe Colonia (Imperial County, CA) 1998 - Project Manager. Under the Corps 219 program, RBF prepared an analysis of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal alternatives for the Poe Colonia, a low-income residential community in Imperial County. The Project included an evaluation of onsite treatment methods, such as package plants and stabilization ponds, versus exporting the sewage to the City of Brawley. Specific tasks included wastewater flow projections, preliminary facility layouts, evaluation of regulatory and institutional issues, and preparation of cost estimates. University of California, Irvine Utilities Master Plan (Orange County, CA) - Project Manager. This study entailed extensive research to develop a map of existing UCI onsite water, reclaimed water, and wastewater facilities. RBF was responsible for the computer analysis, using the EPANET software for the existing and proposed water and reclaimed water distribution systems. The Master Plan included a summary report of findings and recommendations. Santa Margarita Water District, Debt Service Allocations (Orange County, CA) 1987 - 1994 - Project Engineer. RBF prepared annual debt service analysis and allocation reports for the Santa Margarita Water District's (SMWD) active general obligation bond issues. The studies identified the capital costs, operation and maintenance costs and developed the corresponding facility charges and rate fees for each of the eight Improvement Districts that comprise SMWD. The charges were based on a detailed assessment of the facilities related to each Improvement District and formulated a prorata capacity, where facilities common to more than one Improvement District are applicable. Rancho California Water District Capital Improvement Program (Riverside County, CA) 1990 - Project Engineer. RBF conducted a comprehensive analysis and prepared a capital improvement program for $350 million in facility requirements. Costs were allocated between developed and undeveloped properties. The study also evaluated capital replacement and allocations between service zone areas. The program determined funding and requirements on a yearly, five-year, and ultimate buildout basis. City of Culver City - Sewer Facilities Charge Program (Culver City, CA) 1998 - Project Manager. RBF prepared a Sewer Facilities Charge Fee Program, which will update the City's existing fees. The study includes a comprehensive review and analysis of the City's wastewater flows, user rates, five-year capital improvement program, operation and maintenance costs, capital improvement and replacement costs, and the City of Los Angeles' pass-through costs for the regional conveyance, treatment, and disposal system. Santa Margarita Water District, Las Flores Trunk Sewers and Zone II Water Mains (Orange County, CA) - Project Engineer. This Project included the preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the construction of approximately 6,100 linear feet of 10 -inch and 12 -inch trunk sewer and 8,900 linear feet of 16 -inch and 30 -inch water main. The Project included coordination with the California Fish and Game Department and the Orange County Flood Control District for a creek crossing. City of Beverly Hills, Water System Capital Improvement Projects (Beverly Hills, CA) 1993 - 2000 - Project Manager. RBF is currently providing complete design engineering and construction staking services for the City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department's capital improvement program, which includes water transmission main replacements, pressure reducing stations installation, street improvements, and traffic signalization. RBF has coordinated with City staff, local merchants, residents and Caltrans to select pipeline alignments and establish construction schedules which minimize disruption to traffic, local businesses and local residences. W... CONSULTING A - Company John Nagle, PE Senior Associate / Senior Engineer Santa Margarita Water District, Oso Trunk Sewer Relocation (Orange County, CA) 1991 - Project Engineer. This project included the preparation of construction plans, specifications and estimates for the relocation of a 27 -inch trunk sewer and the installation of a flow diversion structure and parshall flume metering station. The project also included coordination with Caltrans for a 350 -foot long jack -and -bore across the Interstate 5, coordination with the Mission Viejo Country Club for the realignment, and extensive utility investigation. Irvine Ranch Water District, Jeffrey Road (Zone A) Parallel Reclaimed Water Pipeline (Irvine, CA) 1995 - Project Manager. This Project included the preparation of construction drawings, specifications and cost estimates for three miles of 30 -inch reclaimed water pipeline. The Project included preliminary engineering and alternative alignment analyses, which considered 15 alternative alignments. The Project also required coordination with: Caltrans for a bore -and -jack crossing of Interstate 405; the Orange County Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks for construction in Mason Regional Park; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game for the crossing of the San Diego Creek; and the City of Irvine for traffic control. W... CONSULTING A - Company No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 7.0 Technical Appendices The various reports identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this EIR, and are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15 150. Appendix Document/Reference Title A Air Quality Impact Analysis B Greenhouse Gas Analysis C Noise Impact Analysis D North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis Water Supply Assessment Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increase Allocation of Residential Development NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-1 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix A Air Quality Impact Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc. June 6, 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach V#�URBAM CROSSROADS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Haseeb Qureshi, MES Prepared for: Ms. Tracy Zinn T&B Planning 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA June 6, 2012 JN:08210-05 AQ REPORT HQ TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Executive Summary.............................................................................6 1.1 Purpose of Report.................................................................................................6 1.2 Project Overview................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures.....................................9 1.4 Summary of Findings............................................................................................9 2.0 Existing Conditions.............................................................................10 2.1 South Coast Air Basin.........................................................................................10 2.2 Regional Climate.................................................................................................10 2.3 Wind Patterns and Project Location....................................................................12 2.4 Existing Air Quality..............................................................................................12 2.5 Regional Air Quality............................................................................................15 2.6 Local Air Quality..................................................................................................15 2.7 Regulatory Background.......................................................................................22 2.7.1 Federal Regulations 2.7.2 California Regulations 2.7.3 Air Quality Management Planning 3.7.3 Air Quality Management Planning 2.8 Existing Project Site Air Quality Conditions.........................................................24 3.0 Project Air Quality Impact...................................................................25 3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................25 3.2 Standards of Significance....................................................................................25 3.3 Project -Related Sources of Potential Impact.......................................................26 3.4 Construction Emissions.......................................................................................26 3.5 Operational Emissions........................................................................................27 3.5.1 Construction Emissions Summary 3.5.2 Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity 3.5.3 Fugitive Dust Related to Vehicular Travel 3.5.4 Landscape Maintenance Equipment 3.5.5 Consumer Products 3.5.6 Architectural Coatings 3.5.7 Operational Emissions Summary 3.6 CO Hot Spot Analysis......................................................................................... 31 3.7 Air Quality Management Planning.......................................................................32 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 3.8 Potential Impacts to Sensitive Receptors............................................................ 37 3.9 Odors.................................................................................................................. 37 3.10 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................38 4.0 References.........................................................................................41 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page CaIEEModTM Input/Output Construction and Operational Emissions........... A North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 2-1 Wind Rose..........................................................................................13 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 10 LIST OF TABLES Table Paqe 2-1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards..............................14 2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin(SCAB).....................................................................................17 2-3 Project Area Air Quality Monitoring Summary 2008-2010 ..................18 3-1 Maximum Daily Emissions Thresholds...............................................26 3-2 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions (SummerMinter) Pounds Per Day (Without Mitigation).................................................30 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 0 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the air quality impact analysis (AQIA) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project") 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which requires the City to analyze whether subsequent activities regarding the North Newport Center zoning require an additional environmental document beyond the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) ("General Plan EIR"), and the first North Newport Center Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, approved by Resolution No. 2007-79 on December 11, 2007. The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of North Newport Center. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this report analyzes whether the Project would have effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR and confirms that the Project will not result in new effects and will not require new mitigation measures so that the City can determine whether it is appropriate to approve the Project as within the scope of the General Plan EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15168(e), this report also analyzes whether: (i) the Project is within the scope of the General Plan 2006 Update; and (ii) the General Plan EIR adequately describes the subsequent activity for the purposes of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a) states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR may be required for the project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis "� U RBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) CROSSROAaS 6 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this AQIA evaluates the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination is included for public information. 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU -H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU -H3 category throughout the Newport Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU -H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically assigned to the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU -H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU -H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU -H3 units are not assigned to any particular property. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 7 In addition, certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L1) is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un -built. The proposed Project would convert the 79 un -built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Under existing conditions, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are developed with commercial/office land uses and the Island Hotel. No multi -family residential units are constructed in these areas, although the NNCPC Development Plan allows for up to 430 residential units. Thus, the City's General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan currently allow for the existing land uses in Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza to be supplemented by or partially replaced with multi -family residential housing. The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising 15 un -assigned and un- built multi -family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units) and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza. No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NNCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NNCPC Development Plan Amendment. Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. For purposes of this analysis, the air quality impacts centered on the on-going operations of the 94 units are evaluated. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 8 1.3 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed project will not result in a significant regional or localized air quality impact during operational activity, nor would the project substantially increase the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR; accordingly, mitigation is not required. 1.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS • The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • The Project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. • The Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. • The Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • The Project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 9 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section provides an overview of the existing air quality conditions in the project area and region. 2.1 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN The project site is located in the SCAB within the jurisdiction of SCAQMD. The SCAQMD was created by the 1977 Lewis -Presley Air Quality Management Act, which merged four county air pollution control bodies into one regional district. Under the Act, the SCAQMD is responsible for bringing air quality in areas under its jurisdiction into conformity with federal and state air quality standards. As discussed above, the Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a 6,745 -square mile subregion of the SCAQMD, which includes portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties, and all of Orange County. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Los Angeles County portion of the Mojave Desert Air Basin is bound by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los Angeles / Kern County border to the north, and the Los Angeles / San Bernardino County border to the east. The Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin is bound by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley. 2.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE The regional climate has a substantial influence on air quality in the SCAB. In addition, the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine influence the air quality. The annual average temperatures throughout the SCAB vary from the low to middle 60s (degrees Fahrenheit). Due to a decreased marine influence, the eastern portion of the SCAB shows greater variability in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures. January is the coldest month throughout the SCAB, with average minimum temperatures of 47°F in downtown Los Angeles and 36°F in San Bernardino. All portions of the SCAB have recorded maximum temperatures above 100°F. Although the climate of the SCAB can be characterized as semi -arid, the air near the land surface is quite moist on most days because of the presence of a marine layer. This shallow layer of sea air is an important modifier of SCAB climate. Humidity restricts visibility in the SCAB, and the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfates is heightened in air with high relative humidity. The marine layer provides an environment for that conversion process, especially during the spring and North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 10 summer months. The annual average relative humidity within the SCAB is 71 percent along the coast and 59 percent inland. Since the ocean effect is dominant, periods of heavy early morning fog are frequent and low stratus clouds are a characteristic feature. These effects decrease with distance from the coast. More than 90 percent of the SCAB's rainfall occurs from November through April. The annual average rainfall varies from approximately nine inches in Riverside to fourteen inches in downtown Los Angeles. Monthly and yearly rainfall totals are extremely variable. Summer rainfall usually consists of widely scattered thunderstorms near the coast and slightly heavier shower activity in the eastern portion of the SCAB with frequency being higher near the coast. Due to its generally clear weather, about three-quarters of available sunshine is received in the SCAB. The remaining one-quarter is absorbed by clouds. The ultraviolet portion of this abundant radiation is a key factor in photochemical reactions. On the shortest day of the year there are approximately 10 hours of possible sunshine, and on the longest day of the year there are approximately 14-1/2 hours of possible sunshine. The importance of wind to air pollution is considerable. The direction and speed of the wind determines the horizontal dispersion and transport of the air pollutants. During the late autumn to early spring rainy season, the SCAB is subjected to wind flows associated with the traveling storms moving through the region from the northwest. This period also brings five to ten periods of strong, dry offshore winds, locally termed "Santa Anas" each year. During the dry season, which coincides with the months of maximum photochemical smog concentrations, the wind flow is bimodal, typified by a daytime onshore sea breeze and a nighttime offshore drainage wind. Summer wind flows are created by the pressure differences between the relatively cold ocean and the unevenly heated and cooled land surfaces that modify the general northwesterly wind circulation over southern California. Nighttime drainage begins with the radiational cooling of the mountain slopes. Heavy, cool air descends the slopes and flows through the mountain passes and canyons as it follows the lowering terrain toward the ocean. Another characteristic wind regime in the SCAB is the "Catalina Eddy," a low level cyclonic (counterclockwise) flow centered over Santa Catalina Island which results in an offshore flow to the southwest. On most spring and summer days, some indication of an eddy is apparent in coastal sections. In the SCAB, there are two distinct temperature inversion structures that control vertical mixing of air pollution. During the summer, warm high-pressure descending (subsiding) air is undercut by a shallow layer of cool marine air. The boundary between these two layers of air is a persistent marine subsidence/inversion. This boundary prevents vertical mixing which effectively acts as an impervious lid to pollutants over the entire SCAB. The mixing height for the inversion structure is normally situated 1,000 to 1,500 feet above mean sea level. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 11 A second inversion -type forms in conjunction with the drainage of cool air off the surrounding mountains at night followed by the seaward drift of this pool of cool air. The top of this layer forms a sharp boundary with the warmer air aloft and creates nocturnal radiation inversions. These inversions occur primarily in the winter, when nights are longer and onshore flow is weakest. They are typically only a few hundred feet above mean sea level. These inversions effectively trap pollutants, such as NOX and CO from vehicles, as the pool of cool air drifts seaward. Winter is therefore a period of high levels of primary pollutants along the coastline. 2.3 WIND PATTERNS AND PROJECT LOCATION The distinctive climate of the Project area and the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on -shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Winds are characteristically light although the speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Wind speed and direction data is monitored by the SCAQMD for the Project area (Source Receptor Area) (SRA) 18; this data was obtained from North Orange County Coastal monitoring station, which is the nearest monitoring station to the proposed project. As shown in the following wind rose exhibit (Exhibit 2-1), the prevailing winds move predominately from the northwest to the southeast with an average wind speed of 1.06 meters per second (m/s) or 3.48 feet per second (f/s). 2.4 EXISTING AIR QUALITY Existing air quality is measured based upon ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect, as well health effects of each pollutant regulated under these standards are shown in Table 2-1. The determination of whether a region's air quality is healthful or unhealthful is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples to the state and federal standards presented in Table 2-1. The air quality in a region is considered to be in attainment by the state if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for 03, CO, SO2, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive three-year period; and the federal standards (other than North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 12 WIND ROSE PLOT. DISPLAY_ csta Wind Speed Direction (blowing from) COMMENTS. DATA PERIOD. COMPANY NAME. 2005-2007 Jan 1- Dec 31 00:00 - 23:00 MODELER WPPLOT View -Lakes Environmental Software EXHIBIT 2-1 WIND ROSE WIND SPEED (mi - — 11.0 - 6.0-11.0 - 4.0- 6.0 - 2.0- 4.0 EA 0.5- 2.0 0.1- 0.5 Calms: 13.40% CALM WINDS. TOTAL COUNT: 13.40% 25385 hrs. AVG. WIND SPEED. DATE. PROJECT N0.'. 1.06 mis 1/2812009 North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) 13 OURBAN TABLE 2-1 STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES Averaging State National Health and Atmospheric Pollutant Time Standard Standard Effects Major Sources NOTE: ppm = parts per million; pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 1 This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 09/08/2010 (http://www.arb.ca.ciov/research/aags/aags2.pdf). Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf Standards last updated November 17, 2008. California Air Resources Board, 2001. CARB Fact Sheet. Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/f`s2.htm, page last updated December 2005. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 14 1 hour 0.09 ppm --- High concentrations can directly Formed when reactive organic Ozone 8 hours 0.07 ppml 0.075 ppm affect lungs, causing irritation. gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides Long-term exposure may cause (NOx) react in the presence of damage to lung tissue. sunlight. Major sources include on - road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial / industrial mobile equipment. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical Internal combustion engines, Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm asphyxiant, carbon monoxide primarily gasoline -powered motor interferes with the transfer of vehicles. fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen 1 hour 0.18 ppm --- Irritating to eyes and respiratory Motor vehicles, petroleum refining Dioxide Annual Avg. 0.030 0.053 ppm tract. Colors atmosphere operations, industrial sources, reddish -brown. aircraft, ships, and railroads. Sulfur 1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Irritates upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion, chemical plants, Dioxide 3 hours ------ injurious to lung tissue. Can sulfur recovery plants, and metal 24 hours 0.04 ppm --- yellow the leaves of plants, processing. destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Inhalable 24 hours 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 May irritate eyes and Dust and fume -producing industrial Particulate Annual Avg. 20 µg/m3 --- respiratory tract, decreases in and agricultural operations, Matter lung capacity, cancer and combustion, atmospheric (PM -10) increased mortality. Produces photochemical reactions, and haze and limits visibility. natural activities (e.g., wind -raised dust and ocean sprays). Fine 24 hours --- 35 µg/m3 Increases respiratory disease, Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, Particulate Annual Avg. 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 lung damage, cancer, and equipment, and industrial sources; Matter premature death. Reduces residential and agricultural burning; (PM -2.5) visibility and results in surface Also, formed from photochemical soiling. reactions of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics. Lead Monthly Ave. 1.5 µg/m3 --- Disturbs gastrointestinal Present source: lead smelters, Quarterly --- 1.5 µg/m3 system, and causes anemia, battery manufacturing & recycling Rolling 3- --- 0.15 µg/m3 kidney disease, and facilities. Past source: combustion Month Avg. neuromuscular and of leaded gasoline. neurological dysfunction. Hydrogen 1 hour 0.03 ppm No National Nuisance odor (rotten egg Geothermal Power Plants, Sulfide Standard smell), Petroleum Production and refining headache and breathing difficulties (higher concentrations) Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 No National Breathing difficulties, Produced by the reaction in the air Standard aggravates asthma, reduced of SO2. visibility Visibility 8 hour Light No National Reduces visibility, reduced See PM10/PM2.5. Reducing extinction Standard airport safety, lower real estate Particles of 0.23/km; value, discourages tourism. visibility of 10 miles or more NOTE: ppm = parts per million; pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 1 This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective May 17, 2006. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 09/08/2010 (http://www.arb.ca.ciov/research/aags/aags2.pdf). Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aags2.pdf Standards last updated November 17, 2008. California Air Resources Board, 2001. CARB Fact Sheet. Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/f`s2.htm, page last updated December 2005. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 14 03, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not exceeded more than once per year. The 03 standard is attained when the fourth highest eight-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. 2.5 REGIONAL AIR QUALITY The SCAQMD monitors levels of various criteria pollutants at 30 monitoring stations throughout the air district. In 2009, the federal and state standards were exceeded on one or more days for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 at most monitoring locations. No areas of the SCAB exceeded federal or state standards for NO2i SO2, CO, sulfates or lead. See Table 3-2 for attainment designations for the SCAB. 2.6 LOCAL AIR QUALITY Relative to the Project site, the nearest long-term air quality monitoring site for Ozone (03), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Inhalable Particulates (PM10), Fine Particulates (PM2.5) and is the South Coast Air Quality Management District North Coastal (SRA 18) monitoring station. The most recent three (3) years of data available' is shown on Table 2-3 and identifies the number of days standards were exceeded for the study area, which was chosen to be representative of the local air quality at the Project site. Additionally, data for SO2 has been omitted as attainment is regularly met in the South Coast Air Basin and few monitoring stations measure SO2 concentrations. Criteria pollutants are pollutants that are regulated through the development of human health based and/or environmentally based criteria for setting permissible levels. Examples of sources and effects of the criteria pollutants are identified below: • Carbon Monoxide (CO): Is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon -containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface - based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. • Sulfur Dioxide (SO2j: Is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur -content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When ' Year 2011 air quality monitoring station data was not available at the time of preparation of this report from the SCAQMD. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 15 SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). • Nitrogen Oxides (Oxides of Nitrogen, or NOXA: Nitrogen oxides (NOX) consist of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) and are formed when nitrogen (N2) combines with oxygen (02). Their lifespan in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days for nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide, to 170 years for nitrous oxide. Nitrogen oxides are typically created during combustion processes, and are major contributors to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 is a criteria air pollutant, and may result in numerous adverse health effects; it absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO2 is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors. • Ozone 03): Is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. • PM10 (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inches or less) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects. PM10 also causes visibility reduction and is a criteria air pollutant. • PM2_5 (Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns): A similar air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which is often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO2 release from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOX release from power plants, automobiles and other types of combustion sources. The chemical composition of fine particles highly depends on location, time of year, and weather conditions. PM2.5 is a criteria air pollutant. • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): Volatile organic compounds are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 16 TABLE 2-2 ATTAINMENT STATUS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB) Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone - 1 hour standard Nonattainment No Standard Ozone - 8 hour standard Nonattainment Extreme Nonattainment' PM10 Nonattainment Serious Nonattainment PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attain ment/Maintenance Nitrogen Dioxide Nonattainment2 Attainment/Maintenance Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment/NonattainmeW Attain ment/Nonattainment4 All others Attainment/Unclassified Attainment/Unclassified Source: California Air Resources Board 2010 (http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/areal0/area10.htm, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/feddesig.htm) The USEPA approved redesignation from Severe 17 to Extreme Nonattainment on May 5, 2010 to be effective June 4, 2010. 2 The SCAB was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide on March 25, 2010. 3 Los Angeles County was reclassified from attainment to nonattainment for lead on March 25, 2010; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard. 4 The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is classified as nonattainment; the remainder of the SCAB is in attainment of the State Standard. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 17 TABLE 2-3 PROJECT AREA AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 2008-2010 NORTH COASTAL (SRA 18) AIR MONITORING STATION DATA POLLUTANT STANDARD YEAR 2008 2009 Ozone (03) Maximum 1 -Hour Concentration m .094 .087 .097 Maximum 8 -Hour Concentration ppm .079 .075 .076 Number of Das Exceeding State 1 -Hour Standard > 0.09 ppm 0 0 1 Number of Das Exceeding State 8 -Hour Standard > 0.07 ppm 6 3 2 Number of Das Exceeding Federal 1 -Hour Standard > 0.12 ppm 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 8 -Hour Standard > 0.075 ppm 3 0 1 Number of Days Exceeding Health Advisory >_ 0.15 ppm 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide CO Maximum 1 -Hour Concentration ppm 3 3 2 Maximum 8 -Hour Concentration ppm 2.0 2.2 2.1 Number of Das Exceeding State 1 -Hour Standard > 20 ppm 0 0 0 Number of Das Exceeding Federal / State 8 -Hour Standard > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Number of Days Exceeding Federal 1 -Hour Standard > 35 ppm 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide NO2 Maximum 1 -Hour Concentration ppm .08 .07 70.0 Annual Arithmetic Mean Concentration (ppm) .0132 .0130 11.3 Number of Days Exceeding State 1 -Hour Standard > 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Inhalable Particulates PM0)' Maximum 24 -Hour Concentration (pg/M3)42 56 34 Number of Samples 55 60 58 Number of Samples Exceeding State Standard > 50 tag/m3 0 1 0 Number of Samples Exceeding Federal Standard > 150 tag/m3 0 0 1 0 Fine Particulates (PM2 5)a Maximum 24 -Hour Concentration (pg/M3) 32.6 39.2 19.9 Annual Arithmetic Mean (tag/m3) 10.4 9.5 8.0 Number of Samples Exceeding Federal 24 -Hour Standard > 35 Ng/m3 0 1 0 —11 a Saddleback Monitoring Station used where data not available from North Coastal Orange County. Source: South Coast AQMD (www.aamd.gov) North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 18 atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOCs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant. • Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG): Similar to VOC, Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG) are also precursors in forming ozone and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process. Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are a criteria pollutant since they are a precursor to 03, which is a criteria pollutant. • Lead (Pb): Lead is a heavy metal that is highly persistent in the environment. In the past, the primary source of lead in the air was emissions from vehicles burning leaded gasoline. As a result of the removal of lead from gasoline, there have been no violations at any of the SCAQMD's regular air monitoring stations since 1982. Currently, emissions of lead are largely limited to stationary sources such as lead smelters. It should be noted that the proposed Project is not anticipated to generate a quantifiable amount of lead emissions. Lead is a criteria air pollutant. Health Effects of Air Pollutants Ozone Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered to be the most susceptible sub- groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in communities with high ozone levels. Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the responses described above. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that includes ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 19 resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes. Carbon Monoxide Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of decreased oxygen supply to the heart. Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxyhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include fetuses, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen at high altitudes. Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels; these include pre -term births and heart abnormalities. Particulate Matter A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) levels and an increase in mortality rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the world. In recent years, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life -span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Daily fluctuations in PM2.5 concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in respiratory lung volumes in normal children, and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with longterm exposure to particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease, and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM10 and PM2.5. Nitrogen Dioxide Population -based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 20 exposure to NO2 at levels found in homes with gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels found in Southern California. Increase in resistance to air flow and airway contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NO2 in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub -groups. In animals, exposure to levels of NO2 considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO2. Sulfur Dioxide A few minutes of exposure to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SO2. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO2. Animal studies suggest that despite SO2 being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. Some population -based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO2 levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SO2 from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. Lead Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death; although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 21 gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers. Odors The science of odor as a health concern is still new. Merely identifying the hundreds of VOCs that cause odors poses a big challenge. Offensive odors can potentially affect human health in several ways. First, odorant compounds can irritate the eye, nose, and throat, which can reduce respiratory volume. Second, studies have shown that the VOCs that cause odors can stimulate sensory nerves to cause neurochemical changes that might influence health, for instance, by compromising the immune system. Finally, unpleasant odors can trigger memories or attitudes linked to unpleasant odors, causing cognitive and emotional effects such as stress. 2.7 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 2.7.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for 03, CO, NO, SO2, PM,o, and lead. The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB. The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. The 1990 amendments to the CAA that identify specific emission reduction goals for areas not meeting the NAAQS require a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporate additional sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA most directly applicable to the development of the Project site include Title I (Non - Attainment Provisions) and Title 11 (Mobile Source Provisions). Title I provisions were established with the goal of attaining the NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants 03, NO2, SO2, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and lead. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 22 include an additional standard for 03 and to adopt a NAAQS for PM2.5. Table 3-1 (previously presented) provides the NAAQS within the basin. Mobile source emissions are regulated in accordance with Title II provisions. These provisions require the use of cleaner burning gasoline and other cleaner burning fuels such as methanol and natural gas. Automobile manufacturers are also required to reduce tailpipe emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOX). NOX is a collective term that includes all forms of nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NO3) which are emitted as byproducts of the combustion process. 2.7.2 CALIFORNIA REGULATIONS The CARB, which became part of the California EPA in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act (AB 2595), responding to the federal CAA, and for regulating emissions from consumer products and motor vehicles. The California CAA mandates achievement of the maximum degree of emissions reductions possible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to attain the state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practical date. The CARB established the CAAQS for all pollutants for which the federal government has NAAQS and, in addition, establishes standards for sulfates, visibility, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. However at this time, hydrogen sulfide and vinyl chloride are not measured at any monitoring stations in the SCAB because they are not considered to be a regional air quality problem. Generally, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Local air quality management districts, such as the SCAQMD, regulate air emissions from commercial and light industrial facilities. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as attainment or non -attainment for each CAAQS. Serious non -attainment areas are required to prepare air quality management plans that include specified emission reduction strategies in an effort to meet clean air goals. These plans are required to include: • Application of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology to existing sources; • Developing control programs for area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and solvents) and indirect sources (e.g. motor vehicle use generated by residential and commercial development); • A District permitting system designed to allow no net increase in emissions from any new or modified permitted sources of emissions; • Implementing reasonably available transportation control measures and assuring a substantial reduction in growth rate of vehicle trips and miles traveled; • Significant use of low emissions vehicles by fleet operators; North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 23 • Sufficient control strategies to achieve a five percent or more annual reduction in emissions or 15 percent or more in a period of three years for ROGs, NO, CO and PM,o. However, air basins may use alternative emission reduction strategy that achieves a reduction of less than five percent per year under certain circumstances. 2.7.3 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING Currently, the NAAQS and CAAQS are exceeded in most parts of the SCAB. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. A detailed discussion on the AQMP and Project consistency with the AQMP is provided in Section 3.7. 2.8 EXISTING PROJECT SITE AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS The Project site is currently not vacant and the existing land uses are generating emissions, the exact amount of emissions are unknown and not easily quantifiable. Therefore the existing air quality conditions at the Project site would generally reflect ambient monitored conditions as presented previously at Table 2-3 (ambient monitored conditions occur in a generally similar built environment). North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 24 3.0 PROJECT AIR QUALITY IMPACT 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Project has been evaluated to determine if it will violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Additionally, the proposed Project has been evaluated to determine if it will result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the SCAB is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. The significance of these potential impacts is described in the following section. The City of Newport Beach does not have its own thresholds of significance. 3.2 STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The criteria used to determine the significance of potential Project -related air quality impacts are taken from the Initial Study Checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.). Based on these thresholds, a project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would: (1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. (3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). (4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Within the context of the above threshold considerations, based on the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993), project impacts would be significant if they exceed the following California standards for localized CO concentrations: 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) • 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm. The SCAQMD has also developed regional and localized significance thresholds for other regulated pollutants, as summarized at Table 3-1. The SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 25 (March 2009) indicate that any projects in the SCAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. TABLE 3-1 MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (REGIONAL THRESHOLDS) Pollutant Construction Operational NOX 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/da VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/da SOX 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day 3.3 PROJECT -RELATED SOURCES OF POTENTIAL IMPACT Land uses such as the proposed Project impact air quality through emissions associated with short-term construction, and long-term operational activity. On February 3, 2011, the SCAQMD released the California Emissions Estimator ModelTM (CalEEModTM). The purpose of this model is to accurately calculate criteria pollutant (NOx, VOC, PM10, PM2.5, SOx, and CO) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. As such, the latest version of CalEEModTm has been used for this Project to determine operational air quality impacts. Output from the model runs for operational activity is provided in Appendix "A". 3.4 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Since no specific development project is proposed at this time and the exact location of proposed development is unknown, a calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. Regardless, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the Project site would clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 26 and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units. Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction -related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. 3.5 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS As previously noted, the Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza. It should be noted that of the 94 units, 15 dwelling units are currently assigned to Newport Center and impacts from these dwelling units were accounted for by the General Plan EIR. The remaining 79 units consist of hotel units that would be converted to multi -family residential units. In order to provide consistency with the traffic study, this analysis relates to the proposed increase of 94 dwelling units allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza (as is done for the traffic study), and represents a "worst case" (conservative) analysis since there would be no credit taken for reducing by 79 the number of hotel units that can be constructed within Statistical AreaL1, nor would any credit be applied for the 15 MU -H3 units already allowed in Newport Center by the General Plan. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM,o, and PM2.5. Operational emissions would be expected from the following primary sources: • Vehicles • Combustion Emissions Associated with Natural Gas and Electricity • Fugitive dust related to vehicular travel • Landscape maintenance equipment • Emissions from consumer products • Architectural coatings 3.5.1 VEHICLES Project operational (vehicular) impacts are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation and the effect of the project on peak hour traffic volumes and traffic operations in the vicinity of the project. The project related operational air quality impact centers primarily on the vehicle trips generated by the North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 27 project. Trip characteristics available from the report, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis (Stantec, May 2012) were utilized in this analysis. The estimated emissions resulting from vehicle operations are summarized in Table 3-2. 3.5.2 COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY Electricity and natural gas are used by almost every project. Criteria pollutant emissions are emitted through the generation of electricity and consumption of natural gas. However, because electrical generating facilities for the Project area are located either outside the region (state) or offset through the use of pollution credits (RECLAIM) for generation within the SCAB, criteria pollutant emissions from offsite generation of electricity is generally excluded from the evaluation of significance and only natural gas use is considered. The emissions associated with natural gas use were calculated using the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated combustion emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A". 3.5.3 FUGITIVE DUST RELATED TO VEHICULAR TRAVEL Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust. The emissions estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated PM,o and PM2.5 emissions from vehicles for fugitive dust are summarized in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A". 3.5.4 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Landscape maintenance equipment would generate emissions from fuel combustion and evaporation of unburned fuel. Equipment in this category would include lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the Project. The emissions associated with landscape maintenance equipment were calculated based on assumptions provided in the CaIEEModTM model. The estimated landscape maintenance emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A". 3.5.5 CONSUMER PRODUCTS Consumer projects include, but are not limited to detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, personal care products, and lawn and garden products. Many of these products contain organic compounds which when released in the atmosphere can react to form ozone and other photochemically reactive pollutants. The estimated emissions from consumer products are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A". 3.5.6 ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS Over a period of time the buildings that are part of this Project will be subject to emissions resulting from the evaporation of solvents contained in paints, varnishes, primers, and other surface coatings as part of Project maintenance. The emissions associated with architectural coatings were calculated North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 28 using the CalEEModTM model. The estimated architectural coating emissions are provided in Table 3-2 (presented later in this report.) Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix "A". 3.5.7 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY The Project -related operations emissions burdens, along with a comparison of SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds, are shown on Table 3-2. Detailed operational model outputs are presented in Appendix "A". Results of the analysis indicate that the addition of 94 units to San Joaquin Plaza would not result in any excedances of the SCAQMD regional thresholds during either summer or winter months. Accordingly, Project -related emissions would not violate the SCAQMD standards for criteria pollutants. Furthermore, if Project emissions do not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOX, VOC, PM,o, or PM2.5, it follows that the emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, NOX, PM,o, and/or PM2.5). Operational impacts were not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR because the SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as a General Plan Update; therefore, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and no mitigation would be required. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 29 TABLE 3-2 SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (SUMMER) (POUNDS PER DAY) (WITHOUT MITIGATION) Operational Activities VOC NO. CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions a 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 5.01 5.01 Energy Source Emissions b 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Emissions ° 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.64 0.33 Maximum Daily Emissions 14.31 4.63 58.20 0.12 9.70 5.39 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? NO I NO I NO NO I NO I NO SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (WINTER) (POUNDS PER DAY) (WITHOUT MITIGATION) Operational Activities VOC NO. CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source Emissions a 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 5.01 5.01 Energy Source Emissions b 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.05 0.05 Mobile Emissions ° 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.64 0.33 Maximum Daily Emissions 14.42 5.00 57.70 0.12 9.70 5.39 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? NO I NO I NO NO I NO I NO Note: Please refer to Appendix A for the CaIEEModTM output files and additional supporting information for the estimated emissions. a Includes emissions of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings emissions b Includes emissions of natural gas consumption ° Includes emissions of vehicle emissions and fugitive dust related to vehicular travel North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 30 3.6 CO "HOT SPOT" ANALYSIS A carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" analysis is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service (LOS) of an intersection due to the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the California or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS or NAAQS). It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last twenty years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the Project vicinity have steadily declined, as shown based on historical data presented on Table 2-3. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the SCAB by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP) and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan). As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan, peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region's unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans. In the 1992 CO Plan, a CO hot spot analysis was conducted for four busy intersections in Los Angeles County at the peak morning and afternoon time periods. The intersections evaluated included: Long Beach Blvd. and Imperial Highway (Lynwood); Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave. (Westwood); Sunset Blvd. and Highland Ave. (Hollywood); and La Cienega Blvd. and Century Blvd. (Inglewood). The analysis in the 1992CO Plan did not result in a violation of CO standards. The busiest intersection evaluated was that at Wilshire Blvd. and Veteran Ave., which has a daily traffic volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority evaluated the LOS in the vicinity of the Wilshire Blvd. /Veteran Ave. intersection and found it to be Level E at peak morning traffic and Level F at peak afternoon traffic. This highest Project -area average daily traffic is lower than the values studied in the 1992 CO Plan. Consequently at buildout of the Project, according to the Traffic Impact Analysis, none of the intersections in the vicinity of the Proposed Project Site would have peak hourly traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP, nor would there be any reason unique to project area North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 31 meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. As a result, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated as attainment for CO since 2007 (SCAQMD 2007) and even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard. 3.7 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING The Project site is located within the SCAB, which is characterized by relatively poor air quality. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 12,000 square -mile area consisting of the four -county Basin and the Los Angeles County and Riverside County portions of what use to be referred to as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In these areas, the SCAQMD is principally responsible for air pollution control, and works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, as well as state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Currently, these state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the Basin. In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to meet the state and federal ambient air quality standards. AQMPs are updated regularly in order to more effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and to minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The SCAQMD has published the Draft Final 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on June 1, 2007. In September 2007, the CARB Board adopted the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP as part of the SIP. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP for the SCAB (and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under the SCAQMD's jurisdiction) is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance with federal and state air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 State Implementation Plan and the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan as part of the (SIP). On November 22, 20102, U.S. EPA published its notice of proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of the 2007 AQMP PM2.5 Plan. The proposed disapproval is primarily due to the fact that the attainment demonstration relies heavily on emissions reductions from several State rules that have not been finalized or submitted to U.S. EPA for approval. No timetable for full adoption of the 2007 AQMP is available at this time. As part of the 2007 AQMP, the SCAQMD requested, and the U.S. EPA's subsequently approved a "bump - up" to the "extreme" nonattainment classification for ozone in the SCAB, which extends the attainment date to 2024 and allow for the attainment demonstration to rely on emission reductions from measures that anticipate the development of new technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. Although PM2.5 plans for nonattainment areas were due in April 2008, the 2007 AQMP also focuses on attainment strategies for the PM2.5 standard through stricter control of sulfur oxides, directly -emitted PM2.5, NOX, and VOCs. The need to commence PM2.5 control strategies before April 2008 is due to the attainment date for 2 http://www.agmd.gov/hb/attachments/2011-2015/2011 Jan/201 1 -Jan7-019.pdf North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 32 PM2.5 (2015) being much earlier than that for ozone (2021 for the current designation of severe -17 or 2024 for the extreme designation). However, it should be noted that the PM2.5 plans are still in the process of being submitted. Control measures and strategies for PM2.5 will also help control ozone generation in the region because PM2.5 and ozone share similar precursors (e.g., NOX). The SCAQMD has integrated PM2.5 and ozone reduction control measures and strategies in the 2007 AQMP. In addition, the AQMP focuses on reducing VOC emissions, which have not been reduced at the same rate as NOX emissions in the past. Hence, the SCAB has not achieved the reductions in ozone as were expected in previous plans. The 2007 AQMP was based on assumptions on motor vehicles provided by the CARB and on demographics provided by SCAG. These assumptions are reflected in the new EMFAC2007 computer model. The air quality levels projected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in its 2004 RTP. The 2007 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. The Project's consistency with the 2007 AQMP is discussed as follows: Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). These indicators are discussed below: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Project's Contribution to Air Quality Violations According to the SCAQMD, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. Emissions Associated with Construction Activities No specific development project is proposed as part of the Project at this time; therefore, it is not possible to calculate specific emission quantities that may be associated with future construction activities. Nevertheless, it is recognized that construction effects would be expected to follow approval of the Project. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15146. Construction -related impacts to air quality were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which concluded that buildout of the General Plan would result in construction activities that would exceed the SCAQMD's construction -related air quality standards. As North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 33 such, the General Plan EIR disclosed construction -related air emissions as a significant and unavoidable impact. Any future Project -related construction activities would be required to comply with General Plan policies NR 8.1 through 8.5, which when implemented would help to reduce construction -related air pollutant emissions. Further, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the proposed Project site would be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD Rules and current California Building Code requirements (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), some provisions of which are more stringent now than when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2007. Construction -related air emissions and resulting impacts associated with the proposed allocation of 524 multi -family residential units to San Joaquin Plaza clearly fall within the scope of analysis previously provided in the General Plan EIR. Of the 524 units, the General Plan EIR assumed that 430 of those units would be constructed within the NNCPC and also assumed that an additional 15 multi -family units would be constructed within Statistical Area L1. The remaining 79 units were assumed by the General Plan EIR to consist of hotel units. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related air quality impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related air emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or multi -family units. Additionally, the conduct of construction activities in San Joaquin Plaza would not have the potential to generate air emissions that would be different or more severe than the conduct of construction activities in other parts of Newport Center. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions would not result in any new impacts or substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable construction - related air quality impact previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Long -Term Operational -Related Emissions Although the General Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP, the conflict was related only to the increase in population that would be associated with buildout of the General Plan (and is discussed below under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. 2). As indicated in the General Plan EIR: `Another measurement tool in determining consistency with the AQMP is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population or employment. Generally, if a project is planned in a way that results in the minimization of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), both within the project area and the surrounding area in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, that aspect of the project is consistent with the AQMP. " North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 34 The General Plan EIR determined that VMTs would be reduced through compliance with the General Plan goals and policies, and that the reduction in VMTs would be consistent with the AQMP. For example, the General Plan would "...promote a mixed-use pedestrian -friendly district for Balboa Peninsula, Airport Area, Newport Center/Fashion Island, Mainers Mile, and which would contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled." Additionally, the General Plan EIR identifies several other policies, including Policies LU 3.3, LU 6.15.9, 6.14.5, 6.15.9, NR 6.1, NR 6.2, NR 6.3, NR 6.4, and NR 6.5, that would serve to reduce VMTs within the City. The proposed Project would contribute to the mixed-use nature of Newport Center/Fashion Island by locating multi -family residential uses within the San Joaquin Plaza where commercial and office land uses exist. The Project also would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan goals and policies. Furthermore, and as concluded in the Project's traffic study, the proposed Project would generate 315 fewer daily trips than was assumed under the General Plan EIR, and would therefore result in a net reduction in VMTs. Accordingly, VMTs associated with the proposed Project would be within the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR, and would not contribute to a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP. Project -related air quality emissions were calculated and presented previously in Section 3.5. As discussed in Section 3.5 and shown in Table 3-2, air emissions associated with the allocation of 94 additional multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza will not violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, it follows that the Project's emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5). Because Project emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment, operation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a conflict with the AQMP, nor would the Project's operational emissions create a substantially more severe impact due to conflict with the AQMP than previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project would be consistent with the scope of analysis as presented in the General Plan EIR and is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP or increments based on the years of project build -out phase. The General Plan EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact due to a conflict with the applicable AQMP because buildout of the General Plan "...would result in population levels above those uses in the 2003 AQMP." North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 35 Assumptions of the AQMP used in projecting future emissions levels are based in part on land use data provided by lead agency general plan documentation. Projects that propose general plan amendments and changes of zone may increase the intensity of use and/or result in higher traffic volumes, thereby resulting in increased stationary area source emissions and/or vehicle source emissions when compared to the AQMP assumptions. If however, a project does not exceed the growth projections in the applicable local General Plan, then the project is considered to be consistent with the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As discussed under the analysis of Consistency Criterion No. 1, construction -related emissions that may be associated with future development at the proposed Project site would be consistent with the assumptions previously evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed growth assumptions for construction -related activities. The proposed Project does not involve a General Plan Amendment, but it does involve a change of zone associated with a proposed amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for properties within its geographic boundaries. The amendment proposes to vest a total of 524 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of NNCPC, including 430 units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza, the assignment of 15 un -built units to the San Joaquin Plaza, and through the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family units and the transfer of those units to the San Joaquin Plaza. Population growth associated with the 430 multi -family residential units already allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza and the 15 un -assigned and un -built multi -family units within Statistical Area L1 are consistent with the growth projections assumed in the General Plan EIR, and are therefore accounted for as part of the significant and unavoidable conflict with the 2003 AQMP as disclosed by the General Plan EIR. By contrast, the conversion of 79 un -built hotel units to residential units would result in an estimated increase in the City's permanent population by 173 persons (based on a person per household [pph] value of 2.19 cited in the General Plan EIR). It should be noted that the increase in the permanent population would be somewhat off -set by the reduction in transient population (i.e., hotel patrons) due to the reduction in the number of hotel units allowed within the City (79 units). As evaluated in the San Joaquin Plaza — Trip Generation letter (Stantec, May 2012), the 79 residential units proposed by the Project to be converted from hotel room units would generate 315 fewer daily trips, and thereby fewer operational air emissions than the 79 hotel rooms that were assumed in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, because the 2007 AQMP relied on land use and demographic data from the General Plan and the proposed Project would generate fewer emissions than assumed for General Plan buildout, the Project would not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP. As such, the proposed project is in compliance with Consistency Criterion No. 2 and would not result in greater emissions than what is already included in the General Plan. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 36 Since the project satisfies both of the two aforementioned criterion for determining consistency, the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts due to a Project -specific conflict with the AQMP, nor would the proposed Project result in a substantial increase in the severity of the General Plan's significant and unavoidable conflict with the AQMP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.. Additionally, to ensure continued progress toward clean air and compliance with state and federal requirements, the SCAQMD, in conjunction with the CARB and SCAG, is currently preparing the 2012 revision to its 2007 AQMP'. The 2012 AQMP will incorporate the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all sources, and updated emission inventory methodologies for stationary sources, on -road and off-road mobile sources, and area sources. No timetable for the release of the 2012 AQMP is available at this time, however, since the Project is deemed consistent with the 2007 AQMP it follows that the Project would also remain consistent with the 2012 AQMP, when it is released. 3.8 POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RECEPTORS The potential impact of Project -generated air pollutant emissions at sensitive receptors has also been considered. Sensitive receptors can include uses such as long term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, and retirement homes. Residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities can also be considered as sensitive receptors. The Project will not exceed the applicable regional thresholds during long-term operational activity, as such, a less than significant impact to any sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project is expected. The proposed Project would not result in a significant CO "hotspot" as a result of Project related traffic during ongoing operations, thus a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors during operational activity is expected. 3.9 ODORS The potential for the Project to generate objectionable odors has also been considered. Land uses generally associated with odor complaints include: • Agricultural uses (livestock and farming) • Wastewater treatment plants 3 http://www.agmd.gov/agmp/2012agmP/index.htm North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 37 • Food processing plants • Chemical plants • Composting operations • Refineries • Landfills • Dairies • Fiberglass molding facilities The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities, and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project's (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts resulting from construction activity. It should be noted that any construction odor emissions generated would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction activity and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project -generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City's solid waste regulations. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 3.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As previously indicated, air quality emissions associated with future construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, future construction activities would not result in any new or more severe cumulative impacts to air quality beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The Project area is designated as an extreme non -attainment area for ozone, and a non -attainment area for PM10 and PM2.5. Germane to this non -attainment status, the Project -specific evaluation of emissions associated with the addition of 94 multi -family units to the San Joaquin Plaza presented in the preceding analysis demonstrates that the Project will not result in an increased impact due to a conflict with the AQMP, which is designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the Project -related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds established by the SCAQMD for NOX, VOC, PM10, or PM2.5; as such, it follows that the emissions would not substantially contribute to a cumulative excedance of a pollutant for which the SCAB is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone, NOX, PM10, and/or PM2.5). The Project would comply with SCAQMD's Rule 403 (fugitive dust control) during construction, as well as all other adopted AQMP emissions control measures. Per SCAQMD rule and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements would also be imposed North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 38 on all projects Basin -wide, which would include all related projects. As such, Project -related criteria pollutant emissions would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 39 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 40 4.0 REFERENCES 1. California Air Resources Board, 2007. California Air Resources Board Almanac. 2. California Air Resources Board, 2007. EMFAC 2007. 3. EIP Associates, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 4. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 5. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModTM) 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), March 2009. CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2003. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 8. Stantec, 2012. North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis. North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 41 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN 42 APPENDIX A CaIEEModTM Input/Output Construction and Operational Emissions North Newport Center Planned Community Air Quality Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 AQ Report) OURBAN CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment Orange County, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Trips and VMT - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Vehicle Trips - trip rate data was sourced from Trip Generation 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 232) Date: 5/17/2012 2.0 Emissions Summary 1 of 10 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mitigated Construction 2of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of10 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total 14.31 4.63 58.20 0.12 4.46 0.18 9.70 0.15 0.18 5.39 663.33 6,175.70 2.80 0.05 6,914.85 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3of10 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 • 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total 14.31 4.63 58.20 0.12 4.46 0.18 9.70 0.15 0.18 5.39 663.33 6,175.70 2.80 0.05 6,914.85 3.0 Construction Detail 3of10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 0.00 Ib/day 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 4of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4of10 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 0.00 Ib/day 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5of10 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5of10 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Mitigated 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Unmitigated 1.92 3.47 18.87 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,693.29 ' 0.15 3,696.35 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse High Rise 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 Total 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 6of10 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.05 0.00 Category Ib/day b/day NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated 7of10 NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Condo/Townhouse' 6598.36 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise Total 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 7of10 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Condo/Townhouse' 6.59836 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise Total NA 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 NA 0.00 0.05 NA 0.00 0.05 NA 776.28 NA 0.01 0.01 781.00 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 8of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e Category b/day Ib/day Mitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 • 2,437.50 -------- -----*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*-------------*------*------*------*------*------ Unmitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8of10 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I I SubCategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products --- ------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------T------*------*------ ------ ------ Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 ----------- +------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ *------ ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Mitigated 9of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 9of10 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 10 of 10 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment Orange County, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Trips and VMT - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Vehicle Trips - trip rate data was sourced from Trip Generation 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 232) Date: 5/17/2012 2.0 Emissions Summary 1 of 10 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Mitigated Construction 2of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year Ib/day Ib/day 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2of10 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Total 14.42 5.00 57.70 0.12 4.46 0.18 9.70 0.15 0.18 5.39 663.33 5,968.97 2.80 0.05 6,708.12 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3of10 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Area 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 • 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Energy 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mobile 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Total 14.42 5.00 57.70 0.12 4.46 0.18 9.70 0.15 0.18 5.39 663.33 5,968.97 2.80 0.05 6,708.12 3.0 Construction Detail 3of10 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 0.00 Ib/day 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 4of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4of10 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 0.00 Ib/day 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5of10 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category Ib/day Ib/day Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 5of10 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category Ib/day Ib/day Mitigated 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Unmitigated 2.03 3.84 18.37 0.04 4.46 0.18 4.64 0.15 0.18 0.33 3,486.56 ' 0.15 3,489.62 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse High Rise 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 Total 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 6of10 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.05 0.00 Category Ib/day b/day NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated 7of10 NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Condo/Townhouse' 6598.36 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise Total 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 7of10 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Land Use kBTU Ib/day Ib/day Condo/Townhouse' 6.59836 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 776.28 0.01 0.01 781.00 High Rise Total NA 0.07 0.61 0.26 0.00 NA 0.00 0.05 NA 0.00 0.05 NA 776.28 NA 0.01 0.01 781.00 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 8of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 I CO2e Category b/day Ib/day Mitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 • 2,437.50 -------- -----*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*-------------*------*------*------*------*------ Unmitigated 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 ' 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8of10 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I I SubCategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products --- ------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------.------T------*------*------ ------ ------ Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 ----------- +------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ *------ ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 Mitigated 9of10 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory Ib/day Ib/day Architectural 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Hearth 10.01 0.46 31.11 0.08 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.97 663.33 1,692.00 ' 2.63 0.04 2,423.06 Landscaping 0.25 0.09 7.96 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 14.13 0.01 14.44 Total 12.32 0.55 39.07 0.08 0.00 5.01 0.00 5.01 663.33 1,706.13 2.64 0.04 2,437.50 9of10 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Vegetation 10 of 10 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix B Greenhouse Gas Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc. June 6, 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach URBAN CROSSROADS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Haseeb Qureshi, MES Prepared for: Ms. Tracy Zinn T&B Planning 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA June 6, 2012 JN:08210-05 GHG REPORT HQ TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................4 1.1 Purpose of Report.................................................................................................4 12 Project Overview................................................................................................... 7 1.3 Summary of Findings............................................................................................9 1.4 Requirements........................................................................................................9 1.5 Construction Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures................................10 1.6 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures...................................10 2.0 Background....................................................................................................................11 2.1 Introduction to Global Climate Change...............................................................11 2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories.............................................................11 2.3 Global Climate Change Defined..........................................................................13 2.4 Greenhouse Gases.............................................................................................13 2.5 Effects of Climate Change In California..............................................................17 2.6 Human Health Effects.........................................................................................20 2.7 Regulatory Setting...............................................................................................22 2.9 Discussion on Establishment of Significance Thresholds...................................31 2.10 City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan Update Final Program EIR...............32 3.0 Project Greenhouse Gas Impact....................................................................................34 3.1 Project Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................... 34 3.2 Life -Cycle Analysis.............................................................................................. 34 3.3 Construction Emissions.......................................................................................34 3.4 Operational Emissions........................................................................................ 35 3.4.1 Building Energy Use 3.4.2 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution 3.4.3 Solid Waste 3.4.4 Mobile Source Emissions 3.5 Emissions Summary...........................................................................................36 3.6 GHG Emissions Findings and Recommendations..............................................38 3.7 Requirements......................................................................................................40 3.8 Construction Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures................................41 3.9 Operational Activity Recommended Mitigation Measures...................................41 4.0 References....................................................................................................................42 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page GHG Emissions Calculations..................................................................................................... A North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2-1 Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Union................................................12 2-2 Global Warming Potentials and Atmospheric Lifetime of Select GHGs .........................14 2-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures toward 2020 Target.......................................27 3-1 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual) (Metric Tons Per Year) .............................. 37 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the greenhouse gas analysis (GHGA) conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc., for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project'). 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which requires the City to analyze whether subsequent activities regarding the North Newport Center zoning require an additional environmental document beyond the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) ("General Plan EIR"), and the first North Newport Center Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, approved by Resolution No. 2007-79 on December 11, 2007. The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of North Newport Center. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this report analyzes whether the Project would have effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR and confirms that the Project will not result in new effects and will not require new mitigation measures so that the City can determine whether it is appropriate to approve the Project as within the scope of the General Plan EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15168(e), this report also analyzes whether: (i) the Project is within the scope of the General Plan 2006 Update; and (ii) the General Plan EIR adequately describes the subsequent activity for the purposes of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a) states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR may be required for the project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 4 (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this GHGA evaluates Project -related construction and operational emissions and determines the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts as a result of constructing and operating the proposed Project. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination has been included at the request of the City in order to provide public information regarding how the Project standing alone would impact GHG emissions. Crucial to the City's consideration of the above -stated factors in the GHG context is the fact that the proposed Project serves to implement principal goals of the 2006 General Plan. These goals and policies include the following:' A successful mixed-use district that integrates an economic and commercial center serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs commerce entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment. ' City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, pages 3-97 to 3-98. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 5 Provide the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LUI and LU2. Provide the opportunity for an additional anchor tenant, other retail, and/or entertainment and supporting uses that complement, are integrated with and enhance the economic vitality of existing development. Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. Encourage that pedestrian access and connections among uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. Full implementation of entitlements for North Newport Center consistent with the 2006 General Plan will assist the City in achieving its General Plan goals. Regarding long- term air quality impacts, the General Plan EIR states that the nature of North Newport Center has the potential to contribute to decreases in vehicle miles traveled because the project area promotes a mixed-use pedestrian -friendly distriCt. 2 This report analyzes and confirms that the Project is not expected to result in any climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions beyond the impacts of the development set forth in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of future development in the City, inclusive of North Newport Center. The analysis included carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions. This report analyzes and confirms that the Project would not generate any new air quality impacts not already identified in the General Plan EIR, and that the Project is in conformance with the assumptions set forth in the General Plan EIR. This report will enable the City to confirm that implementation of the Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. With respect to global climate change (GCC) resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, no new information of substantial importance on climate change is now available that was not known and could not have been known when the City approved the General Plan EIR in 2006. For example, in 1979 the National Research Council published Carbon Dioxide and Climate A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. The 2 City of Newport Beach, Final Environmental impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), July 26, 2006, page 4.2-12. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 6 State of California adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. Consideration of strategies to control emissions of greenhouse gases which may contribute in some manner to global climate change is under consideration at all regulatory levels; however, there is no one agency responsible for regulating greenhouse gases, and there are no established standards to evaluate the significance of greenhouse gas emissions. However, the most common greenhouse gas emissions are from vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption. These issues have been addressed in the General Plan EIR. Analyses prepared for or by California State Agencies on climate change issues do not provide for the provision of specific measures to incorporate into particular projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, except for generalized recommendations about such matters as encouraging jobs/housing proximity. The California Energy Commission has explained that accessibility and mixed use are two factors that reduce vehicles trips, which are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions in California.3 In addition, the Project's incremental contribution to any cumulative global climate change impact is mitigated by various characteristics of the Project that serve to render its contribution less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main concerns raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would serve to potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase those vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project would allow for in -fill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips. While this GHGA indicates that the Project would produce GHG emissions, the potential GHG emissions associated with the Project would not exceed those estimated in 2006 because the Project is not larger in size or scope than the full buildout of the 2006 General Plan analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Thus, this report concludes that there are no new significant GHG impacts resulting from the Project nor is there any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified GHG impacts. 1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU -H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU -H3 category throughout the Newport Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU -H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically assigned to the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC 3 California Energy Commission, The Role of Land Use in Meeting California's Energy and Climate Change Goals, Draft, June 26, 2007, pages 7, 17-19. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 7 Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU -H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU -H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU -H3 units are not assigned to any particular property. In addition, certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L1) is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un -built. The proposed Project would convert the 79 un -built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Under existing conditions, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are developed with commercial/office land uses and the Island Hotel. No multi -family residential units are constructed in these areas, although the NNCPC Development Plan allows for up to 430 residential units. Thus, the City's General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan currently allow for the existing land uses in Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza to be supplemented by or partially replaced with multi -family residential housing. The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising 15 un -assigned and un -built multi- family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units) and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza. No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NNCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NNCPC Development Plan Amendment. Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of emissions that may be associated with future construction -related GHG emissions is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. For purposes of this analysis, the greenhouse gas impacts centered on the on-going operations of the 94 units are evaluated. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 8 1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS • The Project will not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. • The Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 1.4 REQUIREMENTS The issue of GHG emissions was not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; as such, no mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions was identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, and the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable General Plan goals and policies. Additionally, although the Project will not result in a new significant GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions. Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are: • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 9 • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. 1.5 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. 1.6 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 10 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 INTRODUCTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. GCC is currently one of the most controversial environmental issues in the United States, and much debate exists within the scientific community about whether or not GCC is occurring naturally or as a result of human activity. Some data suggests that GCC has occurred in the past over the course of thousands or millions of years. These historical changes to the Earth's climate have occurred naturally without human influence, as in the case of an ice age. However, many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. An individual project like the proposed Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, the proposed Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of greenhouse gasses combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC. Section 3.0 will evaluate the potential for the proposed Project to have an effect upon the environment as a result of its potential contribution to the greenhouse effect. 2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORIES Global Worldwide anthropogenic (man-made) GHG emissions are tracked by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex 1) and developing nations (referred to as Non -Annex 1). Man-made GHG emissions data for Annex I nations are available through 2009. Man- made GHG emissions data for Non -Annex I nations are available through 2007. For the Year 2009 the sum of these emissions totaled approximately 40,084 MMTCO2e.4 Emissions from the top five countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 65 percent of the total global GHG 4 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non -Annex I countries, without counting Land -Use, Land -Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). For countries without 2005 data, the UNFCCC data for the most recent year were used. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Annex I Parties — GHG total without LULUCF," http://unfccc.int/qhq emissions data/qhq data from unfccc/time series annex i/items/3841.php and "Flexible GHG Data Queries" with selections for total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF/LUCF, all years, and non -Annex I countries, http://unfccc.int/di/FlexibleQueries/Event.do?event= showProjection. n.d. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 11 emissions, according to the most recently available data (see Table 2-1, Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Union). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in Table 2-1; however, the data is representative of currently available inventory data. United States As noted in Table 2-1, the United States was the number two producer of GHG emissions in 2009. The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 83 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.5 Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions, accounted for approximately 78 percent of the GHG emissions.6 TABLE 2-1 TOP GHG PRODUCER COUNTRIES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION' Emitting Countries GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e) China 6,703 United States 6,608 European Union 8,338 Russian Federation 2,159 India 1,410 Japan 1,209 Total 26,427 State of California CARB compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based upon the 2008 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available) for the 2000-2008 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, California emitted 474 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2008.$ Based on the CARB inventory data and GHG inventories compiled by the World Resources Institute9, California's total statewide GHG emissions rank second in the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 417 MMTCO2e excluding emissions related to imported power. 5 US Environmental Protection Agency, "Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2009," http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usqqinventory.html. 2011. ' ibid World Resources Institute, " Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT) Excludes emissions and removals from land use, land -use change and forestry (LULUCF) Emissions Inventory," http://cait.wri.org s California Air Resources Board, "California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary," http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 2010. 9 World Resources Institute, " Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (GAIT) -US — Yearly Emissions Inventory," http://cait.wri.org North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 12 2.3 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE DEFINED Global Climate Change (GCC) refers to the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, wind patterns, precipitation and storms. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N2O (Nitrous Oxide), CH4 (Methane), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the Earth's atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the climate change since the industrial revolution differs from previous climate changes in both rate and magnitude (CARB, 2004, Technical Support document for Staff Proposal Regarding Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles). Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often referred to as greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere by both natural and anthropogenic (human) activity. Without the natural greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average temperature would be approximately 61' Fahrenheit (F) cooler than it is currently. The cumulative accumulation of these gases in the earth's atmosphere is considered to be the cause for the observed increase in the earth's temperature. Although California's rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is slowing, the state is still a substantial contributor to the U.S. emissions inventory total. In 2004, California is estimated to have produced 492 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas emissions. Despite a population increase of 16 percent between 1990 and 2004, California has significantly slowed the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions due to the implementation of energy efficiency programs as well as adoption of strict emission controls.10 2.4 GREENHOUSE GASES For the purposes of this analysis, emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide were evaluated (see Table 3-4 later in this report) because these gasses are the primary contributors to GCC from development projects. Although other substances such as fluorinated gases also contribute to GCC, sources of fluorinated gases are not well defined and no accepted emissions factors or methodology exist to accurately calculate these gases. Greenhouse gases have varying global warming potential (GWP) values; GWP values represent the potential of a gas to trap heat in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is utilized as the reference gas for GWP, and thus has a GWP of 1. 10 California Energy Commission, "Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks," http://www.energy. ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-025/CEC-600-2005-025. PDF. 2005. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 13 The atmospheric lifetime and GWP of selected greenhouse gases are summarized in the following Table. As shown in the table below, GWP range from 1 for carbon dioxide to 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride. TABLE 2-2 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND ATMOSPHERIC LIFETIME OF SELECT GHGS Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (years) Global Warming Potential (100 year time horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1 Methane 12 ± 3 21 Nitrous Oxide 120 310 HFC -23 264 11,700 HFC -134a 14.6 1,300 HFC -152a 1.5 140 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CH4) 50,000 6,500 PFC: Hexafluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 9,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 Source: EPA 2006 (URL: http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/table.html) Water Vapor: Water vapor (1-120) is the most abundant, important, and variable greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is not considered a pollutant; in the atmosphere it maintains a climate necessary for life. Changes in its concentration are primarily considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. A climate feedback is an indirect, or secondary, change, either positive or negative, that occurs within the climate system in response to a forcing mechanism. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change. As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the relative humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to `hold' more water when it is warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a GHG, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal indirect energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a "positive feedback loop." The extent to which this positive feedback loop will continue is unknown as there are also dynamics that hold the positive feedback loop in check. As an example, when water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 14 There are no human health effects from water vapor itself; however, when some pollutants come in contact with water vapor, they can dissolve and the water vapor can then act as a pollutant -carrying agent. The main source of water vapor is evaporation from the oceans (approximately 85 percent)." Other sources include: evaporation from other water bodies, sublimation (change from solid to gas) from sea ice and snow, and transpiration from plant leaves. Carbon Dioxide: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an odorless and colorless GHG. Outdoor levels of carbon dioxide are not high enough to result in negative health effects. Carbon dioxide is emitted from natural and manmade sources. Natural sources include: the decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing. Anthropogenic sources include: the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. Carbon dioxide is naturally removed from the air by photosynthesis, dissolution into ocean water, transfer to soils and ice caps, and chemical weathering of carbonate rocks12. Since the industrial revolution began in the mid -1700s, the sort of human activity that increases GHG emissions has increased dramatically in scale and distribution. Data from the past 50 years suggests a corollary increase in levels and concentrations. As an example, prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 concentrations were fairly stable at 280 parts per million (ppm). Today, they are around 370 ppm, an increase of more than 30 percent. Left unchecked, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is projected to increase to a minimum of 540 ppm by 2100 as a direct result of anthropogenic sources. 13 Methane: Methane (CH4) is an extremely effective absorber of radiation, though its atmospheric concentration is less than carbon dioxide and its lifetime in the atmosphere is brief (10-12 years), compared to other GHGs. No health effects are known to occur from exposure to methane. Methane has both natural and anthropogenic sources. It is released as part of the biological processes in low oxygen environments, such as in swamplands or in rice production (at the roots of the plants). Over the last 50 years, human activities such as growing rice, raising cattle, using natural gas, and mining coal have added to the atmospheric concentration of methane. Other anthropocentric sources include fossil -fuel combustion and biomass burning. 14 Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide (N20), also known as laughing gas, is a colorless greenhouse gas. Nitrous oxide can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. In small doses, it is 11 ibid. 12 On awarmer Earth, chemical weathering is promoted by more vigorous cycling of water through the atmosphere and higher temperatures. "More chemical weathering removes more CO2 from the atmosphere as carbonic acid reacts with silicate minerals, producing bicarbonate ion." Carbon Cycle and Climate Change — J Bret Bennington, Hofstra University. http://www.cengage.com/custom/enrichment modules/data/Carbon _ Cycle_0495738557_LowRes. pdf 13 International Panel on Climate Change 2007, "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report," http://www. ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg 1 _report_the_physical_science_basis. htm 14 ibid. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 15 considered harmless. However, in some cases, heavy and extended use can cause Olney's Lesions (brain damage)15 Concentrations of nitrous oxide also began to rise at the beginning of the industrial revolution. In 1998, the global concentration was 314 parts per billion (ppb). 16 Nitrous oxide is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel -fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used as an aerosol spray propellant, i.e., in whipped cream bottles. It is also used in potato chip bags to keep chips fresh. It is used in rocket engines and in race cars. Nitrous oxide can be transported into the stratosphere, be deposited on the Earth's surface, and be converted to other compounds by chemical reaction Chlorofluorocarbons: Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane (CA) with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. CFCs are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble and chemically unreactive in the troposphere (the level of air at the Earth's surface). CFCs are no longer being used; therefore, it is not likely that health effects would be experienced. Nonetheless, in confined indoor locations, working with CFC -113 or other CFCs is thought to result in death by cardiac arrhythmia (heart frequency too high or too low) or asphyxiation. CFCs have no natural source, but were first synthesized in 1928. They were used for refrigerants, aerosol propellants and cleaning solvents. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken and was extremely successful, so much so that levels of the major CFCs are now remaining steady or declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. Hydrofluorocarbons: Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are synthetic, man-made chemicals that are used as a substitute for CFCs. Out of all the greenhouse gases, they are one of three groups with the highest global warming potential. The HFCs with the largest measured atmospheric abundances are (in order), HFC -23 (CHF3), HFC -134a (CF3CH2F), and HFC -152a (CH3CHF2). Prior to 1990, the only significant emissions were of HFC -23. HFC -134a emissions are increasing due to its use as a refrigerant. The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of HFC -23 and HFC -134a are now about 10 parts per trillion (ppt) each; and that concentrations of HFC -152a are about 1 ppt.17 No health effects are known to result from exposure to HFCs, which are manmade for applications such as automobile air conditioners and refrigerants. 15 U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Nitrous Oxide. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/nitrousoxide/recognition.html 16 ibid. 17 U.S. EPA. High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. httr)://www.er)a.gov/highgwi)/scientific.html North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 16 Perfluorocarbons: Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) have stable molecular structures and do not break down through chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. High-energy ultraviolet rays, which occur about 60 kilometers above Earth's surface, are able to destroy the compounds. Because of this, PFCs have very long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two common PFCs are tetrafluoromethane (CF4) and hexafluoroethane (C2F6). The U.S. EPA estimates that concentrations of CF4 in the atmosphere are over 70 ppt.18 No health effects are known to result from exposure to PFCs. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacture. Sulfur Hexafluoride: Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It also has the highest GWP of any gas evaluated (23,900). The U.S. EPA indicates that concentrations in the 1990s were about 4 ppt.19 In high concentrations in confined areas, the gas presents the hazard of suffocation because it displaces the oxygen needed for breathing. Sulfur hexafluoride is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. 2.5 EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA The California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) published a report titled "Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview" (Climate Scenarios report) in February 2006 (California Climate Change Center 2006), that while not adequate for a CEQA project -specific or cumulative analysis, is generally instructive about the statewide impacts of global warming. The Climate Scenarios report uses a range of emissions scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project a series of potential warming ranges (i.e., temperature increases) that may occur in California during the 21St century: lower warming range (3.0-5.5°F); medium warming range (5.5-8.0°F); and higher warming range (8.0-10.50F). The Climate Scenarios report then presents an analysis of future climate in California under each warming range, that while uncertain, present a picture of the impacts of global climate change trends in California. In addition, most recently on August 5, 2009, the State's Natural Resources Agency released a public review draft of its "California Climate Adaptation Strategy" report that details many vulnerabilities arising from climate change with respect to matters such as temperature extremes, sea level rise, wildfires, floods and droughts and precipitation changes. This report responds to the Governor's Executive Order S-13-2008 that called on state agencies to develop California's strategy to identify and prepare for expected climate impacts 18 ibid. 19 ibid. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 17 According to the reports, substantial temperature increases arising from increased GHG emissions potentially could result in a variety of impacts to the people, economy, and environment of California associated with a projected increase in extreme conditions, with the severity of the impacts depending upon actual future emissions of GHGs and associated warming. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report, the impacts of global warming in California have the potential to include, but are not limited to, the following areas: Public Health According to Cal EPA, higher temperatures may increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation could increase from 25 to 35 percent under the lower warming range to 75 to 85 percent under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become difficult to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances, depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced. In addition, under the higher warming range scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90°F in Los Angeles and 95°F in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures could increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat. Water Resources A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts captures and transports water throughout the state from northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. If temperatures continue to increase, more precipitation could fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall could melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent. Under the lower warming range scenario, snowpack losses could be only half as large as those possible if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snowpack could be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snowpack could pose challenges to water managers and hamper hydropower generation. It could also adversely affect winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the ski season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as a North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 18 month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing and snowboarding. The State's water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater could degrade California's estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta — a major fresh water supply. Agriculture Increased temperatures could cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. First, California farmers could possibly lose as much as 25 percent of the water supply they need. Although higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water -use efficiency, California's farmers could face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise. Crop growth and development could change, as could the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures could aggravate 03 pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth. Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less -than -optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures could worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California's agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts. In addition, continued global climate change could shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion could occur in many species while range contractions may be less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, new or different weed species could fill the emerging gaps. Continued global climate change could alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests' breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates. Forests and Landscapes Global climate change has the potential to intensify the current threat to forests and landscapes by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55 percent, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. In contrast, wildfires in northern California could increase by up to 90 percent due to decreased precipitation. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 19 Moreover, continued global climate change has the potential to alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state's forests has the potential to decrease as a result of global climate change. Rising Sea Levels Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures could increasingly threaten the state's coastal regions. Under the higher warming range scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate low-lying coastal areas with salt water, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats. Under the lower warming range scenario, sea level could rise 12-14 inches. 2.6 HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS The potential health effects related directly to the emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide as they relate to development projects such as the proposed Project are still being debated in the scientific community. Their cumulative effects to global climate change have the potential to cause adverse effects to human health. Increases in Earth's ambient temperatures would result in more intense heat waves, causing more heat -related deaths. Scientists also purport that higher ambient temperatures would increase disease survival rates and result in more widespread disease. Climate change will likely cause shifts in weather patterns, potentially resulting in devastating droughts and food shortages in some areas (American Lung Association, 2004). Figure 1 presents the potential impacts of global warming. Specific health effects associated with directly emitted GHG emissions are as follows: Water Vapor: There are no known direct health effects related to water vapor at this time. It should be noted however that when some pollutants react with water vapor, the reaction forms a transport mechanism for some of these pollutants to enter the human body through water vapor. Carbon Dioxide: According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) high concentrations of carbon dioxide can result in health effects such as: headaches, dizziness, restlessness, difficulty breathing, sweating, increased heart rate, increased cardiac output, increased blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and/or convulsions. It should be noted that current concentrations of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere are estimated to be approximately 370 parts per million (ppm), the actual reference exposure level (level at which adverse health effects typically occur) is at exposure levels of 5,000 ppm averaged over 10 hours in a 40 -hour workweek and short-term reference exposure levels of 30,000 ppm averaged over a 15 minute period (NIOSH 2005). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 20 Higher Emission! 5cenado Medium, High Emission Scenario Figure 1 Summary of Projected Global Warming Impactr2070�-2099 (as compared with 1961-1990) 13•F 90%hssin 2.2-10 inns of seaJewelW-F 11 3-4 times as marry heat wave days in rnajar urban centers • d-6timesasmany heat -rehteddeaths nnwjorurban renIers 1 t 25 times mare critical Iydryyears higher 20%ixraaseinenergy demand 74 Warming Range 0"Q539 Lown • 30-604;bssinSierra snowpad; Warning Range 3 13-5_e4I lrlSinchesofsea level rise • 2-2.5times asmarry heat wave daysinmajorurban centers 7 2-3timesas marry heat -related deathsin major urban centers 25-35%increase in days conducive to o-mne formation' t Llpto 15 times more critically dryyean • 3-6%increaseinelect6citydemand 0 7'-14% decrease in forst yields {pine; I o -354i increase in the risk of large w tfirs �r-,r high omo kr team in ren orgda; uv &i and thaw ku Itmwa4;milt+; Source: California Energy Commission, 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. Methane: Methane is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogen -containing compounds. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space (OSHA 2003). Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous Oxide is often referred to as laughing gas; it is a colorless greenhouse gas. The health effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrous oxide include dizziness, euphoria, slight hallucinations, and in extreme cases of elevated concentrations nitrous oxide can also cause brain damage (OSHA 1999). Fluorinated Gases: High concentrations of fluorinated gases can also result in adverse health effects such as asphyxiation, dizziness, headache, cardiovascular disease, cardiac disorders, and in extreme cases, increased mortality (NIOSH 1989, 1997). Aerosols: The health effects of aerosols are similar to that of other fine particulate matter. Thus aerosols can cause elevated respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as increased mortality (NASA 2002). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 21 • 70-W%lass in Sierra snowpack • 14-22 inches of sealerelrise d 25-4 times as many heat wave days In mai Dr urban centffs 2-6timesas many heat -related deaths in major urban centers 2 Medium 75-W% increase indays conducivetoo-mnefoenation' Wwrnng Range {S.ggeFl .2-2.5 tin -Hes more oribcaiy dry years 6 10% increase in deJuioty demand • 3o% decrease nfamayieks (pirwl i 55% increase in the expected risk of largewikifres Lown • 30-604;bssinSierra snowpad; Warning Range 3 13-5_e4I lrlSinchesofsea level rise • 2-2.5times asmarry heat wave daysinmajorurban centers 7 2-3timesas marry heat -related deathsin major urban centers 25-35%increase in days conducive to o-mne formation' t Llpto 15 times more critically dryyean • 3-6%increaseinelect6citydemand 0 7'-14% decrease in forst yields {pine; I o -354i increase in the risk of large w tfirs �r-,r high omo kr team in ren orgda; uv &i and thaw ku Itmwa4;milt+; Source: California Energy Commission, 2006. Our Changing Climate, Assessing the Risks to California, 2006 Biennial Report. Methane: Methane is extremely reactive with oxidizers, halogens, and other halogen -containing compounds. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space (OSHA 2003). Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous Oxide is often referred to as laughing gas; it is a colorless greenhouse gas. The health effects associated with exposure to elevated concentrations of nitrous oxide include dizziness, euphoria, slight hallucinations, and in extreme cases of elevated concentrations nitrous oxide can also cause brain damage (OSHA 1999). Fluorinated Gases: High concentrations of fluorinated gases can also result in adverse health effects such as asphyxiation, dizziness, headache, cardiovascular disease, cardiac disorders, and in extreme cases, increased mortality (NIOSH 1989, 1997). Aerosols: The health effects of aerosols are similar to that of other fine particulate matter. Thus aerosols can cause elevated respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as well as increased mortality (NASA 2002). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 21 2.7 REGULATORY SETTING International Regulation and the Kyoto Protocol: In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the impacts of global warming and to develop strategies that nations could implement to curtail global climate change. In 1992, the United States joined other countries around the world in signing the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement with the goal of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the Climate Change Action Plan was developed to address the reduction of GHGs in the United States. The Plan currently consists of more than 50 voluntary programs for member nations to adopt. The Kyoto protocol is a treaty made under the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. Some have estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto protocol are met, global GHG emissions could be reduced an estimated five percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008-2012. Notably, while the United States is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, Congress has not ratified the Protocol and the United States is not bound by the Protocol's commitments. In December 2009, international leaders from 192 nations met in Copenhagen to address the future of international climate change commitments post -Kyoto. Federal Regulation and the Clean Air Act: Coinciding 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, on December 7, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Endangerment Finding under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, opening the door to federal regulation of GHGs. The Endangerment Finding notes that GHGs threaten public health and welfare and are subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. To date, the EPA has not promulgated regulations on GHG emissions, but it has already begun to develop them. Previously the EPA had not regulated GHGs under the Clean Air Act because it asserted that the Act did not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change and that such regulation would be unwise without an unequivocally established causal link between GHGs and the increase in global surface air temperatures. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. (127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), however, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and directed the EPA to decide whether the gases endangered public health or welfare. The EPA had also not moved aggressively to regulate GHGs because it expected Congress to make progress on GHG legislation, primarily from the standpoint of a cap -and -trade system. However, proposals circulated in both the House of Representative and Senate have been controversial and it may be some time before the U.S. Congress adopts major climate change legislation. The EPA's Endangerment Finding paves the way for federal regulation of GHGs with or without Congress. Although global climate change did not become an international concern until the 1980s, efforts to reduce energy consumption began in California in response to the oil crisis in the 1970s, resulting in the North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 22 incidental reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In order to manage the state's energy needs and promote energy efficiency, AB 1575 created the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1975. Title 24 Energy Standards: The California Energy Commission (CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2010. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to "improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: (1) Planning and design; (2) Energy efficiency; (3) Water efficiency and conservation; (4) Material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) Environmental air quality. ,20 The CALGreen Code is not intended to substitute or be identified as meeting the certification requirements of any green building program that is not established and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). The CBSC has released the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code on its Web site.21 Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject of the requirements of the CALGreen Code. California Assembly Bill No. 1493 (AB 1493): AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and adopt the nation's first greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles. The Legislature declared in AB 1493 that global warming was a matter of increasing concern for public health and environment in California. Further, the legislature stated that technological solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would stimulate the California economy and provide jobs. To meet the requirements of AB 1493, ARB approved amendments to the California Code of Regulations (CCR) adding GHG emission standards to California's existing motor vehicle emission standards in 2004. Amendments to CCR Title 13 Sections 1900 (CCR 13 1900) and 1961 (CCR 13 1961) and adoption of Section 1961.1 (CCR 13 1961.1) require automobile manufacturers to meet fleet average GHG emission limits for all passenger cars, light-duty trucks within various weight criteria, and 20 California Building Standards Commission, 2008 California Green Building Standards Code, (2009). 21 "CALGreen," http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/default.htm. 2010 North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 23 medium -duty passenger vehicle weight classes beginning with the 2009 model year. Emission limits are further reduced each model year through 2016. In December 2004 a group of car dealerships, automobile manufacturers, and trade groups representing automobile manufacturers filed suit against ARB to prevent enforcement of CCR 13 1900 and CCR 13 1961 as amended by AB 1493 and CCR 13 1961.1 (Central Valley Chrysler -Jeep et al. v. Catherine E. Witherspoon, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the California Air Resources Board, et al.). The suit, heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, contended that California's implementation of regulations that in effect regulate vehicle fuel economy violates various federal laws, regulations, and policies. In January 2007, the judge hearing the case accepted a request from the State Attorney General's office that the trial be postponed until a decision is reached by the U.S. Supreme Court on a separate case addressing GHGs. In the Supreme Court Case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, the primary issue in question is whether the federal CAA provides authority for USEPA to regulate CO2 emissions. In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts' favor, holding that GHGs are air pollutants under the CAA. On December 11, 2007, the judge in the Central Valley Chrysler -Jeep case rejected each plaintiff's arguments and ruled in California's favor. On December 19, 2007, the USEPA denied California's waiver request. California filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging USEPA's denial on January 2, 2008. The Obama administration subsequently directed the USEPA to re-examine their decision. On May 19, 2009, challenging parties, automakers, the State of California, and the federal government reached an agreement on a series of actions that would resolve these current and potential future disputes over the standards through model year 2016. In summary, the USEPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation agreed to adopt a federal program to reduce GHGs and improve fuel economy, respectively, from passenger vehicles in order to achieve equivalent or greater greenhouse gas benefits as the AB 1493 regulations for the 2012-2016 model years. Manufacturers agreed to ultimately drop current and forego similar future legal challenges, including challenging a waiver grant, which occurred on June 30, 2009. The State of California committed to (1) revise its standards to allow manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the fleet -average GHG emission standard by "pooling" California and specified State vehicle sales; (2) revise its standards for 2012-2016 model year vehicles so that compliance with USEPA-adopted GHG standards would also comply with California's standards; and (3) revise its standards, as necessary, to allow manufacturers to use emissions data from the federal CAFE program to demonstrate compliance with the AB 1493 regulations (CARB 2009, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/ghgpvO9/ghgpvisor.pdf) both of these programs are aimed at light- duty auto and light-duty trucks. Executive Order S-3-05: Executive Order S-3-05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra's snowpack, further exacerbate California's air quality problems, and potentially North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 24 cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total greenhouse gas emission targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. The Executive Order directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to coordinate a multi -agency effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the target levels. The Secretary also is required to submit biannual reports to the Governor and state Legislature describing: (1) progress made toward reaching the emission targets; (2) impacts of global warming on California's resources; and (3) mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. To comply with the Executive Order, the Secretary of the CaIEPA created a Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of members from various state agencies and commission. CAT released its first report in March 2006. The report proposed to achieve the targets by building on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, as well as through state incentive and regulatory programs. California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32): In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Climate Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources. AB 32 specifies that regulations adopted in response to AB 1493 should be used to address GHG emissions from vehicles. However, AB 32 also includes language stating that if the AB 1493 regulations cannot be implemented, then CARB should develop new regulations to control vehicle GHG emissions under the authorization of AB 32. AB 32 requires that CARB adopt a quantified cap on GHG emissions representing 1990 emissions levels and disclose how it arrives at the cap; institute a schedule to meet the emissions cap; and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the state achieves reductions in GHG emissions necessary to meet the cap. AB 32 also includes guidance to institute emissions reductions in an economically efficient manner and conditions to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly affected by the reductions. In November 2007, CARB completed its estimates of 1990 GHG levels. Net emission 1990 levels were estimated at 427 MMTs (emission sources by sector were: transportation — 35 percent; electricity generation — 26 percent; industrial — 24 percent; residential — 7 percent; agriculture — 5 percent; and commercial — 3 percent)22. Accordingly, 427 MMTs of CO2 equivalent was established as the emissions limit for 2020. For comparison, CARB's estimate for baseline GHG emissions was 473 MMT for 2000 and 532 MMT for 2010. "Business as usual" conditions (without the 30 percent reduction to be implemented by CARB regulations) for 2020 were projected to be 596 MMTs. 22 On a national level, the EPA's Endangerment Finding stated that electricity generation is the largest emitting sector (34%), followed by transportation (28%), and industry (19%). North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 25 In December 2007, CARB approved a regulation for mandatory reporting and verification of GHG emissions for major sources. This regulation covered major stationary sources such as cement plans, oil refineries, electric generating facilities/providers, and co -generation facilities, which comprise 94 percent of the point source CO2 emissions in the State. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted a scoping plan to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The Scoping Plan's recommendations for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include emission reduction measures, including a cap -and -trade program linked to Western Climate Initiative partner jurisdictions, green building strategies, recycling and waste -related measures, as well as Voluntary Early Actions and Reductions. Implementation of individual measures must begin no later than January 1, 2012, so that the emissions reduction target can be fully achieved by 2020. Table 2-3 shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, local land use changes are estimated to result in a reduction of 5 MMTons of CO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments will play in successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of 2006 levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community -wide emissions match the state's reduction target. According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTons tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). California Senate Bill No. 1368 (SB 1368 In 2006, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1368 ("SB 1368"), which was subsequently signed into law by the Governor. SB 1368 directs the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") to adopt a greenhouse gas emission performance standard ("EPS") for the future power purchases of California utilities. SB 1368 seeks to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California by forbidding procurement arrangements for energy longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. Due to the carbon content of its fuel source, a coal-fired plant cannot meet this standard because such plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as natural gas, combined cycle plants. Accordingly, the new law will effectively prevent California's utilities from investing in, otherwise financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State. Thus, SB 1368 will lead to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with California energy demand, as SB 1368 will effectively prohibit California utilities from purchasing power from out of state producers that cannot satisfy the EPS standard required by SB 1368. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 26 TABLE 2-3 SCOPING PLAN GHG REDUCTION MEASURES TOWARD 2020 TARGET North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) 27 Vim► URBAN Reductions Percentage Counted of toward Statewide 2020 Target of 2020 Recommended Reduction Measures 169 MMT CO2e Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation -Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20% Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and 1.1 1% trade program) Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1% Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100% Other Recommended Measures — Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined2 NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1% Total Other Recommended Measures — Not Counted toward 42.8 NA 2020 Target Source: CARB. 2008, MMTons CO2e: million metric tons of CO2e 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by approximately 2 percent through land use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 million metric tons of CO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 Target North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) 27 Vim► URBAN Senate Bill 97 (SB 97): Pursuant to the direction of SB 97, OPR released preliminary draft CEQA Guideline amendments for greenhouse gas emissions on January 8, 2009, and submitted its final proposed guidelines to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency adopted the Guideline amendments and they became effective on March 18, 2010. Of note, the new guidelines state that a lead agency shall have discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative model or methodology, or in the alternative, rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards. CEQA Guideline § 15064.4(a)"A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project, and which model or methodology to use ...; or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards." CEQA emphasizes that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA's requirements for cumulative impacts analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(f)). Section 15064.4(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides direction for lead agencies for assessing the significance of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions: 1. The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; 2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; or 3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations or requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must include specific requirements that reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. The CEQA Guideline amendments do not identify a threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions, nor do they prescribe assessment methodologies or specific mitigation measures. Instead, they call for a "good -faith effort, based on available information, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project." The amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis and preserve lead agencies' North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 28 discretion to make their own determinations based upon substantial evidence. The amendments also encourage public agencies to make use of programmatic mitigation plans and programs from which to tier when they perform individual project analyses. Specific GHG language incorporated in the Guidelines' suggested Environmental Checklist (Guidelines Appendix G) is as follows: VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Executive Order S-01-07: On January 18, 2007 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, through Executive Order S-01-07, mandated a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuel by at least ten percent by 2020. The order also requires that a California specific Low Carbon Fuel Standard be established for transportation fuels. Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Order S-14-08: SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) requires retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20% of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010. In November 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expands the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable power by 2020. Senate Bill 375: SB 375, signed in September 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008), aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a sustainable communities strategy (SCS) or alternative planning strategy (APS) that will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO's regional transportation plan. ARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every 8 years but can be updated every 4 years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO's SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG reduction targets, transportation projects will not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 29 This law also extends the minimum time period for the regional housing needs allocation cycle from 5 years to 8 years for local governments located within an MPO that meets certain requirements. City or county land use policies (including general plans) are not required to be consistent with the regional transportation plan (and associated SCS or APS). However, new provisions of CEQA would incentivize (through streamlining and other provisions) qualified projects that are consistent with an approved SCS or APS, categorized as "transit priority projects." CARB's Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal for Interim Significance Thresholds: Separate from its Scoping Plan approved in December of 2008, CARB issued a Staff Proposal in October 2008, as its first step toward developing recommended statewide interim thresholds of significance for GHGs that may be adopted by local agencies for their own use. CARB staff's objective in this proposal is to develop a threshold of significance that will result in the vast majority (approximately 90 percent statewide) of GHG emissions from new industrial projects being subject to CEQA's requirement to impose feasible mitigation. The proposal does not attempt to address every type of project that may be subject to CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types that, collectively, are responsible for substantial GHG emissions — specifically, industrial, residential, and commercial projects. CARB is developing these thresholds in these sectors to advance climate objectives, streamline project review, and encourage consistency and uniformity in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the state. These draft thresholds are under revision in response to comments. There is currently no timetable for finalized thresholds at this time. As currently proposed by CARB, the threshold consists of a quantitative threshold of 7,000 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year for operational emissions (excluding transportation), and performance standards for construction and transportation emissions. These performance standards have not yet been developed. However, CARB's proposal is not yet final, and thus cannot be applied to the Project. Further, CARB's proposal sets forth draft thresholds for industrial projects that have high operational stationary GHG emissions, such as manufacturing plants, or uses that utilize combustion engines. Thus, mobile source emissions are not addressed. This Project's GHG emissions are mostly from mobile sources, and as such, the CARB proposal is not applicable to the Project.zs South Coast Air Quality Management District Recommendations for Significance Thresholds: In April 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), in order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, convened a "GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group."24 The goal of the working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA significance threshold for 23 http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposa1102408.pdf 24 For more information visit: http://www.aqmd.gov/cega/handbook/GHG/GHG.htmi. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 30 GHG emissions that would be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other state agency) develops statewide guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA. Initially, SCAQMD staff presented the working group with a significance threshold that could be applied to various types of projects—residential; non-residential; industrial; etc. However, the threshold is still under development. In December 2008, staff presented the SCAQMD Governing Board with a significance threshold for stationary source projects where it is the lead agency. This threshold uses a tiered approach to determine a project's significance, with 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) as a screening numerical threshold for stationary sources. In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions which recommended either a 3,000 MTCO2e threshold for all land use types or a land -use specific threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed use projects, additionally the working group identified project -level efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per service population as a 2020 target and 3.0 MTCO2e per service population as a 2035 target. The recommended plan -level target for 2020 was 6.6 MTCO2e and the plan level target for 2035 was 4.1 MTCO2e. The SCAQMD has not announced when staff is expecting to present a finalized version of these thresholds to the Governing Board. The SCAQMD has also adopted Rules 2700, 2701, and 2702 that address GHG reductions; however, these rules are currently applicable to boilers and process heaters, forestry, and manure management projects. 2.9 DISCUSSION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS In order to assess the significance of a proposed project's environmental impacts it is necessary to identify quantitative or qualitative thresholds which, if exceeded, would constitute a finding of significance. As discussed above, while project -related GHG emissions can be estimated, the direct impacts of such emissions on climate change and global warming cannot be determined on the basis of available science. There is no evidence at this time that would indicate that the emissions from a project the size of the proposed Project would directly affect global climate change. The SCAQMD has adopted a quantitative GHG emission significance thresholds to assess direct impacts from industrial projects for which the SCAQMD is the lead agency. The SCAQMD and other air quality agencies concur that GHG and climate change should be evaluated as a potentially significant cumulative rather than project -specific impact. AB 32 states, in part, that "[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California." Because global warming is the result of GHG emissions, and GHGs are emitted by innumerable sources worldwide, global climate change is considered to be a significant cumulative impact. GHG emissions from the project would contribute to cumulative GHG emissions in California and to the potential adverse environmental impacts of climate change. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 31 As previously discussed, the CEQA guidelines indicate that a project would potentially result in a significant impact on climate change if a project were to: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Based on the analysis set forth above, for the purposes of this analysis, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on GHG emissions if it would result in any of the following: 1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance. a. A potentially significant impact would occur if the project exceeds the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. For purposes of this analysis, the 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold is used since it is the most conservative threshold under consideration by SCAQMD for a residential land use. 2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. a. Fail to show consistency with AB 32's Scoping Plan. 2.10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2006 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL PROGRAM EIR Although climate change impacts due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were not specifically evaluated as part of the Program EIR prepared in support of the City's 2006 General Plan Update, the General Plan EIR analyzed air quality impacts associated with buildout of the City, inclusive of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG emissions. The General Plan EIR also addressed vehicle emissions (both construction and operational) and operational emissions from energy consumption, which are the most common sources of greenhouse gas emissions. As such, GHG emissions and the issue of global climate change (GCC) do not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was known long before the City certified the General Plan EIR. GCC and GHG emissions were identified as North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 32 environmental issues since as early as 1978 when the U.S. Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act (Pub L 95-367, 92 Stat 601). In 1979 the National Research Council published "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment," which concluded that climate change was an accelerating phenomenon partly due to human activity. Numerous studies conducted before and after the National Research Council report reached similar conclusions. Information also was widely published in a serious of reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) dating back to the 1990s, including IPPC's "2001 Third Assessment Report." In California, the State adopted legislation in 2002 requiring the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles. As such, information about GCC and GHG emissions was available with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. During the public review period and public hearings associated with the General Plan EIR, no objections or concerns were raised regarding the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions, and no legal challenge was filed within the statute of limitations period established by Public Resources Code §21167(c). Similarly, no objections were raised on the topics of GHG emissions and GCC as part of Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan EIR in 2007. Based on CEQA case Iaw25 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the issue of project -related GHG emissions does not provide new information of substantial importance or substantial evidence of a new impact to the environment that was not or could not have been known at the time General Plan EIR was certified. 25 CREED v. City of San Diego (2011), Super. Ct. No. 37 -2009 -00085307 -CU -MC -CTL. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 33 3.0 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT 3.1 PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CEQA Guidelines 15064.4 (b) (1) states that a lead agency may use a model or methodology to quantify greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project. On February 3, 2011, the SCAQMD released the California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD) Emissions Inventory ModelTM. The purpose of this model is to more accurately calculate air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. As such, the February 2011 CALEEMODTM was used for this Project. The CaIEEModTM model includes GHG emissions from the following source categories: construction, area, energy, mobile, waste, water. 3.2 LIFE -CYCLE ANALYSIS A full life -cycle analysis (LCA) is not included in this analysis due to the lack of consensus guidance on LCA methodology at this time .26 Life -cycle analysis (i.e., assessing economy -wide GHG emissions from the processes in manufacturing and transporting all raw materials used in the project development and infrastructure) depends on emission factors or econometric factors that are not well established for all processes. At this time a LCA would be extremely speculative and thus has not been prepared. 3.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Since no specific development project is proposed at this time and the exact location of proposed development is unknown, a calculation of GHG emissions that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided in this analysis. Regardless, construction activities that may be associated with future residential development on the Project site would clearly fall within the scope of analysis provided in the General Plan EIR because the General Plan EIR anticipated the construction of 430 multi -family units within the NNCPC, 15 multi -family units within Newport Center, and 79 hotel units at General Plan Anomaly Location 43. Therefore, the conversion of 79 hotel units to multi -family residential units and the conduct of construction activities to the specific location of San Joaquin Plaza represent the Project's only potential to create new construction -related greenhouse gas emission impacts because construction of the remaining 445 multi -family units in Newport Center were assumed and previously evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The construction of 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel units would not represent any measurable difference in construction -related greenhouse gas emissions. The types of construction equipment, material use, and duration of construction activities would be very similar for hotel units or 26 California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97, December 2009. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 34 multi -family units. Also, GHG contributions to GCC are cumulative in nature and thus the specific location of the emissions source, whether it be Newport Center generally or San Joaquin Plaza specifically, has no material bearing. Accordingly, future Project -related construction emissions of greenhouse gases would not represent new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified. There would be no new or more severe construction related GHG emissions impact than would otherwise occur with implementation of the City's General Plan, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR 3.4 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS As previously noted, the Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCPC, to the portion of the NNCPC designated as San Joaquin Plaza. It should be noted that of the 94 units, 15 dwelling units are currently assigned to Newport Center and impacts from these dwelling units were accounted for by the General Plan EIR. The remaining 79 units consist of hotel units that would be converted to multi -family residential units. In order to provide consistency with the traffic study, this analysis relates to the proposed increase of 94 dwelling units allowed within the San Joaquin Plaza (as is done for the traffic study), and represents a "worst case" (conservative) analysis since there would be no credit taken for the reduction of 79 hotel rooms or for the 15 units already allowed by the General Plan. Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources: • Building Energy Use • Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution • Solid Waste • Mobile Source Emissions 3.4.1 BUILDING ENERGY USE GHGs are emitted from buildings as a result of activities for which electricity and natural gas are typically used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; these emissions are considered direct emissions associated with a building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels; these emissions are considered to be indirect emissions. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEModTm default parameters were used. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 35 3.4.2 WATER SUPPLY, TREATMENT AND DISTRIBUTION Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat and distribute water depends on the volume of water as well as the sources of the water. Unless otherwise noted, CalEEModTM default parameters were used. 3.4.3 SOLID WASTE Residential land uses will result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of this waste will be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted will be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed Project were calculated by the CalEEModTM model using default parameters. 3.4.4 MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS GHG emissions will also result from mobile sources associated with the Project. These mobile source emissions will result from the typical daily operation of motor vehicles by visitors, employees, and customers. Project mobile source emissions are dependent on both overall daily vehicle trip generation. Trip characteristics available from the report, North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis (Stantec, May 2012) were utilized in this analysis. 3.5 EMISSIONS SUMMARY The summary of annual operational GHG emissions from 94 dwelling units is reported in Table 3-1. The operational GHG emissions for the Project are estimated to be 935.04 MTCO2e per year. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 36 TABLE 3-1 TOTAL PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (ANNUAL) METRIC TONS PER YEAR) Emission Source CO2 Emissions (metric tons per year) CH4 N20 Total CO2E Area Source Emissions 69.88 0.03 71.00 Energy 244.28 0.01 245.79 Mobile Sources 556.77 0.02 557.25 Waste 8.78 0.52 -- 19.67 Water Usage 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total CO2E (All Sources) 935.04 Threshold MT CO2E/Yr 3,000 Significant? NO Source: CalEEModTM model output, See Appendix "A" for detailed model outputs. Note: Totals obtained from CalEEModTm and may not total 100% due to rounding. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) 37 OURBAM 3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FACTOR NO. 1: The extent to which the project may generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance. Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40 -plus years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which will address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. GHG emissions generated by the project are associated with the new area sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) from the new building structures, transportation emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and indirect emissions associated with purchased energy, energy associated with water (conveyance, treatment, distribution, and treatment of wastewater), and waste disposal. GHG emissions from project -related operational activities are included in Table 3-1. The proposed project would generate approximately 935.04 metric tons (MTons) of GHG emissions per year. Currently, there are no adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for projects within the SCAQMD region. However, SCAQMD has convened a Working Group to identify GHG thresholds for use in the SoCAB. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types. This threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTons per year. Projects that exceed the screening threshold would require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance. Because the GHG emissions associated with the project would be below the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold, the proposed project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant and would not comprise a new significant environmental effect. Additionally, because the Project's GHG emissions would be below SCAQMD's screening threshold, the Project's GHG emissions would not represent a significant increase as compared to the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from implementation of the City's General Plan. In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. No mitigation measures are necessary. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 38 FACTOR NO. 2: The extent to which the project may conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No Impact. CARB adopted the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. The project's GHG emissions would be further reduced from compliance with these statewide measures. The state of California recently adopted the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Code, which require a greater degree of energy efficiency than the 2005 version of the state building code that was in effect when the General Plan EIR was certified in 2006. Although no specific development project is proposed at San Joaquin Plaza at this time, future construction activities would be required to comply with all applicable building codes. Currently, development activities are required to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Standard is 15 percent more energy efficienct compared to the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. CARB and the EPA have also adopted new fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley II. Because the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold for GHG emissions and residential development in San Joaquin Plaza would be required to achieve efficiency standards mandated as part of the state building code in effect at the time of future construction, the proposed project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. Furthermore, the proposed Project would result in fewer GHG emissions than would have been assumed in the General Plan EIR since the 2008 efficiency standards and other statewide measures to reduce GHG emissions were not in place at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. Various characteristics of the Project serve to render its contribution to GCC less than cumulatively considerable. One of the main issues raised by those concerned about the effect of greenhouse gases on climate change is that "leap frog" -type development would potentially increase the number of vehicle miles traveled and consequently increase vehicular emissions (i.e., CO2 that contribute to greenhouse gases). The Project is an infill, mixed use development in an urbanized setting thereby providing opportunities to reduce vehicle trips. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 39 In conclusion, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact as previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 3.7 REQUIREMENTS The issue of GHG emissions was not previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR; as such, no mitigation measures specifically related to GHG emissions was identified in the General Plan EIR. However, the General Plan includes several policies that would serve to reduce GHG emissions, including, but not limited to, the following Policies: LU 6.4.6 (Approaches for a Livable Neighborhood); LU 6.15.19 (Walkable Streets); LU 6.15.20 (Connected Streets); NR 6.1 (Walkable Neighborhoods); NR 6.2 (Mixed -Use Development); NR 6.3 (Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures); NR 6.4 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance); NR 6.5 (Local Transit Agency Collaboration); NR 6.6 (Traffic Signal Synchronization); NR 6.7 (City Fleet Vehicles); NR 6.8 (Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure); NR 6.9 (Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques); NR 7.1 (Fuel Efficient Equipment); NR 7.2 (Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices); NR 7.3 (Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction); NR 7.4 (Use of Blowers); NR 8.1 (Construction Equipment); NR 8.2 (Maintenance of Construction Equipment); NR 8.3 (Construction Equipment Operation); NR 9.1 (Efficient Airport Operations); NR 9.2 (Aircraft and Equipment Emission Reduction); CE 1.1.1 (Comprehensive Transportation System); CE 1.2.2 (Shuttle Service); CE 1.2.4 (Public Transit); CE 4.1.1 (Public Transit Efficiency); CE 4.1.4 (Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit); CE 4.1.5 (Airport Shuttles); CE 4.1.6 (Transit Support Facilities); CE 5.1.1 (Trail System); CE 5.1.2 (Pedestrian Connectivity); CE 5.1.3 (Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects); CE 5.1.4 (Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods); CE 5.1.5 (Bikeway System); CE 5.1.6 (Bicycle Supporting Facilities); CE 5.1.9 (Integrated Bicycle Improvements); CE 5.1.11 (School Access); CE 5.1.12 (Pedestrian Street Crossings); CE 5.1.14 (Newport Harbor Trails and Walkways); CE 6.1.1 (Traffic Signals); CE 6.1.2 (Intelligent Transportation Systems); CE 6.2.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes); CE 6.2.2 (Support Facilities for Alternative Modes); and CE 6.2.3 (Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes). Additionally, and although the Project will not result in a new significant GHG impact or increase the level of GHG emissions that would otherwise occur from buildout of the City's General Plan, the Project would be required to comply with all mandatory regulatory requirements imposed by the State of California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District aimed at the reduction of air quality emissions. Those that are particularly applicable to the Project and that would assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are: • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM 40 • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent by January 1, 2010 to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. 3.8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. 3.9 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No significant impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAN 41 4.0 REFERENCES 1. California Air Resources Board, 2007. California Air Resources Board Almanac. 2. California Air Resources Board, 2007. EMFAC 2007. 3. California Air Resources Board, 2010. California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary. 4. California Building Standards Commission, 2010. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. 5. California Energy Commission, 2005. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 6. EIP Associates, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. 7. International Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report. 8. San Bernardino County, 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan for San Bernardino County. 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 10. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2011. California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEModTM) 11. Stantec, 2012. North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis. 12. United States Department of Labor, 2011. Occupational Safety and Health Guideline for Nitrous Oxide. 13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2011. 14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. 15. World Resources Institute, 2011. Climate Analysis Indicator Tool (CAIT) - US - Yearly Emissions Inventory. North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) 42 OURBAM F... ►� A,, GHG Emissions Calculations North Newport Center Planned Community Greenhouse Gas Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08210-05 GHG Report) OURBAM A CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 North Newport Center Planned Community Amendment Orange County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Condo/Townhouse High Rise 94 Dwelling Unit 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Southern California Edison Climate Zone 8 Precipitation Freq (Days) 30 1.3 User Entered Comments Project Characteristics - Land Use - Construction Phase - Off-road Equipment - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Trips and VMT - the project does not require emissions for the construction phase Vehicle Trips - trip rate data was sourced from Trip Generation 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE 232) Date: 5/17/2012 2.0 Emissions Summary 1 of 14 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction 2of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2of14 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational 3of14 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 Energy 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 244.28 244.28 0.01 0.00 245.79 Mobile 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.78 0.00 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.74 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total 1.07 0.74 5.32 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.84 0.03 0.03 0.17 18.76 896.69 915.45 0.77 0.01 935.04 3of14 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 4of14 ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 Energy 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 244.28 244.28 0.01 0.00 245.79 Mobile 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.78 0.00 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.74 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total 1.07 0.74 5.32 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.84 0.03 0.03 0.17 18.76 896.69 915.45 0.77 0.01 935.04 3.0 Construction Detail 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 4of14 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Unmitigated Construction On -Site Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site 5of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O21 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5of14 3.2 Demolition - 2011 Mitigated Construction On -Site Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Off -Road 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Construction Off -Site 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 6of14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio -0O21 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I CO2 Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.0 Mobile Detail 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 6of14 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Unmitigated 0.33 0.61 3.23 0.01 0.70 0.03 0.73 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.00 556.77 556.77 0.02 0.00 557.25 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Condo/Townhouse High Rise 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 Total 392.92 405.14 322.42 1,280,920 1,280,920 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Land Use H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW H -W or C -W H -S or C -C H -O or C -NW Condo/Townhouse High Rise 12.70 7.00 9.50 40.20 19.20 40.60 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 7of14 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 0.00 CO2 0.00 0.01 0.00 Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.76 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 Mitigated Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 115.76 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 Unmitigated ------------------------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------------ *------ *------ *------ * ---- NaturalGas 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 1 28. 52 1 28. 52 0.00 0.00 1 29. 30 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated 8of14 NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total I Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse' 2.4084e+006 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 High Rise Total 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 8of14 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse' 2.4084e+006 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 High Rise Total 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 128.52 128.52 0.00 0.00 129.30 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated 9of14 Electricity Use ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse : 397969 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 High Rise Total 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 9of14 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Mitigated 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area Electricity Use ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse' 397969 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 High Rise Total CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr 115.76 0.01 0.00 116.48 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 10 of 14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 I Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 I PM2.5 To Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 ' 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 -------- -----*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*-------------*------*------*------*------*------ Unmitigated 0.73 0.02 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.88 0.03 0.00 71.00 Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 10 of 14 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Mitigated ROG NO. CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2 I I I SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products --- ------------T------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------*------•------T------*------*----- ---- ----- Hearth 0.31 0.01 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 9.98 57.56 67.55 0.03 0.00 68.61 ----------- +------ T------ *------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ *------ ---- --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- Landscaping 0.05 0.02 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.34 2.34 0.00 0.00 2.39 Total 0.74 0.03 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.89 0.03 0.00 71.00 Mitigated 11 of 14 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 I Total PM2.5 PM2.5 To CO2 SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Hearth 0.31 0.01 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.09 9.98 57.56 67.55 0.03 0.00 68.61 Landscaping 0.05 0.02 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.34 2.34 0.00 0.00 2.39 Total 0.74 0.03 2.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 9.98 59.90 69.89 0.03 0.00 71.00 11 of 14 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 ---------- ------ T------ *------ *------ *------ r------ r------ r ------ Unmitigated 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated 12 of 14 Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse 6.12448/ 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 High Rise 3.86108 Total 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 12 of 14 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear Indoor/Outdoor Use ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse' 6.12448/ 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 High Rise 3.86108 Total j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 35.74 0.19 0.01 41.33 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear 13 of 14 ROG NOx I CO I SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 8.78 0.52 0.00 ' 19.67 -------- -----*------*------*------*------*------*------*------ Unmitigated 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 Total NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA 13 of 14 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Mitigated Waste Disposed ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse' 43.24 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 High Rise Total 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 Mitigated 9.0 Vegetation 14 of 14 Waste Disposed ROG NOx I CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N2O CO2e Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr Condo/Townhouse : 43.24 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 High Rise Total 8.78 0.52 0.00 19.67 9.0 Vegetation 14 of 14 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix C Noise Impact Analysis Urban Crossroads, Inc. May 29, 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 6f u R BAN CROSSROADS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 Prepared by: Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Prepared for: Ms. Tracy Zinn T&B PLANNING, INC. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA June 6, 2012 JN:08211-04 Noise Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Sectinn Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................... 1.1 Project Overview 1.2 Off -Site Transportation Noise Analysis 2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 2 2.1 Purpose of Report 2.2 Project Description 2.3 General Plan Analysis of Transportation -Related Noise Impacts 3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS................................................................................. 7 3.1 Range of Noise 3.2 Effects of Noise 3.3 Noise Descriptors 3.4 Traffic Noise Prediction 3.5 Ground Absorbtion 3.6 Noise Control 3.7 Noise Barrier Attenuation 3.8 Community Response to Noise 3.9 Land Use Campatibility with Noise 4.0 NOISE STANDARDS..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Transportation Noise Standards 4.2 Significant Noise Impact Criteria 5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES....................................................................... 14 5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model 5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs 6.0 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS ................................................ 21 6.1 Traffic Noise Contours 6.2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels 6.3 Year 2016 Roadway Noise Levels 6.4 Existing With Project Traffic Noise Level Contributions 6.5 Year 2016 Project Traffic Noise Level Contributions 6.6 Off -Site Transportation Related Project Noise Impacts North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN.-08211-04�� URBAN 08211-04 Noise Report) cRossRAM LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page Off -Site FHWA Traffic Noise Model Printouts................................................................................................ 6.1 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 3-A Typical Noise Levels and Their Subjective Loudness and Effects................................................8 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 5-1 Off -Site Roadway Parameters....................................................................................................15 5-2 Average Daily Traffic (1000's).....................................................................................................17 5-3 Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution...................................................................................................20 6-1 Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours..................................................................22 6-2 Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours.......................................................................25 6-3 Year 2016 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours..............................................................28 6-4 Year 2016 With Project Conditions Noise Contours...................................................................31 6-5 Existing Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts..............................................................35 6-6 Year 2016 Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts..........................................................38 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis �1 URBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report. docx) CRoss RC3^OS NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This noise study has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) (referred to as "Project"). The purpose of this noise assessment is to evaluate the off-site project traffic noise impacts and to recommend noise mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize the potential project impacts. 1.1 Project Overview The Project involves increasing the residential development allocation within the NNCPC from 430 dwelling units to a total of 524 dwelling units (increase of 94 units). The NNCPC was originally adopted in 2007, for which an addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR was prepared. 1.2 Off -Site Transportation Noise Analysis Traffic generated by the proposed Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off- site areas. To quantify the off-site traffic noise impacts on the surrounding off-site areas, the changes in traffic noise levels on 73 roadway segments surrounding the Project site were estimated based on the change in the average daily traffic volumes. The traffic noise levels provided in this analysis are based on the traffic forecasts from the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis prepared by Stantec in May 2012. To assess the off-site noise level impacts associated with the proposed project, noise contour boundaries were developed for Existing and Year 2016 traffic conditions. In order for an off-site transportation related noise impact to be considered a significant impact, the project traffic must create a significant noise level increase as defined by the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Policy N 1.8. This analysis shows that the project will not generate a substantial permanent off-site traffic noise level increase for existing sensitive uses or expose persons to noise levels in excess of the standards established by the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Policy N 1.8. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 1 OURBAM CROSSROADS 2.0 INTRODUCTION This noise study has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community. 2.1 Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to satisfy CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which requires the City to analyze whether subsequent activities regarding the North Newport Center zoning require an additional environmental document beyond the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) ("General Plan EIR"), and the first North Newport Center Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, approved by Resolution No. 2007-79 on December 11, 2007. The General Plan EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council on July 25, 2006, as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with the buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of North Newport Center. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this report analyzes whether the Project would have effects that were not examined in the General Plan EIR and confirms that the Project will not result in new effects and will not require new mitigation measures so that the City can determine whether it is appropriate to approve the Project as within the scope of the General Plan EIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines section 15168(e), this report also analyzes whether: (i) the Project is within the scope of the General Plan 2006 Update; and (ii) the General Plan EIR adequately describes the subsequent activity for the purposes of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines section 15164(a) states: "The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, no subsequent EIR may be required for the project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met: North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (M 08211-04 Noise Report) 2 OURBAM CROSSROADS (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR, was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. In order to provide the analysis necessary for the City to make its determination under CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), this noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local noise guidelines, provides the study methods and procedures for traffic noise analysis, and evaluates the future off-site exterior noise environment. Additional information beyond that required for the City's determination is included for public information. This study also satisfies the City of Newport Beach noise standards requirements. 2.2 Prosect Description The NNCPC Development Plan currently allows for 430 multi -family residential units to be developed in areas of the NNCPC designated MU -H3 by the General Plan. In comparison, the General Plan allows a maximum of 450 units in the MU -H3 category throughout the Newport North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 3 OURBAM CROSSROADS Center Statistical Area. In other words, of the 450 MU -H3 residential units allowed by the General Plan in the Newport Center Statistical Area, 430 are specifically allocated to be developed within the areas of the NNCPC designated by the NNCPC Development Plan as Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza. The remaining 20 units are allowed to be developed in any MU -H3 designated area in the Newport Center Statistical Area. Five (5) MU - H3 units have been assigned to the Golf Realty Fund Tennis Club development and the other 15 MU -H3 units are not assigned to any particular property. In addition, certain areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. Anomaly Location 43 in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area L1) is developed with a 532 room resort hotel presently operated by Marriott Hotels and Resorts. General Plan Table LU2 allows a maximum of 611 hotel rooms in Anomaly Location 43; therefore, 79 hotel rooms allowed by the General Plan are un -built. The proposed Project would convert the 79 un -built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and then transfer them to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Under existing conditions, Block 500, Block 600, and San Joaquin Plaza are developed with commercial/office land uses and the Island Hotel. No multi -family residential units are constructed in these areas, although the NNCPC Development Plan allows for up to 430 residential units. Thus, the City's General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan currently allow for the existing land uses in Block 500, Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza to be supplemented by or partially replaced with multi -family residential housing. The Project Applicant proposes an amendment to the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by 94 units (comprising the 15 un -assigned and un -built multi -family units and the 79 hotel units that would be converted to multi -family units), and to assign those 94 units, along with 430 units already allocated to the NNCCP, to the portion of the NNCCP designated as San Joaquin Plaza. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report) 2 OURBAM No specific development project is proposed at this time. A proposal to develop a specific residential project in the San Joaquin Plaza would be subject to the procedures for development specified in the NNCPC Development Plan. There would be no change to the boundaries of the NNCPC Development Plan area or any constituent blocks or sub -districts, and there would be no change in the permitted types of land uses, development regulations, or design guidelines resulting from approval of the proposed NNCPC Development Plan Amendment. Since no specific development is proposed at this time, and the exact location of the units is unknown, a specific calculation of construction noise levels impacts that may be associated with future construction activities is not possible and is not provided. However, construction activities would be consistent with the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. 2.3 General Plan Analysis of Transportation -Related Noise Impacts Operational noise impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan were previously evaluated as part of the General Plan EIR, which identified significant and unavoidable impacts due to the exposure of existing development to future traffic related noise that would exceed the General Plan noise standards and/or would represent a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The General Plan EIR notes that compliance with General Plan Goal N-2 (Transportation Noise) would reduce this impact, but not to a level below significant. Although the proposed Project would involve the allocation of 94 additional units to the San Joaquin Plaza, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the reduction of traffic with buildout of the General Plan. Specifically, the TPO Traffic Analysis shows that the proposed Project, which would convert 79 hotel units to multi -family units, would result in a net reduction in average daily traffic (ADT) of 315 trips, including 17 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 17 fewer p.m. peak hour trips. Due to the reduction in traffic volumes generated by the Project compared to the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the significant and unavoidable transportation noise -related impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (M 08211-04 Noise Report) 5 OURBAM CROSSROADS To substantiate this conclusion, future noise conditions for study area roadway segments were calculated based on the TPO Traffic Analysis to determine whether traffic generated by the Project would cause or contribute to transportation -related noise levels that could exceed the General Plan standards and/or result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. The results are presented in Section 4.0 of this report. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) A OURBAM CROSSROADS 3.0 NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. 3.1 Range of Noise Since the range of sound that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale used to measure sound intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The unit of measure in which a sound intensity is described is the decibel (dB). Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. However, due to the internal mechanism of the human ear and how it receives and processes noise, when two sound sources of equal intensity or power are measured together, their combined effect (intensity level) is 3 dBA higher than the level of either separately. Thus, two 72 dBA cars together measure 75 dBA under ideal conditions. The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. Exhibit 3-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below. 3.2 Effects of Noise Harmful effects of noise can include speech interference; sleep disruption and loss of hearing. High background noise levels can affect performance and learning processes through distraction, reduced accuracy, increased fatigue, annoyance and irritability, the inability to concentrate, and sleep prevention. Several factors determine whether a particular noise will interfere with sleep. These factors include the noise level and characteristics, the stage of sleep, the individual's age and motivation to waken. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 7 OURBAM CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 3-A TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS AND THEIR SUBJECTIVE LOUDNESS AND EFFECTS COMMON OUTDOOR COMMON INDOOR A - WEIGHTED SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS OF ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES SOUND LEVEL dBA LOUDNESS NOISE THRESHOLD OF PAIN 140 0 INTOLERABLE OR NEAR JET ENGINE 130 DEAFENING 120 HEA JET FLY -OVER AT 300m (1000 ft) ROCK BAND 110 LOUD AUTO HORN 100 GAS LAWN MOWER AT 1m (3 ft) 90 VERY NOISY DIESEL TRUCK AT 15m (50 ft), at 80 FOOD BLENDER AT 1 m (3 ft) 80 km/hr (50 mph) NOISY URBAN AREA, DAYTIME VACUUM CLEANER AT 3m (10 ft) 70 SPEECH LOUD INTERFERENCE HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 90m (300 ft) NORMAL SPEECH AT 1 m (3 ft) 60 QUIET URBAN DAYTIME LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE 50 MODERATE SLEEP DISTURBANCE QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME THEATER, LARGE CONFERENCE 40 ROOM (BACKGROUND) QUIET SUBURBAN NIGHTTIME LIBRARY 30 FAINT BEDROOM AT NIGHT, CONCERT QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME HALL (BACKGROUND) 20 BROADCAST/RECORDING 10 NO EFFECT STUDIO VERY FAINT LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN 0 HEARING HEARING SOURCE: NOISE TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT BY CALTRANS North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis URBAN City of Newport Beach, CA (JN - 08211:005.dwg) CROSSROADS 3.3 Noise Descriptors Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Leq represents a steady sound level containing the same total energy as a time -varying level over a given measurement interval. Leq's may represent any desired length of time; however, one hour is the most commonly used in environmental work. Consequently, Leq's can vary depending upon the time of day. In traffic noise measurements, the noisiest hour of the day is considered the benchmark of a road's noise emissions; therefore, the peak hour Leq is the noise metric used by Caltrans for all traffic noise impact analyses. Peak hour noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour levels may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite twenty-four hour noise level, is utilized. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and the addition of ten decibels to sound levels at night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder and it is weighted accordingly. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any particular time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. 3.4 Traffic Noise Prediction According to the Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance, provided by the Federal Highway Administration, the level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic, (2) the speed of the traffic, and (3) the vehicle mix within the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. A doubling of the traffic volume, assuming that the speed and vehicle mix do not change, results in a noise level increase of 3 dBA. The North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN: 08211-04 Noise Report) NJ OURBAM CROSSROADS vehicle mix on a given roadway may also have an effect on community noise levels. As the number of medium and heavy trucks increases and becomes a larger percentage of the vehicle mix, adjacent noise level impacts will increase. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires on the roadway. 3.5 Ground Absorption To account for the ground -effect attenuation (absorption), two types of site conditions are commonly used in traffic noise models, soft site and hard site conditions. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. A drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance is typically observed over soft ground with landscaping, as compared with a 3.0 dBA drop-off rate over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed earth. Caltrans research has shown that the use of soft site conditions is more appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. 3.6 Noise Control Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for a particular observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all three. This concept is known as the source -path -receptor concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to any and all of these three elements. 3.7 Noise Barrier Attenuation Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the noise source. 3.8 Community Response to Noise Approximately ten (10) percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their own making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN: 08211-04 Noise Report) 10 OURBAM CROSSROADS some complaints will occur. Another 25 percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population as a whole can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels. An increase or decrease of 1.0 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3.0 dBA are considered "barely perceptible," and changes of 5 dBA are considered "readily perceptible." 3.9 Land Use Compatibility With Noise Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches and residences are considered to be more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial activities. Ambient noise levels can also affect the perceived desirability or livability of a development. For these reasons, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 11 OURBAM CROSSROADS 4.0 NOISE STANDARDS Local noise guidelines are often based on the broader guidelines established by state and federal agencies. This section describes the regulatory setting for the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community project. 4.1 Transportation Noise Standards The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element specifies the maximum noise levels allowable for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads. For the purposes of this project, the noise impacts associated with traffic are controlled by the General Plan Noise Element. The General Plan standards are derived from standards contained in the General Plan Guidelines, a publication of the California Office of Planning and Research. These standards are used by many California cities and counties. The Noise Element includes standards for land use compatibility for community noise exposure. For noise sensitive uses such as schools and single- family homes, exterior noise levels ranging from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL are considered normally compatible. According the Noise Element, the 60 dBA CNEL contour defines the Noise Referral Zone. This is the noise level for which noise considerations should be included when making land use policy decisions that effect existing and proposed noise -sensitive developments. The 65 dBA CNEL contour describes the area for which new noise sensitive developments will be permitted only if appropriate mitigation measures are included. 4.2 Significant Noise Impact Criteria Noise Policy N 1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. For purposes of analysis in this report (and as required by General Plan Policy N 1.8), off-site transportation -related noise increases would be considered "substantial" if Project -related traffic results in any of the following: a noise level increase of 3 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 55 to 60 dBA CNEL; a noise North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report.docx) M OURBAM level increase of 2 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL; a noise level increase of 1 dBA CNEL where the existing without project ambient noise levels range from 65 to 75 dBA CNEL; and/or any off-site transportation project related noise level increase where the existing without project ambient noise levels are over 75 dBA CNEL is considered a significant impact. If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by noise, then the Project's contribution would be considered to comprise a substantial increase in the severity of a significant effect (CEQA Guidelines §15162(3)(b)). If the Project's transportation -related noise increases are substantial and impact sensitive receptors that were not previously identified by the General Plan EIR as being impacted by traffic -related noise, then the Project's noise contribution would be considered a significant effect not discussed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15162(3)(a)). North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report.docx) 13 OURBAM 5.0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment. 5.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model The projected roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were projected using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108 (the "FHWA Model"). The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and the percentage of total ADT which flows each hour throughout a 24-hour period. 5.2 Traffic Noise Prediction Model Inputs Table 5-1 presents the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model roadway parameters used in this analysis. Soft site conditions were used to develop the noise contours to analyze the traffic noise impacts to the study area. Soft site conditions account for the sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as normal earth and ground vegetation. The Existing and Year 2016 average daily traffic volumes used for this study and presented in Table 5-2 were provided by the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis prepared by Stantec in May 2012.' Table 5-3 presents the hourly traffic flow distributions (vehicle mix) used for this analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks, and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 14 OURBAM CROSSROADS Table 5-1 (1 of 2) Off -Site Roadway Parameters Roadway Segment Roadway Classification' Lanes Vehicle Speed (MPH) Macarthur South of Bonita Canyon Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur North of San Joaquin Hills Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur North of San Miguel Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur South of San Miguel Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur North of Coast Highway Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur Major Arterial 6 45 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway West of Jamboree Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway East of Jamboree Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway East of Newport CTR Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway West of Avacado Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway East of Avacado Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway West of Macarthur Major Arterial 6 45 Coast Highway East of Macarthur Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree North of Eastbluff Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree North of Coast Highway Major Arterial 6 45 Jamboree South of Coast Highway Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR North of San Miguel Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR lSouth of San Miguel Major Arterial 1 6 1 45 Newport CTR I East of Newport CTR Major Arterial 1 6 145 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 15 Table 5-1 (2 of 2) Off -Site Roadway Parameters Roadway Segment Roadway Classification' Lanes Vehicle Speed (MPH) Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle Major Arterial 6 45 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway Major Arterial 6 45 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon Major Arterial 6 45 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree Primary Arterial 4 45 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree Primary Arterial 4 45 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon Primary Arterial 4 45 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel West of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel East of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel West of Avacado Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel East of Avacado Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel West of Macarthur Primary Arterial 4 45 San Miguel East of Macarthur Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR Primary Arterial 4 45 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara Secondary 4 40 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR Secondary 4 40 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR Secondary 4 40 Avocado North of San Miguel Secondary 4 40 Avocado South of San Miguel Secondary 4 40 Avocado North of Coast Highway Secondary 4 40 'According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 16 Table 5-2 (1 of 3) Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's) Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic (1,000's) Existing Year 2016 No Project With Project No Project With Project Macarthur South of Bonita Canyon 61.4 61.5 69.1 69.2 Macarthur North of San Joaquin Hills 61.4 61.5 68.1 68.1 Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 38.8 38.8 43.4 43.4 Macarthur North of San Miguel 34.8 34.8 38.8 38.8 Macarthur South of San Miguel 28.6 28.6 32.4 32.4 Macarthur North of Coast Highway 28.7 28.7 32.5 32.5 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.0 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 17.7 17.9 20.3 20.4 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 21.9 22.0 23.7 23.7 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 13.7 13.8 14.9 15.0 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 15.7 15.8 17.2 17.3 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa 21.6 21.7 22.8 22.9 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 21.2 21.3 23.5 23.6 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 20.6 20.6 21.3 21.3 Coast Highway West of Jamboree 60.0 60.0 71.5 71.6 Coast Highway East of Jamboree 47.0 47.0 58.3 58.3 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 43.6 43.6 54.1 54.1 Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 35.7 35.8 45.2 45.3 Coast Highway West of Avacado 34.4 34.5 43.8 43.8 Coast Highway East of Avacado 36.3 36.4 45.0 45.1 Coast Highway West of Macarthur 36.4 36.5 41.8 45.3 Coast Highway East of Macarthur 5.7 50.3 61.7 61.8 Jamboree North of Eastbluff 25.5 43.6 52.2 52.4 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 53.6 53.7 63.0 63.2 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 36.0 36.0 43.0 43.1 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 38.5 38.6 45.1 45.2 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 34.5 34.6 41.0 41.1 Jamboree North of Coast Highway 32.0 32.1 38.6 38.7 Jamboree South of Coast Highway 12.2 12.2 12.9 12.9 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 7.0 7.0 7.3 7.3 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.9 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 6.5 6.5 6.9 6.9 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.3 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.8 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 6.5 6.5 7.3 7.3 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 17 Table 5-2 (2 of 3) Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's) Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic (1,000's) Existing Year 2016 No Project With Project No Project With Project Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 9.1 9.2 10.0 10.0 Newport CTR North of San Miguel 7.2 9.2 7.6 7.6 Newport CTR South of San Miguel 10.6 10.6 10.9 10.9 Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 8.8 8.8 9.1 9.1 Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 12.9 12.9 14.2 14.2 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 14.9 14.9 16.4 16.4 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 72.9 72.9 80.4 80.5 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 14.4 14.4 15.3 15.3 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 11.5 11.5 12.2 12.3 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 9.9 10.0 10.6 10.6 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 37.6 37.7 39.3 39.4 San Miguel West of Newport CTR 7.8 7.8 9.1 9.1 San Miguel East of Newport CTR 12.7 12.7 14.4 14.4 San Miguel West of Avacado 16.4 16.4 18.1 18.1 San Miguel East of Avacado 24.3 24.3 26.8 26.8 San Miguel West of Macarthur 22.1 22.1 25.0 25.0 San Miguel East of Macarthur 11.8 11.8 12.5 12.5 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 12.0 13.2 12.5 12.7 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 11.7 11.8 12.3 12.4 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 9.3 9.4 9.9 10.0 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.5 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 4.3 4.3 4.6 4.6 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 14.5 14.5 16.8 16.8 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 12.2 12.2 14.3 14.3 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 6.8 6.8 7.9 7.9 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 5.6 5.7 5.6 5.7 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.9 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 12.1 12.2 12.8 12.9 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 12.012.1 12.6 12.6 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 7.3 7.3 7.9 7.9 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM Table 5-2 (3 of 3) Average Daily Traffic Volumes (1000's) Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic (1,000's) Existing Year 2016 No Project With Project No Project With Project Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 6.3 6.4 6.9 6.9 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 Avocado North of San Miguel 4.2 4.2 5.0 5.0 Avocado South of San Miguel 13.1 13.1 15.5 15.5 Avocado North of Coast Highway 9.2 9.2 11.0 11.0 Traffic volumes according to the North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis by Stantec, May 2012. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 19 Table 5-3 (1 of 1) Hourly Traffic Flow Distribution 1 Motor -Vehicle Type Daytime (7 am to 7 pm) Evening (7 pm to 10 pm) Night (10 pm to 7 am) Total % Traffic Flow Automobiles 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Heavy Trucks 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Typical southern California vehicle mix. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 6.0 OFF-SITE TRANSPORTATION NOISE IMPACTS To assess the off-site noise level impacts associated with development of the proposed North Newport Center Planned Community project, noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios: Existing With / Without Prosect: This scenario refers to the existing present-day noise conditions, without and with construction of the proposed project. Year 2016 With / Without Prosect: This scenario refers to the background noise conditions at future Year 2016 with and without the proposed project. This corresponds to the existing plus growth plus approved projects plus cumulative project conditions without and with the NNCPC. 6.1 Traffic Noise Contours Noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway. CNEL noise contours are determined below for the 70, 65, 60, and 55 dBA noise levels. The distance from the centerline of the roadway to the CNEL contours for roadways in the proposed project's vicinity are presented in Tables 6-1 through 6-4. The noise contours do not take into account the noise reducing effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The off-site FHWA model printouts are included in Appendix 6.1. 6.2 Existing Roadway Noise Levels Table 6-1 shows that the unmitigated exterior noise levels are expected to range from 54.0 to 71.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from each roadway's centerline. Table 6-2 presents the existing with project conditions unmitigated noise contours that are expected to remain the same and range from 54.0 to 71.1 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Most of the off-site study area is currently developed or planned for development. 6.3 Year 2016 Roadway Noise Levels Table 6-3 shows that for Year 2016 without project conditions the off-site traffic noise levels are estimated to range from 54.4 to 71.5 dBA CNEL. With the addition of the Project, Table 6-4 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN:08211-04 Noise Report) 21 OURBAM Table 6-1 (1 of 3) Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Jamboree North of Eastbluff 68.8 84 180 389 837 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 69.8 96 207 447 962 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.0 74 159 343 738 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 68.3 77 166 358 772 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 67.8 72 155 333 718 Jamboree North of Coast Highway 67.5 68 147 1 317 682 Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.3 RW 77 167 359 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 RW RW RW 92 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.0 RW 73 158 340 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 62.9 RW 72 155 334 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 61.9 RW RW 133 287 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 61.7 RW RW 129 279 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.5 RW RW 80 172 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 60.9 RW RW 115 248 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.3 RW RW 123 264 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.6 RW RW 109 236 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.2 RW RW 104 224 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 59.9 RW RW 99 214 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 60.6 RW RW 109 236 Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.0 RW 64 137 295 Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.0 RW RW 117 252 Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.7 RW 70 152 327 Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 61.9 RW RW 134 289 Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 63.6 RW 80 173 372 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.2 RW 88 190 410 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 RW RW 73 158 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 63.8 RW 83 179 386 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.0 RW 74 160 344 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 60.5 RW RW 108 233 Avocado North of San Miguel 57.0 RW RW RW 136 Avocado South of San Miguel 62.0 RW RW 135 291 Avocado North of Coast Highway 60.4 RW RW 107 230 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.1 118 255 548 1,181 Macarthur 1South of Bonita Canyon 1 70.3 105 227 489 1 North of San Joaquin Hills 70.3 105 227 489 2,054Macarthur North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 22 Table 6-1 (2 of 3) Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.3 78 167 360 776 Macarthur North of San Miguel 67.9 72 155 1 335 722 Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.0 RW 136 294 633 Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.0 RW 137 295 635 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 63.8 RW 83 178 384 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 62.8 RW 71 153 330 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 62.1 RW 64 139 299 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 67.9 73 157 338 728 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 59.3 RW RW 89 193 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 64.9 RW 99 213 460 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 65.9 RW 114 246 530 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 63.8 RW 84 180 388 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.4 RW 91 197 425 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa 65.8 RW 113 244 525 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 65.7 RW 112 241 519 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 65.6 RW 110 236 509 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 RW RW 77 165 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.4 RW RW 78 169 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.0 RW RW RW 86 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61.6 RW RW 128 276 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61.6 RW RW 127 275 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 59.4 RW RW 91 197 Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 58.8 RW RW 83 179 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.0 RW RW RW 116 San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61.1 RW RW 118 255 San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.2 RW 76 164 353 San Miguel West of Avacado 64.3 RW 90 194 419 San Miguel East of Avacado 66.0 RW 117 253 544 San Miguel West of Macarthur 65.6 RW 110 237 511 San Miguel East of Macarthur 62.9 RW 72 156 336 Coast Highway West of Jamboree 70.2 104 224 482 1,038 Coast Highway East of Jamboree 69.2 88 190 409 882 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 68.9 1 84 181 389 839 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 23 Table 6-1 (3 of 3) Existing Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Distance to Contour (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 68.0 73 158 341 734 Coast Highway West of Avacado 67.8 72 154 332 716 Coast Highway East of Avacado 68.1 74 160 345 742 Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.1 74 160 345 744 Coast Highway East of Macarthur 69.5 92 198 428 921 "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 24 Table 6-2 (1 of 3) Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Jamboree North of Eastbluff 68.9 84 181 389 839 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 69.8 96 208 447 964 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.0 74 159 343 738 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 68.3 77 167 359 773 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 67.8 72 155 334 719 Jamboree North of Coast Highway 67.5 68 147 1 317 684 Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.3 RW 77 167 359 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 RW RW RW 92 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.4 RW 78 168 362 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 62.9 RW 72 156 336 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 61.9 RW RW 134 289 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 61.7 RW RW 130 281 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.5 RW RW 80 172 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 60.9 RW RW 115 248 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.3 RW RW 123 264 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.6 RW RW 109 236 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.2 RW RW 104 224 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 59.9 RW RW 99 214 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 60.6 RW RW 109 236 Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.1 RW 64 138 297 Newport CTR North of San Miguel 62.1 RW 64 138 297 Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.7 RW 70 152 327 Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 61.9 RW RW 134 289 Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 63.6 RW 80 173 372 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.2 RW 88 190 410 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 RW RW 73 158 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 63.8 RW 83 179 386 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.0 RW 74 160 344 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 60.5 RW RW 108 233 Avocado North of San Miguel 57.0 RW RW RW 136 Avocado South of San Miguel 62.0 RW RW 135 291 Avocado North of Coast Highway 60.4 RW RW 107 230 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.1 118 255 548 1,181 Macarthur 1South of Bonita Canyon 1 70.3 105 227 490 1 1,055 Macarthur I North of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.3 105 227 1 490 1 1,055 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 25 Table 6-2 (2 of 3) Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.3 78 167 360 776 Macarthur North of San Miguel 67.9 72 155 1 335 722 Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.0 RW 136 294 633 Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.0 RW 137 295 635 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 63.8 RW 83 178 384 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 62.8 RW 71 153 330 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 62.2 RW 65 140 301 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 67.9 73 157 338 729 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 59.3 RW RW 89 193 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 65.0 RW 100 215 463 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 65.9 RW 115 247 532 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 63.9 RW 84 181 390 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.4 RW 92 198 426 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa 65.8 RW 113 244 527 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 65.7 RW 112 241 520 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 65.6 RW 110 236 509 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 RW RW 78 167 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.5 RW RW 79 171 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.0 RW RW RW 86 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61.7 RW RW 129 278 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61.6 RW RW 128 276 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 59.4 RW RW 91 197 Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 58.8 RW RW 84 181 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.0 RW RW RW 116 San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61.1 RW RW 118 255 San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.2 RW 76 164 353 San Miguel West of Avacado 64.3 RW 90 194 419 San Miguel East of Avacado 66.0 RW 117 253 544 San Miguel West of Macarthur 65.6 RW 110 237 511 San Miguel East of Macarthur 62.9 RW 72 156 336 Coast Highway West of Jamboree 70.2 104 224 482 1,038 Coast Highway East of Jamboree 69.2 88 190 409 882 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 68.9 1 84 181 389 839 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM Table 6-2 (3 of 3) Existing With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Distance to Contour (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 1 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 68.0 74 158 341 735 Coast Highway West of Avacado 67.8 72 155 333 1 718 Coast Highway East of Avacado 68.1 74 160 345 744 Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.1 74 161 346 745 Coast Highway East of Macarthur 69.5 92 199 428 923 "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 27 Table 6-3 (1 of 3) 2016 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Jamboree North of Eastbluff 69.6 95 204 439 946 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 70.5 107 231 498 1,072 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 83 179 386 831 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 69.0 86 185 398 858 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 68.6 81 173 374 805 Jamboree North of Coast Highway 68.3 77 167 359 1 773 Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.6 RW 80 173 372 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 RW RW RW 92 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.1 RW 75 162 349 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 63.1 RW 74 160 346 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 62.1 RW 64 139 299 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 62.0 RW RW 135 291 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.8 RW RW 83 179 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 61.1 RW RW 118 255 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.4 RW RW 125 269 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.8 RW RW 114 245 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.5 RW RW 107 231 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 60.1 RW RW 101 219 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 61.1 RW RW 118 255 Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.5 RW 68 146 314 Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.3 RW RW 121 262 Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.8 RW 72 154 333 Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 62.0 RW 64 137 295 Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 64.0 RW 86 184 397 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.6 RW 94 203 437 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 RW RW 73 158 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 64.4 RW 92 197 425 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.7 RW 82 177 382 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 61.2 RW RW 119 257 Avocado North of San Miguel 57.8 RW RW 71 153 Avocado South of San Miguel 62.7 RW 70 151 326 Avocado North of Coast Highway 61.2 RW RW 120 259 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.5 126 272 585 1,261 Macarthur 1South of Bonita Canyon 1 70.9 114 246 529 1,140 Macarthur I North of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.8 113 243 1 524 1,129 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM Table 6-3 (2 of 3) 2016 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 1 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 84 180 388 836 Macarthur North of San Miguel 68.3 78 167 1 360 776 Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.6 69 148 319 688 Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.6 69 149 320 690 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 64.0 RW 86 186 400 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 63.0 RW 74 160 344 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 62.4 RW 1 67 145 313 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 68.1 75 162 348 750 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 59.4 RW RW 92 198 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 65.5 RW 109 234 504 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 66.2 RW 120 259 559 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 64.2 RW 1 88 190 410 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.8 RW 97 209 451 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa 66.0 RW 117 253 544 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 66.2 RW 120 258 555 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 65.7 RW 112 241 520 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 RW RW 77 165 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.4 RW RW 78 169 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.4 RW RW RW 91 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61.9 RW RW 133 287 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61.8 RW RW 132 284 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 59.8 RW RW 96 208 Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 59.2 RW RW 88 190 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.5 RW RW RW 125 San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61.8 RW RW 131 283 San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.8 RW 83 178 384 San Miguel West of Avacado 64.8 RW 96 208 447 San Miguel East of Avacado 66.5 RW 125 270 581 San Miguel West of Macarthur 66.2 RW 119 257 555 San Miguel East of Macarthur 63.1 RW 75 162 349 Coast Highway West of Jamboree 71.0 117 251 541 1,166 Coast Highway East of Jamboree 70.1 102 219 472 1,018 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 69.8 1 97 209 450 968 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM IWO Table 6-3 (3 of 3) 2016 Without Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Distance to Contour (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 69.0 86 185 399 859 Coast Highway West of Avacado 68.9 84 181 390 1 841 Coast Highway East of Avacado 69.0 86 185 398 857 Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.7 82 176 378 815 Coast Highway East of Macarthur 70.4 106 228 491 1,057 "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 30 Table 6-4 (1 of 3) 2016 With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Jamboree North of Eastbluff 69.7 95 204 440 948 Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 70.5 107 231 499 1,074 Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 83 179 386 832 Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 69.0 86 185 399 859 Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 68.6 81 174 374 806 Jamboree North of Coast Highway 68.3 77 167 360 1 775 Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.6 RW 80 173 372 Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 RW RW RW 92 Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.2 RW 76 164 353 Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 63.1 RW 75 161 347 Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 62.2 RW 65 140 301 Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 62.0 RW RW 135 291 Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.8 RW RW 83 179 Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 61.1 RW RW 118 255 Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.4 RW RW 125 269 Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.8 RW RW 114 245 Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.5 RW RW 107 231 Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 60.1 RW RW 101 219 Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 61.1 RW RW 118 255 Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.5 RW 68 146 314 Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.3 RW RW 121 262 Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.8 RW 72 154 333 Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 62.0 RW 64 137 295 Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 64.0 RW 86 184 397 Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.6 RW 94 203 437 Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 RW RW 73 158 Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 64.4 RW 92 197 425 Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.7 RW 82 177 382 Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 61.2 RW RW 119 257 Avocado North of San Miguel 57.8 RW RW 71 153 Avocado South of San Miguel 62.7 RW 70 151 326 Avocado North of Coast Highway 61.2 RW RW 120 259 Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.5 126 272 586 1,262 Macarthur 1South of Bonita Canyon 1 70.9 114 246 530 1,141 Macarthur I North of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.8 113 243 1 524 1,129 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 31 Table 6-4 (2 of 3) 2016 With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) 70 dBA CNEL Distance to Contour (Feet) 1 65 dBA 60 dBA CNEL CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Macarthur South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 84 180 388 836 Macarthur North of San Miguel 68.3 78 167 1 360 776 Macarthur South of San Miguel 67.6 69 148 319 688 Macarthur North of Coast Highway 67.6 69 149 320 690 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Jamboree 64.0 RW 86 186 400 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Jamboree 63.1 RW 74 160 346 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn West of Bonita Canyon 62.4 RW 1 67 145 313 Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn East of Bonita Canyon 68.1 75 162 349 751 San Joaquin Hills West of Jamboree 59.4 RW RW 92 198 San Joaquin Hills East of Jamboree 65.6 RW 109 235 505 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Cruz 66.2 RW 120 259 559 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Cruz 64.2 RW 1 89 191 412 San Joaquin Hills West of Santa Rosa 64.8 RW 98 210 453 San Joaquin Hills East of Santa Rosa 66.1 RW 118 253 546 San Joaquin Hills West of Macarthur 66.2 RW 120 259 557 San Joaquin Hills East of Macarthur 65.7 RW 112 241 520 San Clemente East of Santa Barbara 58.3 RW RW 78 167 San Clemente West of Santa Cruz 58.5 RW RW 79 171 Santa Barbara West of Jamboree 54.4 RW RW RW 91 Santa Barbara East of Jamboree 61.9 RW RW 134 288 Santa Barbara North of San Clemente 61.8 RW RW 132 284 Santa Barbara South of San Clemente 59.8 RW RW 96 208 Santa Barbara West of Newport CTR 59.2 RW RW 88 190 Santa Barbara East of Newport CTR 56.5 RW RW RW 125 San Miguel West of Newport CTR 61.8 RW RW 131 283 San Miguel East of Newport CTR 63.8 RW 83 178 384 San Miguel West of Avacado 64.8 RW 96 208 447 San Miguel East of Avacado 66.5 RW 125 270 581 San Miguel West of Macarthur 66.2 RW 119 257 555 San Miguel East of Macarthur 63.1 RW 75 162 349 Coast Highway West of Jamboree 71.0 117 252 542 1,167 Coast Highway East of Jamboree 70.1 102 219 472 1,018 Coast Highway West of Newport CTR 69.8 1 97 209 450 968 North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 32 Table 6-4 (3 of 3) 2016 With Project Conditions Noise Contours Road Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (dBA) Distance to Contour (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 55 dBA CNEL Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 69.0 86 185 399 860 Coast Highway West of Avacado 68.9 84 181 390 1 841 Coast Highway East of Avacado 69.0 86 185 398 858 Coast Highway West of Macarthur 69.0 86 185 399 860 Coast Highway East of Macarthur 70.4 106 228 491 1,058 "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 33 indicates that the unmitigated off-site traffic noise levels will remain the same and range from 54.4 to 71.5. Project contributions are discussed in the following sections. 6.4 Existina With Proiect Traffic Noise Level Contributions Table 6-5 presents a comparison of the existing conditions noise levels for with and without the addition of project traffic associated with adding 94 residential dwelling units to San Joaquin Plaza. The roadway noise increases will range from 0.0 dBA CNEL to 1.1 dBA CNEL with the development of the proposed project. 6.5 Year 2016 With Proiect Traffic Noise Level Contributions Table 6-6 presents a comparison of the Year 2016 noise levels for with and without the addition of project traffic associated with adding 94 residential dwelling units to San Joaquin Plaza. The roadway noise increases will range from 0.0 dBA CNEL and 0.3 dBA CNEL, with the development of the proposed project. 6.6 Off -Site Transportation Related Prosect Noise Impacts Based on the significance criteria provided in Section 4.2, a new or substantial increase to the transportation -related noise impacts identified in the General Plan EIR occurs when there is a substantial increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. According to the significance thresholds shown on Tables 6-5 and 6-6 (which are based on General Plan Policy N 1.8), 72 of the 73 study roadway segments within the project study area are not expected to create a potentially significant off-site transportation related noise impact. Based on the Existing conditions off-site transportation noise impact analysis, the Newport Center segment north of San Miguel is the only roadway identified with a potentially significant impact. However, the land uses neighboring this roadway segment consist primarily of commercial retail and office uses and not considered existing sensitive uses that would require additional off-site noise mitigation. As such, a significant impact for this roadway segment does not exist in for future Year 2016 condition. For all of the 73 study area roadway segments, project related noise level increases are expected to be less than 1.0 to 3.0 dBA CNEL in Year 2016, which is considered "barely perceptible." All North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN: 08211-04 Noise Report) 34 OURBAM CROSSROADS Table 6-5 (1 of 3) Existing Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) No With Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold (dBA)' Potential Significant Impact?2 Jamboree North of Eastbluff 68.8 68.9 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.0 68.0 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Coast Highway 67.5 67.5 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.3 63.3 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 54.5 0.0 3.0 No Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.0 63.4 0.4 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 62.9 62.9 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 61.9 61.9 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 61.7 61.7 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.5 1 58.5 0.0 2.0 No Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 60.9 60.9 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.3 61.3 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.6 60.6 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.2 60.2 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 59.9 59.9 0.0 2.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 60.6 60.6 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.0 62.1 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.0 62.1 1.1 1.0 Yes Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.7 62.7 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 61.9 61.9 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 63.6 63.6 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.2 64.2 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 58.0 0.0 2.0 No Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 63.8 1 63.8 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.0 63.0 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 60.5 60.5 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of San Miguel 57.0 57.0 0.0 2.0 No Avocado South of San Miguel 62.0 62.0 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of Coast Highway 60.4 60.4 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.1 71.1 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur South of Bonita Canyon 70.3 70.3 0.0 1 1.0 No Macarthur INorth of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.3 70.3 1 0.0 1 1.0 1 No North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 35 Roadway Macarthur Macarthur Macarthur Macarthur Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Clemente San Clemente Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel Coast Highway Coast Highway Coast Highway Table 6-5 (2 of 3) Existing Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) Signifcance Potential No With Project Threshold Significant Project I Project Addition (dRA)' Imnart?2 South of San Joaquin Hills 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No North of San Miguel 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.0 No South of San Miguel 67.0 67.0 0.0 1.0 No North of Coast Highway 67.0 67.0 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 63.8 63.8 0.0 1.0 No East of Jamboree 62.8 62.8 0.0 1.0 No West of Bonita Canyon 62.1 62.2 0.0 1.0 No East of Bonita Canyon 67.9 67.9 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 59.3 59.3 0.0 2.0 No East of Jamboree 64.9 65.0 0.0 1.0 No West of Santa Cruz 65.9 65.9 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Cruz 63.8 63.9 0.0 1.0 No West of Santa Rosa 64.4 64.4 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Rosa 65.8 65.8 0.0 1.0 No West of Macarthur 65.7 65.7 0.0 1.0 No East of Macarthur 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Barbara 58.3 58.3 0.1 2.0 No West of Santa Cruz 58.4 58.5 0.1 2.0 No West of Jamboree 54.0 54.0 0.0 3.0 No East of Jamboree 61.6 61.7 0.0 1.0 No North of San Clemente 61.6 61.6 1 0.0 1.0 No South of San Clemente 59.4 59.4 0.0 2.0 No West of Newport CTR 58.8 58.8 0.1 2.0 No East of Newport CTR 56.0 56.0 0.0 2.0 No West of Newport CTR 61.1 61.1 0.0 1.0 No East of Newport CTR 63.2 63.2 0.0 1.0 No West of Avacado 64.3 64.3 0.0 1.0 No East of Avacado 66.0 66.0 0.0 1.0 No West of Macarthur 65.6 65.6 0.0 1.0 No East of Macarthur 62.9 62.9 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 70.2 70.2 0.0 1.0 No East of Jamboree 69.2 69.2 0.0 1.0 No West of Newport CTR 68.9 68.9 0.0 1 1.0 1 No North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) 36 URBAN cFcoss�xAM Table 6-5 (3 of 3) Existing Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) Signifcance Threshold (d BA)' Potential Significant Impact?2 No With Project Project Project Addition Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 68.0 68.0 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Avacado 67.8 67.8 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Avacado 68.1 1 68.1 1 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.1 68.1 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Macarthur 69.5 69.5 0.0 1.0 No ' Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8. 2 Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM 37 Table 6-6 (1 of 3) Year 2016 Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) No With Project Project Project Addition Signifcance Threshold (dBA)' Potential Significant Impact?2 Jamboree North of Eastbluff 69.6 69.7 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 70.5 70.5 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Santa Barbara 69.0 69.0 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Santa Barbara 68.6 68.6 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree North of Coast Highway 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No Jamboree South of Coast Highway 63.6 63.6 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Joaquin Hills 54.5 54.5 0.0 3.0 No Santa Cruz Souh of San Joaquin Hills 63.1 63.2 0.1 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of San Clemente 63.1 63.1 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of San Clemente 62.1 62.2 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz North of Newport CTR 62.0 62.0 0.0 1.0 No Santa Cruz South of Newport CTR 58.8 1 58.8 0.0 2.0 No Newport CTR West of Newport CTR 61.1 61.1 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Barbara 61.4 61.4 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Barbara 60.8 60.8 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Cruz 60.5 60.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Cruz 60.1 60.1 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Santa Rosa 61.1 61.1 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Santa Rosa 62.5 62.5 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of San Miguel 61.3 61.3 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of San Miguel 62.8 62.8 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR East of Newport CTR 62.0 62.0 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR South of Newport CTR (Circle 64.0 64.0 0.0 1.0 No Newport CTR North of Coast Highway 64.6 64.6 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of San Joaquin Hills 58.0 58.0 0.0 2.0 No Santa Rosa South of San Joaquin Hills 64.4 1 64.4 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa North of Newport CTR 63.7 63.7 0.0 1.0 No Santa Rosa South of Newport CTR 61.2 61.2 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of San Miguel 57.8 57.8 0.0 2.0 No Avocado South of San Miguel 62.7 62.7 0.0 1.0 No Avocado North of Coast Highway 61.2 61.2 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur North of Bonita Canyon 71.5 71.5 0.0 1.0 No Macarthur South of Bonita Canyon 70.9 70.9 0.0 1 1.0 No Macarthur INorth of San Joaquin Hills 1 70.8 70.8 1 0.0 1 1.0 No North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM Roadway Macarthur Macarthur Macarthur Macarthur Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Joaquin Hills San Clemente San Clemente Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel Coast Highway Coast Highway Coast Highway Table 6-6 (2 of 3) Year 2016 Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) Signifcance Potential No With Project Threshold Significant Project I Project Addition (dRA)' Imnart?2 South of San Joaquin Hills 68.8 68.8 0.0 1.0 No North of San Miguel 68.3 68.3 0.0 1.0 No South of San Miguel 67.6 67.6 0.0 1.0 No North of Coast Highway 67.6 67.6 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 64.0 64.0 0.0 1.0 No East of Jamboree 63.0 63.1 0.0 1.0 No West of Bonita Canyon 62.4 62.4 0.0 1.0 No East of Bonita Canyon 68.1 68.1 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 59.4 59.4 0.0 2.0 No East of Jamboree 65.5 65.6 0.0 1.0 No West of Santa Cruz 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Cruz 64.2 64.2 0.0 1.0 No West of Santa Rosa 64.8 64.8 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Rosa 66.0 66.1 0.0 1.0 No West of Macarthur 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No East of Macarthur 65.7 65.7 0.0 1.0 No East of Santa Barbara 58.3 58.3 0.1 2.0 No West of Santa Cruz 58.4 58.5 0.1 2.0 No West of Jamboree 54.4 54.4 0.0 3.0 No East of Jamboree 61.9 61.9 0.0 1.0 No North of San Clemente 61.8 61.8 1 0.0 1.0 No South of San Clemente 59.8 59.8 0.0 2.0 No West of Newport CTR 59.2 59.2 0.0 2.0 No East of Newport CTR 56.5 56.5 0.0 2.0 No West of Newport CTR 61.8 61.8 0.0 1.0 No East of Newport CTR 63.8 63.8 0.0 1.0 No West of Avacado 64.8 64.8 0.0 1.0 No East of Avacado 66.5 66.5 0.0 1.0 No West of Macarthur 66.2 66.2 0.0 1.0 No East of Macarthur 63.1 63.1 0.0 1.0 No West of Jamboree 71.0 71.0 0.0 1.0 No East of Jamboree 70.1 70.1 0.0 1.0 No West of Newport CTR 69.8 69.8 0.0 1 1.0 1 No North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) 39 URBAN cFcoss�xAM Table 6-6 (3 of 3) Year 2016 Off -Site Project Related Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment CNEL at 100 Feet (d BA) Signifcance Threshold (d BA)' Potential Significant Impact?2 No With Project Project Project Addition Coast Highway East of Newport CTR 69.0 69.0 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Avacado 68.9 68.9 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Avacado 69.0 1 69.0 1 0.0 1.0 No Coast Highway West of Macarthur 68.7 69.0 0.3 1.0 No Coast Highway East of Macarthur 70.4 70.4 0.0 1.0 No ' Significant noise impact threshold defined by the City of Newport Beach Policy N 1.8. 2 Potential noise impact for existing noise sensitive uses. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach CA (JN:08211-04) OURBAM iO noise level increases attributable to project -related traffic also are either below the thresholds established by General Plan Policy N 1.8, or would not impact a sensitive receptor. As such, the proposed project's contributions to off-site roadway noise increases for both existing conditions and year 2016 would not result in the exposure of persons to or result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies. Additionally, Project -related traffic would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. For General Plan buildout conditions, noise level increases attributable to project -related traffic would be less than the noise level increases presented in Table 6-6. This is because buildout of the General Plan would result in an overall increase in background traffic volumes, which would thereby result in an increase in background noise levels as compared to year 2016 conditions. As background traffic -related noise levels increase, noise increases attributable to project traffic would decrease. Therefore, since project -related noise increases would be less than the values presented in Table 6-6, Project -related traffic under General Plan buildout conditions would not result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the General Plan, City Noise Ordinance, or applicable standards of any other agencies, nor would it result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Based on the analysis presented above, traffic associated with the proposed project would not result in any new significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor would Project traffic result in a substantial increase in the severity of any noise impacts previously identified in the General Plan EIR. North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis City of Newport Beach, CA (JN. -08211-04 Noise Report) 41 OURBAM CROSSROADS APPENDIX 6.1 Off -Site FHWA Traffic Noise Model Printouts North Newport Center Planned Community Noise Impact Analysis OURBAM City of Newport Beach, CA (JN.08211-03 Report.docx) FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Eastbluff Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,350 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calcutabons Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 53,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,360 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 4.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.34 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.90 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.76 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -15.85 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Autos., 68.5 66.6 64.8 58.8 67.4 68.0 Medium Trucks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Medium Trucks: 62.2 60.7 54.4 52.8 61.3 61.5 Heavy Tmcks: 62.2 60.8 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.5 Heavy Tmcks: 63.1 61.7 52.6 53.9 62.2 62.4 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.8 68.4 68.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.3 68.6 65.4 60.8 69.3 69.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 168 362 781 Ldn: 90 193 416 897 CNEL: 84 180 389 837 CNEL: 96 207 447 962 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,600 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 38,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,850 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.90 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -13.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.29 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.1 57.0 65.7 66.3 Autos., 67.0 65.2 63.4 57.3 66.0 66.6 Medium Trucks: 60.5 59.0 52.6 51.1 59.6 59.8 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 52.9 51.4 59.9 60.1 Heavy Tmcks: 61.4 59.9 50.9 52.1 60.5 60.6 Heavy Tmcks: 61.6 60.2 51.2 52.4 60.8 60.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.9 63.7 59.0 67.6 68.0 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.1 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 69 148 319 688 Ldn: 72 155 334 720 CNEL: 74 159 343 738 CNEL: 77 166 358 772 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 6.1-1 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,450 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Pad Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculalions Evening VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 32,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,200 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Pad Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 3.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.10 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medfum Trucks: 79.45 -13.81 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.09 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.9 65.5 66.1 Autos., 66.2 64.3 62.6 56.5 65.1 65.8 Medium Trucks: 60.3 58.8 52.5 50.9 59.4 59.6 Medium Trucks: 60.0 58.5 52.1 50.6 59.0 59.3 Heavy Tmcks: 61.2 59.7 50.7 52.0 60.3 60.4 Heavy Tmcks: 60.8 59.4 50.4 51.6 60.0 60.1 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.5 58.8 67.4 67.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.3 63.2 58.5 67.1 67.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 deA 55 dBA Ldn., 67 144 310 669 Ldn: 64 137 295 636 CNEL: 72 155 333 718 CNEL: 68 147 317 682 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Coast Highway SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedfne Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 1,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedfne DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.09 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -9.65 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -18.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -26.88 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -22.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -30.84 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier, attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.1 60.2 58.4 52.3 61.0 61.6 Autos., 53.2 51.3 49.6 43.5 52.1 52.7 Medium Trucks: 55.8 54.3 47.9 46.4 54.9 55.1 Medium Trucks: 47.0 45.5 39.1 37.6 46.0 46.3 Heavy Tmcks: 56.7 55.2 46.2 47.4 55.8 55.9 Heavy Tmcks: 47.8 46.4 37.4 38.6 47.0 47.1 Vehicle Noise: 63.9 62.2 59.0 54.3 62.9 63.3 Vehicle Noise: 55.1 53.3 50.2 45.5 54.0 54.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 33 72 155 334 Ldn: 9 19 40 86 CNEL: 36 77 167 359 CNEL: 9 20 43 92 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 6.1-2 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Souh of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,200 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Bann Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 11,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.16 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.27 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.40 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.51 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.35 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.46 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 61.7 59.8 58.0 52.0 60.6 61.2 Autos., 61.6 59.7 57.9 51.9 60.5 61.1 Medium Trucks: 55.5 54.0 47.6 46.0 54.5 54.7 Medium Trucks: 55.4 53.8 47.5 45.9 54.4 54.6 Heavy Trucks: 56.3 54.9 45.8 47.1 55.5 55.6 Heavy Trucks: 56.2 54.8 45.7 47.0 55.3 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.8 58.7 54.0 62.5 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 63.4 61.7 58.5 53.9 62.4 62.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 32 68 147 317 Ldn: 31 67 145 312 CNEL: 34 73 158 340 CNEL: 33 72 155 334 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 9,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 930 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 8,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 890 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MedfumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.27 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.46 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -19.50 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.70 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -23.46 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -23.65 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.6 58.7 56.9 50.9 59.5 60.1 Autos., 60.4 58.5 56.7 50.7 59.3 59.9 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.8 46.5 44.9 53.4 53.6 Medium Trucks: 54.2 52.7 46.3 44.7 53.2 53.4 Heavy Tmcks: 55.2 53.8 44.7 46.0 54.3 54.5 Heavy Tmcks: 55.0 53.6 44.5 45.8 54.2 54.3 Vehicle Noise: 62.4 60.7 57.5 52.9 61.4 61.9 Vehicle Noise: 62.2 60.5 57.4 52.7 61.2 61.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 27 58 124 267 Ldn: 26 56 121 260 CNEL: 29 62 133 287 CNEL: 28 60 129 279 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-3 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculalions I TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 700 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -5.62 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.50 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.85 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.74 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -26.81 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.69 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 57.3 55.4 53.6 47.5 56.2 56.8 Autos., 59.6 57.7 56.0 49.9 58.5 59.2 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.1 41.6 50.1 50.3 Medium Trucks: 53.4 51.9 45.5 44.0 52.4 52.7 Heavy Trucks: 51.8 50.4 41.4 42.6 51.0 51.1 Heavy Trucks: 54.2 52.8 43.8 45.0 53.4 53.5 Vehicle Noise: 59.1 57.3 54.2 49.5 58.1 58.5 Vehicle Noise: 61.5 59.7 56.6 51.9 60.5 60.9 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 16 34 74 160 Ldn: 23 50 107 231 CNEL: 17 37 80 172 CNEL: 25 53 115 248 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 770 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 650 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.09 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -25.02 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.1 58.2 56.4 50.3 59.0 59.6 Autos., 59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8 Medium Trucks: 53.8 52.3 45.9 44.4 52.9 53.1 Medium Trucks: 53.1 51.6 45.2 43.7 52.1 52.4 Heavy Trucks. 54.7 53.2 44.2 45.4 53.8 53.9 Heavy Trucks. 53.9 52.5 43.5 44.7 53.1 53.2 Vehicle Noise: 61.9 60.2 57.0 52.3 60.9 61.3 Vehicle Noise: 61.2 59.4 56.3 51.6 60.1 60.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 25 53 114 246 Ldn: 22 47 102 220 CNEL: 26 57 123 264 CNEL: 24 51 109 236 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-4 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Cruz Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 600 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Cruz Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 5,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 560 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -4.17 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -4.47 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.71 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.36 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.66 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and harrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.0 57.1 55.3 49.3 57.9 58.5 Autos., 58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2 Medium Trucks: 52.7 51.2 44.9 43.3 51.8 52.0 Medium Trucks: 52.4 50.9 44.6 43.0 51.5 51.7 Heavy Trucks: 53.6 52.2 43.1 44.4 52.7 52.8 Heavy Trucks: 53.3 51.9 42.8 44.1 52.4 52.5 Vehicle Noise: 60.8 59.1 55.9 51.2 59.8 60.2 Vehicle Noise: 60.5 58.8 55.6 50.9 59.5 59.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 21 45 97 208 Ldn: 20 43 92 199 CNEL: 22 48 104 224 CNEL: 21 46 99 214 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Rosa Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 650 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Rosa Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.36 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.02 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.55 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8 Autos., 60.8 58.9 57.1 51.1 59.7 60.3 Medium Trucks: 53.1 51.6 45.2 43.7 52.1 52.4 Medium Trucks: 54.5 53.0 46.7 45.1 53.6 53.8 Heavy Trucks. 53.9 52.5 43.5 44.7 53.1 53.2 Heavy Trucks. 55.4 54.0 44.9 46.2 54.5 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 61.2 59.4 56.3 51.6 60.1 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.6 60.9 57.7 53.0 61.6 62.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 22 47 102 220 Ldn: 28 59 128 275 CNEL: 24 51 109 236 CNEL: 30 64 137 295 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-5 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 720 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 10,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.70 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.62 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.57 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.89 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.1 50.0 58.7 59.3 Autos., 61.4 59.5 57.8 51.7 60.4 61.0 Medium Trucks: 53.5 52.0 45.7 44.1 52.6 52.8 Medium Trucks: 55.2 53.7 47.3 45.8 54.2 54.5 Heavy Trucks: 54.4 52.9 43.9 45.2 53.5 53.6 Heavy Trucks: 56.0 54.6 45.6 46.8 55.2 55.3 Vehicle Noise: 61.6 59.9 56.7 52.0 60.6 61.0 Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.5 58.4 53.7 62.3 62.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dRA Ldn: 24 51 109 235 Ldn: 30 66 141 305 CNEL: 25 54 117 252 CNEL: 33 70 152 327 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 8,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tracks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tracks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR (Circle Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tracks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.51 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.85 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.74 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.70 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.6 58.7 57.0 50.9 59.5 60.1 Autos., 62.3 60.4 58.6 52.6 61.2 61.8 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.5 45.0 53.4 53.7 Medium Trucks: 56.1 54.5 48.2 46.6 55.1 55.3 Heavy Trucks. 55.2 53.8 44.8 46.0 54.4 54.5 Heavy Trucks. 56.9 55.5 46.4 47.7 56.0 56.2 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.7 57.6 52.9 61.4 61.9 Vehicle Noise: 64.1 62.4 59.2 54.6 63.1 63.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 27 58 125 269 Ldn: 35 75 161 347 CNEL: 29 62 134 289 CNEL: 37 80 173 372 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-6 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,490 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculalions FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TraMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAffen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAffen I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.22 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -6.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -23.39 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.41 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -27.35 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.9 61.0 59.3 53.2 61.8 62.4 Autos., 56.7 54.8 53.0 47.0 55.6 56.2 Medium Trucks: 56.7 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.7 56.0 Medium Trucks: 50.5 49.0 42.6 41.1 49.5 49.7 Heavy Tmcks: 57.5 56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8 Heavy Tmcks: 51.3 49.9 40.9 42.1 50.5 50.6 Vehicle Noise: 64.8 63.0 59.9 55.2 63.7 64.2 Vehicle Noise: 58.5 56.8 53.7 49.0 57.5 58.0 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 deA 55 dBA Ldn: 38 82 177 382 Ldn: 15 32 68 147 CNEL: 41 88 190 410 CNEL: 16 34 73 158 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,450 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.09 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -17.58 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.53 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -22.28 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.9 52.8 61.4 62.0 Autos., 61.8 59.9 58.1 52.1 60.7 61.3 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.8 48.4 46.9 55.3 55.6 Medium Trucks: 55.5 54.0 47.7 46.1 54.6 54.8 Heavy Tmcks: 57.1 55.7 46.7 47.9 56.3 56.4 Heavy Tmcks: 56.4 55.0 45.9 47.2 55.5 55.7 Vehicle Noise: 64.4 62.6 59.5 54.8 63.3 63.8 Vehicle Noise: 63.6 61.9 58.7 54.0 62.6 63.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 36 77 167 360 Ldn: 32 69 149 320 CNEL: 39 83 179 386 CNEL: 34 74 160 344 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 6.1-7 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 420 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -3.63 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 66.51 -5.21 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.86 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -22.45 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.82 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -26.40 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 59.2 57.3 55.6 49.5 58.1 58.7 Autos., 55.6 53.7 51.9 45.9 54.5 55.1 Medium Trucks: 53.0 51.5 45.1 43.6 52.0 52.3 Medium Trucks: 49.6 48.1 41.7 40.1 48.6 48.8 Heavy Trucks: 53.8 52.4 43.4 44.6 53.0 53.1 Heavy Trucks: 50.9 49.5 40.4 41.7 50.0 50.2 Vehicle Noise: 61.1 59.3 56.2 51.5 60.0 60.5 Vehicle Noise: 57.6 55.9 52.6 48.0 56.6 57.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Lain: 22 47 101 217 Lain: 13 27 59 127 CNEL: 23 50 108 233 CNEL: 14 29 63 136 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 13,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,310 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 920 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten Berm Allen Autos. 66.51 -0.27 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 66.51 -1.80 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.51 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -19.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.46 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -23.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.9 50.8 59.4 60.0 Autos., 59.0 57.1 55.3 49.3 57.9 58.5 Medium Trucks: 54.5 53.0 46.6 45.1 53.5 53.8 Medium Trucks: 53.0 51.5 45.1 43.5 52.0 52.2 Heavy Trucks. 55.8 54.4 45.4 46.6 55.0 55.1 Heavy Trucks. 54.3 52.9 43.8 45.1 53.4 53.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.8 57.5 53.0 61.5 62.0 Vehicle Noise: 61.0 59.3 56.0 51.4 60.0 60.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Lain, 27 59 126 272 Lain: 21 46 100 215 CNEL: 29 63 135 291 CNEL: 23 50 107 230 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Bonita Canyon Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic, (Adt): 72,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 7,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Bonita Canyon Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 61,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,140 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 6.68 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.93 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -14.52 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -15.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.8 67.9 66.2 60.1 68.7 69.3 Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Medium Trucks: 63.6 62.1 55.7 54.2 62.6 62.9 Medium Trucks: 62.8 61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Heavy Trucks: 64.4 63.0 54.0 55.2 63.6 63.7 Heavy Trucks: 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 62.9 Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.9 66.8 62.1 70.6 71.1 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.3 69.9 70.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 110 237 511 1,101 Ldn: 98 212 456 982 CNEL: 118 255 548 1,181 CNEL: 105 227 489 1,054 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 61,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,140 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 38,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.93 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -11.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -17.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and harrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.4 66.0 66.6 Medium Trucks: 62.8 61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 53.0 51.4 59.9 60.1 Heavy Tmcks: 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 62.9 Heavy Tmcks: 61.7 60.3 51.2 52.5 60.8 61.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.3 69.9 70.3 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 98 212 456 982 Ldn: 72 156 336 723 CNEL: 105 227 489 1,054 CNEL: 78 167 360 776 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-9 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,480 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 28,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,860 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic, Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 2.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.73 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.9 65.5 66.1 Autos., 65.8 63.9 62.1 56.0 64.7 65.3 Medium Trucks: 60.4 58.9 52.5 51.0 59.4 59.6 Medium Trucks: 59.5 58.0 51.6 50.1 58.6 58.8 Heavy Trucks: 61.2 59.8 50.8 52.0 60.4 60.5 Heavy Trucks: 60.4 58.9 49.9 51.1 59.5 59.6 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.6 58.9 67.4 67.9 Vehicle Noise: 67.6 65.9 62.7 58.0 66.6 67.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 650A 60 deA 55 dBA Ldn: 67 145 312 673 Ldn: 59 127 274 590 CNEL: 72 155 335 722 CNEL: 63 136 294 633 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 28,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,870 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic, Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,440 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic, Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 2.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.37 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.57 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.56 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 65.8 63.9 62.1 56.1 64.7 65.3 Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.8 61.4 62.0 Medium Trucks: 59.5 58.0 51.7 50.1 58.6 58.8 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Heavy Trucks. 60.4 59.0 49.9 51.2 59.5 59.6 Heavy Trucks. 57.1 55.7 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.4 Vehicle Noise: 67.6 65.9 62.7 58.0 66.6 67.0 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.8 63.3 63.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 59 127 275 592 Ldn: 36 77 166 358 CNEL: 63 137 295 635 CNEL: 38 83 178 384 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-10 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment East of Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 11,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,150 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Bonita Canyon Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 990 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.99 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.58 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.54 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.19 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.5 59.6 57.9 51.8 60.4 61.0 Autos., 60.9 59.0 57.2 51.2 59.8 60.4 Medium Trucks: 55.3 53.8 47.4 45.9 54.3 54.6 Medium Trucks: 54.6 53.1 46.8 45.2 53.7 53.9 Heavy Tmcks: 56.1 54.7 45.7 46.9 55.3 55.4 Heavy Tmcks: 55.5 54.0 45.0 46.3 54.6 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 63.4 61.6 58.5 53.8 62.3 62.8 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 61.0 57.8 53.1 61.7 62.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 ci Ldn: 31 66 143 308 Ldn: 28 60 129 279 CNEL: 33 71 153 330 CNEL: 30 64 139 299 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Bonita Canyon Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 37,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,760 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 4,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 480 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.80 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -5.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -13.44 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.39 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -26.33 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.7 64.8 63.0 56.9 65.6 66.2 Autos., 58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 56.9 57.5 Medium Trucks: 60.4 58.9 52.6 51.0 59.5 59.7 Medium Trucks: 51.8 50.3 43.9 42.3 50.8 51.0 Heavy Tmcks: 61.3 59.8 50.8 52.1 60.4 60.5 Heavy Tmcks: 52.6 51.2 42.1 43.4 51.8 51.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.5 66.8 63.6 58.9 67.5 67.9 Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.1 55.0 50.3 58.8 59.3 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 68 146 315 679 Ldn: 18 39 83 180 CNEL: 73 157 338 728 CNEL: 19 42 89 193 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 6.1-11 Tueaday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment East of Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 17,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,770 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BandarAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 21,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,190 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TinaMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 0.53 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.45 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.71 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.78 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.67 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.74 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.7 61.8 60.0 54.0 62.6 63.2 Autos., 64.6 62.7 60.9 54.9 63.5 64.1 Medium Trucks: 57.4 55.9 49.6 48.0 56.5 56.7 Medium Trucks: 58.4 56.8 50.5 48.9 57.4 57.6 Heavy Trucks: 58.3 56.9 47.8 49.1 57.4 57.5 Heavy Trucks: 59.2 57.8 48.7 50.0 58.3 58.5 Vehicle Noise: 65.5 63.8 60.6 55.9 64.5 64.9 Vehicle Noise: 66.4 64.7 61.5 56.9 65.4 65.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 43 92 199 429 Ldn: 49 106 229 494 CNEL: 46 99 213 460 CNEL: 53 114 246 530 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Cruz Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 13,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tracks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TinaMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Rosa Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 15,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,570 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tracks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TinaMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.01 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -17.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.23 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.78 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.19 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.6 60.7 58.9 52.8 61.5 62.1 Autos., 63.2 61.3 59.5 53.4 62.1 62.7 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.8 48.4 46.9 55.4 55.6 Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.0 47.5 56.0 56.2 Heavy Tmcks: 57.2 55.7 46.7 48.0 56.3 56.4 Heavy Tmcks: 57.8 56.3 47.3 48.5 56.9 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 64.4 62.7 59.5 54.8 63.4 63.8 Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.2 60.1 55.4 64.0 64.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 36 78 168 361 Ldn: 40 85 184 396 CNEL: 39 84 180 388 CNEL: 42 91 197 425 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-12 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Rosa Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 21,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,160 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Heavy Trucks: 92.547 VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur Autos: 68.46 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 0.000 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 21,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,120 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data -19.80 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Ldn VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 1.39 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.84 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.93 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.80 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.88 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.5 62.6 60.9 54.8 63.4 64.0 Autos., 64.5 62.6 60.8 54.7 63.4 64.0 Medium Trucks: 58.3 56.8 50.4 48.9 57.3 57.6 Medium Trucks: 58.2 56.7 50.3 48.8 57.3 57.5 Heavy Tmcks: 59.1 57.7 48.7 49.9 58.3 58.4 Heavy Tmcks: 59.1 57.6 48.6 49.8 58.2 58.3 Vehicle Noise: 66.4 64.6 61.5 56.8 65.3 65.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.3 64.6 61.4 56.7 65.3 65.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 49 105 227 490 Ldn: 48 104 224 483 CNEL: 53 113 244 525 CNEL: 52 112 241 519 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 20,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Traffic Flow Distance VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 5,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 560 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtfim Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -3.96 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -16.05 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.20 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -20.01 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 82.99 -25.15 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.3 62.4 60.7 54.6 63.2 63.8 Autos., 56.8 54.9 53.2 47.1 55.7 56.3 Medium Trucks: 58.1 56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4 Medium Trucks: 50.8 49.3 42.9 41.4 49.9 50.1 Heavy Tmcks: 58.9 57.5 48.5 49.7 58.1 58.2 Heavy Tmcks: 52.1 50.7 41.7 42.9 51.3 51.4 Vehicle Noise: 66.2 64.4 61.3 56.6 65.1 65.6 Vehicle Noise: 58.8 57.1 53.8 49.3 57.8 58.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 47 102 220 474 Ldn: 15 33 72 154 CNEL: 51 110 236 509 CNEL: 17 36 77 165 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-13 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cmz Road Segment: Westof Jamboree SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmfifc (Adt): 5,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtfim I Berm Atten FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 2,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Atten Autos. 66.51 -3.81 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -8.22 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -25.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -29.41 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 57.0 55.1 53.3 47.3 55.9 56.5 Autos., 52.6 50.7 48.9 42.9 51.5 52.1 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.1 41.5 50.0 50.2 Medium Trucks: 46.5 45.0 38.7 37.1 45.6 45.8 Heavy Trucks. 52.3 50.9 41.8 43.1 51.4 51.6 Heavy Trucks. 47.9 46.4 37.4 38.7 47.0 47.1 Vehicle Noise: 59.0 57.3 54.0 49.4 58.0 58.4 Vehicle Noise: 54.6 52.9 49.6 45.0 53.6 54.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 16 34 73 158 Ldn: 8 17 37 80 CNEL: 17 36 78 169 CNEL: 9 19 40 86 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Atten Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,200 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MedfumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medfum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtfim Berm Atten Autos: 66.51 -0.61 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -0.65 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.85 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.89 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 82.99 -21.81 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.84 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 UnV.gated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.2 58.3 56.5 50.5 59.1 59.7 Autos., 60.1 58.3 56.5 50.4 59.1 59.7 Medium Trucks: 54.2 52.6 46.3 44.7 53.2 53.4 Medium Trucks: 54.1 52.6 46.2 44.7 53.2 53.4 Heavy Trucks. 55.5 54.1 45.0 46.3 54.6 54.7 Heavy Trucks. 55.4 54.0 45.0 46.2 54.6 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 62.2 60.5 57.2 52.6 61.2 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.2 60.4 57.1 52.6 61.1 61.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 26 56 120 258 Ldn: 26 55 119 256 CNEL: 28 59 128 276 CNEL: 27 59 127 275 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-14 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanferAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 6,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 630 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanferAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 66.51 -2.81 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -3.45 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.68 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -24.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -24.64 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 56.9 57.5 Autos., 57.4 55.5 53.7 47.6 56.3 56.9 Medium Trucks: 52.0 50.5 44.1 42.5 51.0 51.2 Medium Trucks: 51.3 49.8 43.4 41.9 50.4 50.6 Heavy Tracks: 53.3 51.9 42.8 44.1 52.4 52.6 Heavy Trucks: 52.6 51.2 42.2 43.4 51.8 51.9 Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.3 55.0 50.4 59.0 59.4 Vehicle Noise: 59.4 57.6 54.4 49.8 58.3 58.8 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 deA 55 dBA Ldn: 18 40 85 184 Ldn: 17 36 77 167 CNEL: 20 42 91 197 CNEL: 18 38 83 179 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraMc (Adt): 3,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 330 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 780 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 82.99 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -6.25 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.03 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -23.49 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.27 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 82.99 -27.45 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.22 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 54.5 52.6 50.9 44.8 53.4 54.1 Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 48.5 47.0 40.6 39.1 47.6 47.8 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Heavy Trucks. 49.8 48.4 39.4 40.6 49.0 49.1 Heavy Trucks. 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Vehicle Noise: 56.5 54.8 51.5 47.0 55.5 56.0 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 11 23 50 108 Ldn: 24 51 110 238 CNEL: 12 25 54 116 CNEL: 26 55 118 255 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-15 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,270 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations TreMC Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 16,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMC Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.20 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.04 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.11 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.00 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 62.0 60.1 58.3 52.2 60.9 61.5 Autos., 63.1 61.2 59.4 53.3 62.0 62.6 Medium Trucks: 55.7 54.2 47.8 46.3 54.8 55.0 Medium Trucks: 56.8 55.3 48.9 47.4 55.9 56.1 Heavy Trucks: 56.6 55.1 46.1 47.3 55.7 55.8 Heavy Trucks: 57.7 56.2 47.2 48.5 56.8 56.9 Vehicle Noise: 63.8 62.0 58.9 54.2 62.8 63.2 Vehicle Noise: 64.9 63.2 60.0 55.3 63.9 64.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 33 71 153 329 Ldn: 39 84 181 390 CNEL: 35 76 164 353 CNEL: 42 90 194 419 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 24,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks, Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMC Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur Autos. SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmilic (Adt): 22,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks, Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMC Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 1.49 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.75 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks, 84.25 -19.29 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.70 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3 Autos., 64.4 62.5 60.7 54.6 63.3 63.9 Medium Trucks: 58.5 57.0 50.7 49.1 57.6 57.8 Medium Trucks: 58.1 56.6 50.2 48.7 57.2 57.4 Heavy Trucks. 59.4 57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6 Heavy Trucks. 59.0 57.5 48.5 49.7 58.1 58.2 Vehicle Noise: 66.6 64.9 61.7 57.0 65.6 66.0 Vehicle Noise: 66.2 64.5 61.3 56.6 65.2 65.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 51 109 235 507 Ldn: 48 103 221 476 CNEL: 54 117 253 544 CNEL: 51 110 237 511 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-16 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur Medium Tmcks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 0.000 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 11,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,180 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Ldn Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Berm Aden Autos. 68.46 -1.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -18.47 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -22.43 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.6 59.7 58.0 51.9 60.5 61.1 Medium Tmcks: 55.4 53.9 47.5 46.0 54.4 54.7 Heavy Tmcks: 56.2 54.8 45.8 47.0 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.7 58.6 53.9 62.4 62.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 31 68 145 313 967 CNEL: 34 72 156 336 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment Eastof Jamboree Medium Tmcks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.97 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 47,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,700 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Night Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Tmcks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.47 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -16.42 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.9 66.0 64.3 58.2 66.8 67.4 Medium Tmcks: 61.7 60.2 53.8 52.3 60.7 60.9 Heavy Tmcks: 62.5 61.1 52.1 53.3 61.7 61.8 Vehicle Noise: 69.8 68.0 64.9 60.2 68.7 69.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 82 177 382 822 967 CNEL: 88 190 409 882 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-17 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree Medium Tmcks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.97 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 60,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.83 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -11.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.36 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.0 67.1 65.3 59.3 67.9 68.5 Medium Tmcks: 62.7 61.2 54.9 53.3 61.8 62.0 Heavy Tmcks: 63.6 62.2 53.1 54.4 62.7 62.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.8 69.1 65.9 61.2 69.8 70.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 97 208 449 967 CNEL: 104 224 482 1,038 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR Medium Tmcks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.97 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,360 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -16.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Medium Tmcks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Heavy Tmcks: 62.2 60.8 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.5 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.9 68.4 68.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 168 363 782 CNEL: 84 181 389 839 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 35,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,570 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,440 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLoq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.66 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.62 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.78 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 66.7 64.8 63.1 57.0 65.6 66.2 Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.8 65.5 66.1 Medium Trucks: 60.5 59.0 52.6 51.1 59.5 59.8 Medium Trucks: 60.3 58.8 52.4 50.9 59.4 59.6 Heavy Tmcks: 61.3 59.9 50.9 52.1 60.5 60.6 Heavy Trucks. 61.2 59.7 50.7 52.0 60.3 60.4 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.8 63.7 59.0 67.5 68.0 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.5 58.8 67.4 67.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 68 147 318 684 Ldn: 67 144 310 668 CNEL: 73 158 341 734 CNEL: 72 154 332 716 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,630 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -1.20 -4.87 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur Autos: 68.46 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 0.000 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data -17.55 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Abovs Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.66 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.55 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.53 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.1 57.1 65.7 66.3 Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.1 57.1 65.7 66.3 Medium Trucks: 60.5 59.0 52.7 51.1 59.6 59.8 Medium Trucks: 60.6 59.1 52.7 51.1 59.6 59.8 Heavy Tmcks: 61.4 60.0 50.9 52.2 60.5 60.7 Heavy Trucks. 61.4 60.0 50.9 52.2 60.6 60.7 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.9 63.7 59.1 67.6 68.1 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.9 63.7 59.1 67.6 68.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 69 149 321 692 Ldn: 69 149 322 693 CNEL: 74 160 345 742 CNEL: 74 160 345 744 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-18 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 Scenario: Existing HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 50,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,020 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Baffler Height: 0.0 het Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculalions TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Eastbluff 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,360 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 5.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.18 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.14 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 68.2 66.3 64.5 58.5 67.1 67.7 Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Medium Trucks: 62.0 60.4 54.1 52.5 61.0 61.2 Medium Trucks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Heavy Tmcks: 62.8 61.4 52.3 53.6 61.9 62.1 Heavy Tmcks: 62.2 60.8 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.5 Vehicle Noise: 70.0 68.3 65.1 60.5 69.0 69.5 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.9 68.4 68.9 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 86 185 399 859 Ldn: 78 168 363 782 CNEL: 92 198 428 921 CNEL: 84 181 389 839 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 53,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,600 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Abovs Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.35 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -11.89 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.85 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 68.5 66.6 64.8 58.8 67.4 68.0 Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.1 57.0 65.7 66.3 Medium Trucks: 62.2 60.7 54.4 52.8 61.3 61.5 Medium Trucks: 60.5 59.0 52.6 51.1 59.6 59.8 Heavy Tmcks: 63.1 61.7 52.6 53.9 62.2 62.4 Heavy Tmcks: 61.4 59.9 50.9 52.1 60.5 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 70.3 68.6 65.4 60.8 69.3 69.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.9 63.7 59.0 67.6 68.0 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 90 194 417 898 Ldn: 69 148 319 688 CNEL: 96 208 447 964 CNEL: 74 159 343 738 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-19 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 38,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,860 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,460 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.91 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.3 66.0 66.6 Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.9 65.5 66.1 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 52.9 51.4 59.9 60.1 Medium Trucks: 60.3 58.8 52.5 50.9 59.4 59.6 Heavy Tmcks: 61.7 60.2 51.2 52.5 60.8 60.9 Heavy Tmcks: 61.2 59.8 50.7 52.0 60.3 60.5 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.5 58.8 67.4 67.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 72 155 335 721 Ldn: 67 144 311 670 CNEL: 77 167 359 773 CNEL: 72 155 334 719 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Highway SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 32,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Pad Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Coast Highway Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedins Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.11 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.09 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.12 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -18.08 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.3 64.4 62.6 56.5 65.2 65.8 Autos., 62.1 60.2 58.4 52.3 61.0 61.6 Medium Trucks: 60.0 58.5 52.1 50.6 59.1 59.3 Medium Trucks: 55.8 54.3 47.9 46.4 54.9 55.1 Heavy Tmcks: 60.9 59.4 50.4 51.6 60.0 60.1 Heavy Tmcks: 56.7 55.2 46.2 47.4 55.8 55.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.4 63.2 58.5 67.1 67.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.9 62.2 59.0 54.3 62.9 63.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 64 137 296 637 Ldn: 33 72 155 334 CNEL: 68 147 317 684 CNEL: 36 77 167 359 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-20 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 1,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions Traffic Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Souh of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 13,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,320 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -9.65 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.75 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -26.88 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.98 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -30.84 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.94 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 53.2 51.3 49.6 43.5 52.1 52.7 Autos., 62.1 60.2 58.5 52.4 61.0 61.6 Medium Trucks: 47.0 45.5 39.1 37.6 46.0 46.3 Medium Trucks: 55.9 54.4 48.0 46.5 54.9 55.2 Heavy Tmcks: 47.8 46.4 37.4 38.6 47.0 47.1 Heavy Tmcks: 56.7 55.3 46.3 47.5 55.9 56.0 Vehicle Noise: 55.1 53.3 50.2 45.5 54.0 54.5 Vehicle Noise: 64.0 62.2 59.1 54.4 62.9 63.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 9 19 40 86 Ldn: 34 73 157 338 CNEL: 9 20 43 92 CNEL: 36 78 168 362 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 11,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,180 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 940 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerfne DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.22 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.47 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.46 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.43 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.41 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.6 59.7 58.0 51.9 60.5 61.1 Autos., 60.6 58.7 57.0 50.9 59.5 60.2 Medium Trucks: 55.4 53.9 47.5 46.0 54.4 54.7 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.5 45.0 53.4 53.7 Heavy Tmcks: 56.2 54.8 45.8 47.0 55.4 55.5 Heavy Tmcks: 55.2 53.8 44.8 46.0 54.4 54.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.7 58.6 53.9 62.4 62.9 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.7 57.6 52.9 61.5 61.9 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 31 68 145 313 Ldn: 27 58 125 269 CNEL: 34 72 156 336 CNEL: 29 62 134 289 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-21 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 900 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.41 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -5.62 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.65 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.85 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.60 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -26.81 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.8 50.7 59.4 60.0 Autos., 57.3 55.4 53.6 47.5 56.2 56.8 Medium Trucks: 54.2 52.7 46.3 44.8 53.3 53.5 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.1 41.6 50.1 50.3 Heavy Trucks. 55.1 53.6 44.6 45.8 54.2 54.3 Heavy Trucks. 51.8 50.4 41.4 42.6 51.0 51.1 Vehicle Noise: 62.3 60.5 57.4 52.7 61.3 61.7 Vehicle Noise: 59.1 57.3 54.2 49.5 58.1 58.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 26 56 121 262 Ldn: 16 34 74 160 CNEL: 28 60 130 281 CNEL: 17 37 80 172 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 700 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Treliic (Adt): 7,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 770 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.50 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.09 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.74 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -24.69 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.6 57.7 56.0 49.9 58.5 59.2 Autos., 60.1 58.2 56.4 50.3 59.0 59.6 Medium Trucks: 53.4 51.9 45.5 44.0 52.4 52.7 Medium Trucks: 53.8 52.3 45.9 44.4 52.9 53.1 Heavy Trucks. 54.2 52.8 43.8 45.0 53.4 53.5 Heavy Trucks. 54.7 53.2 44.2 45.4 53.8 53.9 Vehicle Noise: 61.5 59.7 56.6 51.9 60.5 60.9 Vehicle Noise: 61.9 60.2 57.0 52.3 60.9 61.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 23 50 107 231 Ldn: 25 53 114 246 CNEL: 25 53 115 248 CNEL: 26 57 123 264 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-22 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 650 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 600 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -4.17 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.02 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.36 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8 Autos., 59.0 57.1 55.3 49.3 57.9 58.5 Medium Trucks: 53.1 51.6 45.2 43.7 52.1 52.4 Medium Trucks: 52.7 51.2 44.9 43.3 51.8 52.0 Heavy Tmcks: 53.9 52.5 43.5 44.7 53.1 53.2 Heavy Tmcks: 53.6 52.2 43.1 44.4 52.7 52.8 Vehicle Noise: 61.2 59.4 56.3 51.6 60.1 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 60.8 59.1 55.9 51.2 59.8 60.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 22 47 102 220 Ldn: 21 45 97 208 CNEL: 24 51 109 236 CNEL: 22 48 104 224 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 5,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 560 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 650 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -4.47 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.71 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -25.66 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.02 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 58.7 56.8 55.0 49.0 57.6 58.2 Autos., 59.3 57.4 55.7 49.6 58.2 58.8 Medium Trucks: 52.4 50.9 44.6 43.0 51.5 51.7 Medium Trucks: 53.1 51.6 45.2 43.7 52.1 52.4 Heavy Tmcks: 53.3 51.9 42.8 44.1 52.4 52.5 Heavy Tmcks: 53.9 52.5 43.5 44.7 53.1 53.2 Vehicle Noise: 60.5 58.8 55.6 50.9 59.5 59.9 Vehicle Noise: 61.2 59.4 56.3 51.6 60.1 60.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 20 43 92 199 Ldn: 22 47 102 220 CNEL: 21 46 99 214 CNEL: 24 51 109 236 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-23 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 920 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtftm I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 920 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.55 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.55 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.8 58.9 57.2 51.1 59.7 60.3 Autos., 60.8 58.9 57.2 51.1 59.7 60.3 Medium Trucks: 54.6 53.1 46.7 45.2 53.6 53.9 Medium Trucks: 54.6 53.1 46.7 45.2 53.6 53.9 Heavy Trucks. 55.4 54.0 45.0 46.2 54.6 54.7 Heavy Trucks. 55.4 54.0 45.0 46.2 54.6 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 60.9 57.8 53.1 61.6 62.1 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 60.9 57.8 53.1 61.6 62.1 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 28 60 129 277 Ldn: 28 60 129 277 CNEL: 30 64 138 297 CNEL: 30 64 138 297 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 10,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 8,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.70 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.51 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.74 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -22.89 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.70 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.4 59.5 57.8 51.7 60.4 61.0 Autos., 60.6 58.7 57.0 50.9 59.5 60.1 Medium Trucks: 55.2 53.7 47.3 45.8 54.2 54.5 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.5 45.0 53.4 53.7 Heavy Trucks. 56.0 54.6 45.6 46.8 55.2 55.3 Heavy Trucks. 55.2 53.8 44.8 46.0 54.4 54.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.5 58.4 53.7 62.3 62.7 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.7 57.6 52.9 61.4 61.9 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 30 66 141 305 Ldn: 27 58 125 269 CNEL: 33 70 152 327 CNEL: 29 62 134 289 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-24 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR (Circle 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barfi rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 14,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,490 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.85 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.22 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.41 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.3 60.4 58.6 52.6 61.2 61.8 Autos., 62.9 61.0 59.3 53.2 61.8 62.4 Medium Trucks: 56.1 54.5 48.2 46.6 55.1 55.3 Medium Trucks: 56.7 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.7 56.0 Heavy Tmcks: 56.9 55.5 46.4 47.7 56.0 56.2 Heavy Tmcks: 57.5 56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8 Vehicle Noise: 64.1 62.4 59.2 54.6 63.1 63.6 Vehicle Noise: 64.8 63.0 59.9 55.2 63.7 64.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 35 75 161 347 Ldn: 38 82 177 382 CNEL: 37 80 173 372 CNEL: 41 88 190 410 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 3,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 14,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,450 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -6.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -23.39 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.58 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -27.35 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.53 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 56.7 54.8 53.0 47.0 55.6 56.2 Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.9 52.8 61.4 62.0 Medium Trucks: 50.5 49.0 42.6 41.1 49.5 49.7 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.8 48.4 46.9 55.3 55.6 Heavy Tmcks: 51.3 49.9 40.9 42.1 50.5 50.6 Heavy Tmcks: 57.1 55.7 46.7 47.9 56.3 56.4 Vehicle Noise: 58.5 56.8 53.7 49.0 57.5 58.0 Vehicle Noise: 64.4 62.6 59.5 54.8 63.3 63.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 15 32 68 147 Ldn: 36 77 167 360 CNEL: 16 34 73 158 CNEL: 39 83 179 386 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-25 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barfi rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.09 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.63 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.86 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.28 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.82 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 61.8 59.9 58.1 52.1 60.7 61.3 Autos., 59.2 57.3 55.6 49.5 58.1 58.7 Medium Trucks: 55.5 54.0 47.7 46.1 54.6 54.8 Medium Trucks: 53.0 51.5 45.1 43.6 52.0 52.3 Heavy Tmcks: 56.4 55.0 45.9 47.2 55.5 55.7 Heavy Tmcks: 53.8 52.4 43.4 44.6 53.0 53.1 Vehicle Noise: 63.6 61.9 58.7 54.0 62.6 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 61.1 59.3 56.2 51.5 60.0 60.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 32 69 149 320 Ldn: 22 47 101 217 CNEL: 34 74 160 344 CNEL: 23 50 108 233 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 420 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 13,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,310 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -5.21 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -0.27 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -22.45 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.51 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 82.99 -26.40 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.46 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 55.6 53.7 51.9 45.9 54.5 55.1 Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.9 50.8 59.4 60.0 Medium Trucks: 49.6 48.1 41.7 40.1 48.6 48.8 Medium Trucks: 54.5 53.0 46.6 45.1 53.5 53.8 Heavy Tmcks: 50.9 49.5 40.4 41.7 50.0 50.2 Heavy Tmcks: 55.8 54.4 45.4 46.6 55.0 55.1 Vehicle Noise: 57.6 55.9 52.6 48.0 56.6 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.8 57.5 53.0 61.5 62.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Lain: 13 27 59 127 Ldn: 27 59 126 272 CNEL: 14 29 63 136 CNEL: 29 63 135 291 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-26 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adt): 9,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 920 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMELI TmMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Aden Autos: 66.51 -1.80 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -19.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -23.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.0 57.1 55.3 49.3 57.9 58.5 Medium Trucks: 53.0 51.5 45.1 43.5 52.0 52.2 Heavy Trucks. 54.3 52.9 43.8 45.1 53.4 53.6 Vehicle Noise: 61.0 59.3 56.0 51.4 60.0 60.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) FHWA Noise Model Calculations Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 21 46 100 215 1,101 CNEL: 23 50 107 230 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Bonita Canyon Medium Trucks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.97 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmfc (Adt): 61,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,150 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Night Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grads Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 53.2 Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and harrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Medium Trucks: 62.8 61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Heavy Trucks. 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.3 69.9 70.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 98 212 456 983 1,101 CNEL: 105 227 490 1,055 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-27 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adt): 72,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 7,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 70.6 VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 6.68 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -14.52 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.8 67.9 66.2 60.1 68.7 69.3 Medium Trucks: 63.6 62.1 55.7 54.2 62.6 62.9 Heavy Trucks. 64.4 63.0 54.0 55.2 63.6 63.7 Vehicle Noise: 71.7 69.9 66.8 62.1 70.6 71.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 110 237 511 1,101 CNEL: 118 255 548 1,181 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 61,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,150 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Heavy Trucks. Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 70.3 VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Medium Trucks: 62.8 61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Heavy Trucks. 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.3 69.9 70.3 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 98 212 456 983 CNEL: 105 227 490 1,055 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 38,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right Vie- 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,480 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 3.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 3.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.73 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.4 66.0 66.6 Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.9 65.5 66.1 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 53.0 51.4 59.9 60.1 Medium Trucks: 60.4 58.9 52.5 51.0 59.4 59.6 Heavy Trucks: 61.7 60.3 51.2 52.5 60.8 61.0 Heavy Trucks: 61.2 59.8 50.8 52.0 60.4 60.5 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.6 58.9 67.4 67.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 72 156 336 723 Ldn: 67 145 312 673 CNEL: 78 167 360 776 CNEL: 72 155 335 722 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 28,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,860 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 28,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,870 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 2.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 2.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -18.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.57 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 65.8 63.9 62.1 56.0 64.7 65.3 Autos., 65.8 63.9 62.1 56.1 64.7 65.3 Medium Trucks: 59.5 58.0 51.6 50.1 58.6 58.8 Medium Trucks: 59.5 58.0 51.7 50.1 58.6 58.8 Heavy Trucks. 60.4 58.9 49.9 51.1 59.5 59.6 Heavy Trucks. 60.4 59.0 49.9 51.2 59.5 59.6 Vehicle Noise: 67.6 65.9 62.7 58.0 66.6 67.0 Vehicle Noise: 67.6 65.9 62.7 58.0 66.6 67.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 59 127 274 590 Ldn: 59 127 275 592 CNEL: 63 136 294 633 CNEL: 63 137 295 635 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-28 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 14,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,440 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calcutalions Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 11,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,150 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.37 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.58 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.56 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.54 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.8 61.4 62.0 Autos., 61.5 59.6 57.9 51.8 60.4 61.0 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Medium Trucks: 55.3 53.8 47.4 45.9 54.3 54.6 Heavy Tmcks: 57.1 55.7 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.4 Heavy Tmcks: 56.1 54.7 45.7 46.9 55.3 55.4 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.8 63.3 63.8 Vehicle Noise: 63.4 61.6 58.5 53.8 62.3 62.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 36 77 166 358 Ldn: 31 66 143 308 CNEL: 38 83 178 384 CNEL: 33 71 153 330 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: EastbNff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 10,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 37,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,770 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.95 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.81 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -19.19 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.43 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -23.15 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.38 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.9 59.0 57.3 51.2 59.8 60.4 Autos., 66.7 64.8 63.0 57.0 65.6 66.2 Medium Trucks: 54.7 53.2 46.8 45.3 53.7 53.9 Medium Trucks: 60.4 58.9 52.6 51.0 59.5 59.7 Heavy Tmcks: 55.5 54.1 45.1 46.3 54.7 54.8 Heavy Tmcks: 61.3 59.9 50.8 52.1 60.4 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 61.0 57.9 53.2 61.7 62.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.5 66.8 63.6 58.9 67.5 67.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Center ine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 28 60 130 281 Ldn: 68 146 316 680 CNEL: 30 65 140 301 CNEL: 73 157 338 729 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-29 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 480 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrtorAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 17,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -5.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.66 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -26.33 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -20.62 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 56.9 57.5 Autos., 63.7 61.8 60.1 54.0 62.6 63.2 Medium Trucks: 51.8 50.3 43.9 42.3 50.8 51.0 Medium Trucks: 57.5 56.0 49.6 48.1 56.5 56.8 Heavy Tmcks: 52.6 51.2 42.1 43.4 51.8 51.9 Heavy Tmcks: 58.3 56.9 47.9 49.1 57.5 57.6 Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.1 55.0 50.3 58.8 59.3 Vehicle Noise: 65.6 63.8 60.7 56.0 64.5 65.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 18 39 83 180 Ldn: 43 93 200 432 CNEL: 19 42 89 193 CNEL: 46 100 215 463 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmilic (Adt): 22,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,200 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 13,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.47 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.55 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -15.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -19.72 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Tope and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.6 62.7 61.0 54.9 63.5 64.1 Autos., 62.6 60.7 58.9 52.9 61.5 62.1 Medium Trucks: 58.4 56.9 50.5 49.0 57.4 57.7 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.8 48.5 46.9 55.4 55.6 Heavy Tmcks: 59.2 57.8 48.8 50.0 58.4 58.5 Heavy Tmcks: 57.2 55.8 46.7 48.0 56.3 56.5 Vehicle Noise: 66.5 64.7 61.6 56.9 65.4 65.9 Vehicle Noise: 64.4 62.7 59.5 54.9 63.4 63.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 50 107 230 496 Ldn: 36 78 169 363 CNEL: 53 115 247 532 CNEL: 39 84 181 390 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-30 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 15,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculalions Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrtorAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 21,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 0.04 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.16 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.78 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.2 61.3 59.5 53.5 62.1 62.7 Autos., 64.6 62.7 60.9 54.8 63.5 64.1 Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.1 47.5 56.0 56.2 Medium Trucks: 58.3 56.8 50.4 48.9 57.4 57.6 Heavy Trucks. 57.8 56.4 47.3 48.6 56.9 57.1 Heavy Trucks. 59.2 57.7 48.7 49.9 58.3 58.4 Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.3 60.1 55.4 64.0 64.4 Vehicle Noise: 66.4 64.7 61.5 56.8 65.4 65.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 40 86 184 397 Ldn: 49 106 228 491 CNEL: 43 92 198 426 CNEL: 53 113 244 527 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traliic (Adt): 21,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,130 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Pad Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 20,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.91 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.05 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.86 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.01 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.5 62.6 60.8 54.8 63.4 64.0 Autos., 64.3 62.4 60.7 54.6 63.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 58.2 56.7 50.4 48.8 57.3 57.5 Medium Trucks: 58.1 56.6 50.2 48.7 57.1 57.4 Heavy Trucks. 59.1 57.7 48.6 49.9 58.2 58.4 Heavy Trucks. 58.9 57.5 48.5 49.7 58.1 58.2 Vehicle Noise: 66.3 64.6 61.4 56.7 65.3 65.7 Vehicle Noise: 66.2 64.4 61.3 56.6 65.1 65.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 48 104 225 485 Ldn: 47 102 220 474 CNEL: 52 112 241 520 CNEL: 51 110 236 509 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-31 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -3.73 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =1S) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 5,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 570 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Barfi rAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -3.73 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =1S) Average Daily Treftic (Adt): 5,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 590 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -3.88 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -3.73 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.12 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.97 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.07 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -24.93 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 56.9 55.0 53.3 47.2 55.8 56.4 Autos., 57.1 55.2 53.4 47.3 56.0 56.6 Medium Trucks: 50.9 49.4 43.0 41.5 49.9 50.2 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.2 41.6 50.1 50.3 Heavy Tmcks: 52.2 50.8 41.7 43.0 51.4 51.5 Heavy Tmcks: 52.4 50.9 41.9 43.1 51.5 51.6 Vehicle Noise: 58.9 57.2 53.9 49.4 57.9 58.3 Vehicle Noise: 59.1 57.3 54.1 49.5 58.1 58.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 16 34 72 156 Ldn: 16 34 74 160 CNEL: 17 36 78 167 CNEL: 17 37 79 171 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =1S) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 2,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =1S) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -8.22 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -0.58 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -25.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.81 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -29.41 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.77 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 52.6 50.7 48.9 42.9 51.5 52.1 Autos., 60.2 58.3 56.6 50.5 59.1 59.7 Medium Trucks: 46.5 45.0 38.7 37.1 45.6 45.8 Medium Trucks: 54.2 52.7 46.3 44.8 53.2 53.5 Heavy Tmcks: 47.9 46.4 37.4 38.7 47.0 47.1 Heavy Tmcks: 55.5 54.1 45.1 46.3 54.7 54.8 Vehicle Noise: 54.6 52.9 49.6 45.0 53.6 54.0 Vehicle Noise: 62.2 60.5 57.2 52.7 61.2 61.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 8 17 37 80 Ldn: 26 56 120 259 CNEL: 9 19 40 86 CNEL: 28 60 129 278 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-32 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -0.61 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -2.81 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.85 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.81 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -24.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 60.2 58.3 56.5 50.5 59.1 59.7 Autos., 58.0 56.1 54.3 48.3 56.9 57.5 Medium Trucks: 54.2 52.6 46.3 44.7 53.2 53.4 Medium Trucks: 52.0 50.5 44.1 42.5 51.0 51.2 Heavy Trucks: 55.5 54.1 45.0 46.3 54.6 54.7 Heavy Trucks: 53.3 51.9 42.8 44.1 52.4 52.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.2 60.5 57.2 52.6 61.2 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.3 55.0 50.4 59.0 59.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 26 56 120 258 Ldn: 18 40 85 184 CNEL: 28 59 128 276 CNEL: 20 42 91 197 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 6,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 3,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 330 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medlum Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLoq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -3.38 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -6.25 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.62 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -23.49 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 82.99 -24.57 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -27.45 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 57.4 55.5 53.8 47.7 56.3 56.9 Autos., 54.5 52.6 50.9 44.8 53.4 54.1 Medium Trucks: 51.4 49.9 43.5 42.0 50.4 50.7 Medium Trucks: 48.5 47.0 40.6 39.1 47.6 47.8 Heavy Trucks. 52.7 51.3 42.3 43.5 51.9 52.0 Heavy Trucks. 49.8 48.4 39.4 40.6 49.0 49.1 Vehicle Noise: 59.4 57.7 54.4 49.9 58.4 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 56.5 54.8 51.5 47.0 55.5 56.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 17 36 78 169 Ldn: 11 23 50 108 CNEL: 18 39 84 181 CNEL: 12 25 54 116 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-33 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 780 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrtorAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,270 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.03 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.27 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.22 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.11 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Autos., 62.0 60.1 58.3 52.2 60.9 61.5 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Medium Trucks: 55.7 54.2 47.8 46.3 54.8 55.0 Heavy Tmcks: 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Heavy Tmcks: 56.6 55.1 46.1 47.3 55.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Vehicle Noise: 63.8 62.0 58.9 54.2 62.8 63.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 51 110 238 Ldn: 33 71 153 329 CNEL: 26 55 118 255 CNEL: 35 76 164 353 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 16,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 24,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 0.20 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -17.04 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.00 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -19.29 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.1 61.2 59.4 53.3 62.0 62.6 Autos., 64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3 Medium Trucks: 56.8 55.3 48.9 47.4 55.9 56.1 Medium Trucks: 58.5 57.0 50.7 49.1 57.6 57.8 Heavy Tmcks: 57.7 56.2 47.2 48.5 56.8 56.9 Heavy Tmcks: 59.4 57.9 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6 Vehicle Noise: 64.9 63.2 60.0 55.3 63.9 64.3 Vehicle Noise: 66.6 64.9 61.7 57.0 65.6 66.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 39 84 181 390 Ldn: 51 109 235 507 CNEL: 42 90 194 419 CNEL: 54 117 253 544 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-34 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 22,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,210 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 11,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,180 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.49 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.75 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.47 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.70 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.43 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lan CNEL Autos., 64.4 62.5 60.7 54.6 63.3 63.9 Autos., 61.6 59.7 58.0 51.9 60.5 61.1 Medium Trucks: 58.1 56.6 50.2 48.7 57.2 57.4 Medium Trucks: 55.4 53.9 47.5 46.0 54.4 54.7 Heavy Trucks. 59.0 57.5 48.5 49.7 58.1 58.2 Heavy Trucks. 56.2 54.8 45.8 47.0 55.4 55.5 Vehicle Noise: 66.2 64.5 61.3 56.6 65.2 65.6 Vehicle Noise: 63.5 61.7 58.6 53.9 62.4 62.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 48 103 221 476 Ldn: 31 68 145 313 CNEL: 51 110 237 511 CNEL: 34 72 156 336 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 60,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 47,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,700 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MedfumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.83 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.41 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.47 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.36 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.42 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Tope and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.0 67.1 65.3 59.3 67.9 68.5 Autos., 67.9 66.0 64.3 58.2 66.8 67.4 Medium Trucks: 62.7 61.2 54.9 53.3 61.8 62.0 Medium Trucks: 61.7 60.2 53.8 52.3 60.7 60.9 Heavy Trucks. 63.6 62.2 53.1 54.4 62.7 62.8 Heavy Trucks. 62.5 61.1 52.1 53.3 61.7 61.8 Vehicle Noise: 70.8 69.1 65.9 61.2 69.8 70.2 Vehicle Noise: 69.8 68.0 64.9 60.2 68.7 69.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 97 208 449 967 Ldn: 82 177 382 822 CNEL: 104 224 482 1,038 CNEL: 88 190 409 882 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-35 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,360 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 35,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.61 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Autos., 66.7 64.8 63.1 57.0 65.6 66.2 Medium Trucks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Medium Trucks: 60.5 59.0 52.6 51.1 59.5 59.8 Heavy Trucks. 62.2 60.8 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.5 Heavy Trucks. 61.3 59.9 50.9 52.1 60.5 60.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.9 68.4 68.9 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.8 63.7 59.0 67.5 68.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 168 363 782 Ldn: 69 148 318 686 CNEL: 84 181 389 839 CNEL: 74 158 341 735 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 3.66 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 34,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,450 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 3.66 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.66 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.81 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.53 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.6 64.7 62.9 56.9 65.5 66.1 Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.1 57.1 65.7 66.3 Medium Trucks: 60.3 58.8 52.5 50.9 59.4 59.6 Medium Trucks: 60.6 59.1 52.7 51.1 59.6 59.8 Heavy Trucks. 61.2 59.7 50.7 52.0 60.3 60.4 Heavy Trucks. 61.4 60.0 50.9 52.2 60.6 60.7 Vehicle Noise: 68.4 66.7 63.5 58.8 67.4 67.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.6 66.9 63.7 59.1 67.6 68.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 67 144 310 669 Ldn: 69 149 322 693 CNEL: 72 155 333 718 CNEL: 74 160 345 744 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-36 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 36,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,650 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Heavy Trucks: 92.547 VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Existing With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 50,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,030 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.67 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.57 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.17 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.52 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.13 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.8 64.9 63.2 57.1 65.7 66.3 Autos., 68.2 66.3 64.5 58.5 67.1 67.7 Medium Trucks: 60.6 59.1 52.7 51.2 59.6 59.9 Medium Trucks: 62.0 60.5 54.1 52.6 61.0 61.2 Heavy Tmcks: 61.4 60.0 51.0 52.2 60.6 60.7 Heavy Tmcks: 62.8 61.4 52.4 53.6 62.0 62.1 Vehicle Noise: 68.7 66.9 63.8 59.1 67.6 68.1 Vehicle Noise: 70.0 68.3 65.2 60.5 69.0 69.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dSA Ldn: 69 150 322 694 Ldn: 86 185 399 860 CNEL: 74 161 346 745 CNEL: 92 199 428 923 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Eastbluff 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 52,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Haight: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 63,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medfum Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,300 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.23 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 6.04 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.01 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -15.97 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.15 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 68.4 66.5 64.7 58.7 67.3 67.9 Autos., 69.2 67.3 65.5 59.5 68.1 68.7 Medium Trucks: 62.1 60.6 54.3 52.7 61.2 61.4 Medium Trucks: 62.9 61.4 55.1 53.5 62.0 62.2 Heavy Tmcks: 63.0 61.5 52.5 53.8 62.1 62.2 Heavy Tmcks: 63.8 62.4 53.3 54.6 62.9 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 70.2 68.5 65.3 60.6 69.2 69.6 Vehicle Noise: 71.0 69.3 66.1 61.5 70.0 70.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dSA Ldn: 88 190 409 882 Ldn: 100 215 464 999 CNEL: 95 204 439 946 CNEL: 107 231 498 1,072 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-37 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,300 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 45,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,510 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.85 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.81 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.60 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 67.5 65.6 63.9 57.8 66.4 67.0 Autos., 67.7 65.8 64.1 58.0 66.6 67.2 Medium Trucks: 61.3 59.8 53.4 51.9 60.3 60.6 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.5 60.8 Heavy Trucks. 62.1 60.7 51.7 52.9 61.3 61.4 Heavy Trucks. 62.3 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.6 64.5 59.8 68.3 68.8 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.5 69.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 77 167 360 775 Ldn: 80 172 371 800 CNEL: 83 179 386 831 CNEL: 86 185 398 858 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 41,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,100 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 38,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,860 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.18 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.91 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.02 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.28 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.3 65.4 63.7 57.6 66.2 66.8 Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.3 66.0 66.6 Medium Trucks: 61.1 59.6 53.2 51.7 60.1 60.4 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 52.9 51.4 59.9 60.1 Heavy Trucks. 61.9 60.5 51.5 52.7 61.1 61.2 Heavy Trucks. 61.7 60.2 51.2 52.5 60.8 60.9 Vehicle Noise: 69.2 67.4 64.3 59.6 68.1 68.6 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 75 162 348 750 Ldn: 72 155 335 721 CNEL: 81 173 374 805 CNEL: 77 167 359 773 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-38 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Coast Highway SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 1,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medfum Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -0.85 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 -9.65 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medfum Trucks: 79.45 -18.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -26.88 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -30.84 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 UnV.gated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 62.3 60.4 58.6 52.6 61.2 61.8 Autos., 53.2 51.3 49.6 43.5 52.1 52.7 Medium Trucks: 56.1 54.5 48.2 46.6 55.1 55.3 Medium Trucks: 47.0 45.5 39.1 37.6 46.0 46.3 Heavy Trucks: 56.9 55.5 46.4 47.7 56.0 56.2 Heavy Trucks: 47.8 46.4 37.4 38.6 47.0 47.1 Vehicle Noise: 64.1 62.4 59.2 54.6 63.1 63.6 Vehicle Noise: 55.1 53.3 50.2 45.5 54.0 54.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 35 75 161 347 Ldn: 9 19 40 86 CNEL: 37 80 173 372 CNEL: 9 20 43 92 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Souh of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic, (Adt): 12,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,250 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,230 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MedfumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -0.98 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 -1.05 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.22 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.29 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.18 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.25 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 UnV.gated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.9 60.0 58.2 52.2 60.8 61.4 Autos., 61.8 59.9 58.1 52.1 60.7 61.3 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.8 46.2 54.7 54.9 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.7 46.2 54.6 54.8 Heavy Trucks: 56.5 55.1 46.0 47.3 55.6 55.8 Heavy Trucks: 56.4 55.0 46.0 47.2 55.6 55.7 Vehicle Noise: 63.7 62.0 58.8 54.1 62.7 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 63.6 61.9 58.8 54.1 62.6 63.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 33 70 151 326 Ldn: 32 69 150 322 CNEL: 35 75 162 349 CNEL: 35 74 160 346 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-39 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 990 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 9,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Tmil Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAften I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -1.99 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.17 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.41 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.19 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.37 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 60.9 59.0 57.2 51.2 59.8 60.4 Autos., 60.7 58.8 57.0 51.0 59.6 60.2 Medium Trucks: 54.6 53.1 46.8 45.2 53.7 53.9 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.6 45.0 53.5 53.7 Heavy Tmcks: 55.5 54.0 45.0 46.3 54.6 54.7 Heavy Tmcks: 55.3 53.9 44.8 46.1 54.4 54.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 61.0 57.8 53.1 61.7 62.1 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.8 57.6 53.0 61.5 62.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 28 60 129 279 Ldn: 27 58 126 271 CNEL: 30 64 139 299 CNEL: 29 63 135 291 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 4,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 460 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Tmil Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Tmil Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -5.32 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -22.56 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -26.52 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -24.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 57.5 55.6 53.9 47.8 56.4 57.1 Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 51.3 49.8 43.4 41.9 50.3 50.6 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Heavy Tmcks: 52.1 50.7 41.7 42.9 51.3 51.4 Heavy Tmcks: 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Vehicle Noise: 59.4 57.6 54.5 49.8 58.3 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 17 36 78 167 Ldn: 24 51 110 238 CNEL: 18 39 83 179 CNEL: 25 55 118 255 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-40 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 6,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 690 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -2.97 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.21 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.17 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.76 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 60.2 58.3 56.5 50.5 59.1 59.7 Autos., 59.6 57.7 55.9 49.9 58.5 59.1 Medium Trucks: 53.9 52.4 46.1 44.5 53.0 53.2 Medium Trucks: 53.3 51.8 45.5 43.9 52.4 52.6 Heavy Trucks. 54.8 53.3 44.3 45.6 53.9 54.0 Heavy Trucks. 54.2 52.8 43.7 45.0 53.3 53.5 Vehicle Noise: 62.0 60.3 57.1 52.4 61.0 61.4 Vehicle Noise: 61.4 59.7 56.5 51.8 60.4 60.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 25 54 116 250 Ldn: 23 49 106 229 CNEL: 27 58 125 269 CNEL: 25 53 114 245 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 6,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 630 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.96 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -4.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -25.15 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.2 57.3 55.5 49.5 58.1 58.7 Autos., 58.8 56.9 55.2 49.1 57.7 58.3 Medium Trucks: 52.9 51.4 45.1 43.5 52.0 52.2 Medium Trucks: 52.6 51.1 44.7 43.2 51.6 51.9 Heavy Trucks. 53.8 52.4 43.3 44.6 52.9 53.1 Heavy Trucks. 53.4 52.0 43.0 44.2 52.6 52.7 Vehicle Noise: 61.0 59.3 56.1 51.5 60.0 60.5 Vehicle Noise: 60.7 58.9 55.8 51.1 59.6 60.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 22 46 100 215 Ldn: 20 44 95 204 CNEL: 23 50 107 231 CNEL: 22 47 101 219 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-41 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TreMC Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 10,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.95 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.15 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Autos., 61.2 59.3 57.5 51.5 60.1 60.7 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Medium Trucks: 54.9 53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2 Heavy Trucks. 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Heavy Trucks. 55.8 54.4 45.3 46.6 54.9 55.1 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Vehicle Noise: 63.0 61.3 58.1 53.5 62.0 62.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 51 110 238 Ldn: 29 63 136 293 CNEL: 25 55 118 255 CNEL: 31 68 146 314 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 7,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 760 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 10,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,090 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.34 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.0 58.1 56.3 50.3 58.9 59.5 Autos., 61.6 59.7 57.9 51.8 60.5 61.1 Medium Trucks: 53.8 52.2 45.9 44.3 52.8 53.0 Medium Trucks: 55.3 53.8 47.5 45.9 54.4 54.6 Heavy Trucks. 54.6 53.2 44.1 45.4 53.7 53.9 Heavy Trucks. 56.2 54.7 45.7 47.0 55.3 55.4 Vehicle Noise: 61.8 60.1 56.9 52.3 60.8 61.3 Vehicle Noise: 63.4 61.7 58.5 53.8 62.4 62.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 53 113 244 Ldn: 31 67 144 310 CNEL: 26 56 121 262 CNEL: 33 72 154 333 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-42 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR (Circle 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,420 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.36 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.67 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.55 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.62 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 60.8 58.9 57.1 51.1 59.7 60.3 Autos., 62.7 60.8 59.1 53.0 61.6 62.2 Medium Trucks: 54.5 53.0 46.7 45.1 53.6 53.8 Medium Trucks: 56.5 55.0 48.6 47.1 55.5 55.8 Heavy Trucks. 55.4 54.0 44.9 46.2 54.5 54.7 Heavy Trucks. 57.3 55.9 46.9 48.1 56.5 56.6 Vehicle Noise: 62.6 60.9 57.7 53.0 61.6 62.0 Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.8 59.7 55.0 63.5 64.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 28 59 128 275 Ldn: 37 80 172 370 CNEL: 30 64 137 295 CNEL: 40 86 184 397 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 0.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -6.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.04 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -23.39 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.00 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -27.35 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.3 61.4 59.7 53.6 62.2 62.9 Autos., 56.7 54.8 53.0 47.0 55.6 56.2 Medium Trucks: 57.1 55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.4 Medium Trucks: 50.5 49.0 42.6 41.1 49.5 49.7 Heavy Trucks. 57.9 56.5 47.5 48.7 57.1 57.2 Heavy Trucks. 51.3 49.9 40.9 42.1 50.5 50.6 Vehicle Noise: 65.2 63.4 60.3 55.6 64.2 64.6 Vehicle Noise: 58.5 56.8 53.7 49.0 57.5 58.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 41 88 189 407 Ldn: 15 32 68 147 CNEL: 44 94 203 437 CNEL: 16 34 73 158 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-43 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adt): 14,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 0.30 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.40 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.94 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.64 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.89 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.59 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 63.2 61.3 59.5 53.4 62.1 62.7 Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.7 61.4 62.0 Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.1 47.5 56.0 56.2 Medium Trucks: 56.2 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Heavy Trucks. 57.8 56.3 47.3 48.6 56.9 57.0 Heavy Trucks. 57.1 55.6 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.3 Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.3 60.1 55.4 64.0 64.4 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.7 63.3 63.7 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 40 85 184 397 Ldn: 36 77 165 356 CNEL: 43 92 197 425 CNEL: 38 82 177 382 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditfons (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine DWto Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.97 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -4.45 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.21 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.69 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.17 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.64 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 UnV.gated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuaffon) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.9 58.0 56.2 50.2 58.8 59.4 Autos., 56.3 54.4 52.7 46.6 55.2 55.9 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.8 44.2 52.7 52.9 Medium Trucks: 50.3 48.8 42.4 40.9 49.4 49.6 Heavy Trucks. 54.5 53.1 44.0 45.3 53.6 53.8 Heavy Trucks. 51.6 50.2 41.2 42.4 50.8 50.9 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 60.0 56.8 52.2 60.7 61.2 Vehicle Noise: 58.4 56.6 53.3 48.8 57.3 57.8 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 52 111 240 Ldn: 14 31 66 143 CNEL: 26 55 119 257 CNEL: 15 33 71 153 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-44 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 15,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,550 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Trall Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAffen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 0.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -1.03 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -16.77 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -18.26 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -20.73 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -22.22 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 61.3 59.4 57.6 51.5 60.2 60.8 Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.1 50.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 55.2 53.7 47.4 45.8 54.3 54.5 Medium Trucks: 53.7 52.2 45.9 44.3 52.8 53.0 Heavy Trucks. 56.5 55.1 46.1 47.3 55.7 55.8 Heavy Trucks. 55.1 53.6 44.6 45.9 54.2 54.3 Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.5 58.3 53.7 62.2 62.7 Vehicle Noise: 61.8 60.0 56.8 52.2 60.8 61.2 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 30 66 141 304 Ldn: 24 52 112 242 CNEL: 33 70 151 326 CNEL: 26 56 120 259 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 80,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 8,040 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 69,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TraMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 7.10 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 6.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -14.09 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -14.75 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 70.2 68.3 66.6 60.5 69.2 69.8 Autos., 69.6 67.7 65.9 59.9 68.5 69.1 Medium Trucks: 64.0 62.5 56.1 54.6 63.0 63.3 Medium Trucks: 63.3 61.8 55.5 53.9 62.4 62.6 Heavy Trucks. 64.8 63.4 54.4 55.6 64.0 64.1 Heavy Trucks. 64.2 62.8 53.7 55.0 63.3 63.5 Vehicle Noise: 72.1 70.3 67.2 62.5 71.1 71.5 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 69.7 66.5 61.9 70.4 70.9 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 118 253 546 1,176 Ldn: 106 229 493 1,063 CNEL: 126 272 585 1,261 CNEL: 114 246 529 1,140 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-45 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 68,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,810 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Day Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 70.8 VehicleType REMELI TreMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Aden Autos: 68.46 6.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -10.86 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -14.81 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.5 67.6 65.9 59.8 68.4 69.0 Medium Tmcks: 63.3 61.8 55.4 53.9 62.3 62.6 Heavy Tmcks: 64.1 62.7 53.7 54.9 63.3 63.4 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 69.6 66.5 61.8 70.3 70.8 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 105 227 489 1,053 779 CNEL: 113 243 524 1,129 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 38,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Leq Day Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Tmcks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 68.3 VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -13.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -17.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.4 66.0 66.6 Medium Tmcks: 60.8 59.3 53.0 51.4 59.9 60.1 Heavy Tmcks: 61.7 60.3 51.2 52.5 60.8 61.0 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 72 156 336 723 779 CNEL: 78 167 360 776 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-46 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,340 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 68.4 VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.42 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.81 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -16.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Medium Tmcks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Heavy Tmcks: 62.2 60.7 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.4 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.8 68.4 68.8 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 168 362 779 CNEL: 84 180 388 836 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 32,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,240 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 67.1 VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.15 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -14.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -18.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.3 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.2 65.8 Medium Tmcks: 60.1 58.5 52.2 50.6 59.1 59.3 Heavy Tmcks: 60.9 59.5 50.4 51.7 60.0 60.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.4 63.2 58.6 67.1 67.6 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 64 138 298 641 CNEL: 69 148 319 688 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macerthur Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 32,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,250 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraOic (Adt): 15,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,530 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.17 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.10 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.07 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.03 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.30 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 66.3 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.2 65.8 Autos., 62.8 60.9 59.1 53.0 61.7 62.3 Medium Trucks: 60.1 58.6 52.2 50.7 59.1 59.3 Medium Trucks: 56.5 55.0 48.6 47.1 55.6 55.8 Heavy Trucks: 60.9 59.5 50.5 51.7 60.1 60.2 Heavy Trucks: 57.4 55.9 46.9 48.2 56.5 56.6 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.4 63.3 58.6 67.1 67.6 Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.9 59.7 55.0 63.6 64.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 64 138 298 643 Ldn: 37 80 173 373 CNEL: 69 149 320 690 CNEL: 40 86 186 400 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,220 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number 8211 Road Segment: West of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraOic (Adt): 10,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.09 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.70 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.94 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.28 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.89 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.8 59.9 58.1 52.1 60.7 61.3 Autos., 61.2 59.3 57.5 51.4 60.1 60.7 Medium Trucks: 55.5 54.0 47.7 46.1 54.6 54.8 Medium Trucks: 54.9 53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2 Heavy Trucks. 56.4 55.0 45.9 47.2 55.5 55.7 Heavy Trucks. 55.8 54.3 45.3 46.6 54.9 55.0 Vehicle Noise: 63.6 61.9 58.7 54.0 62.6 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 63.0 61.3 58.1 53.4 62.0 62.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 32 69 149 320 Ldn: 29 63 135 292 CNEL: 34 74 160 344 CNEL: 31 67 145 313 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-47 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 39,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,930 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.99 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -4.96 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.25 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -17.20 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -26.16 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.9 65.0 63.2 57.1 65.8 66.4 Autos., 58.2 56.3 54.5 48.5 57.1 57.7 Medium Trucks: 60.6 59.1 52.7 51.2 59.7 59.9 Medium Trucks: 51.9 50.4 44.1 42.5 51.0 51.2 Heavy Trucks. 61.5 60.0 51.0 52.2 60.6 60.7 Heavy Trucks. 52.8 51.4 42.3 43.6 51.9 52.1 Vehicle Noise: 68.7 67.0 63.8 59.1 67.7 68.1 Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.3 55.1 50.4 59.0 59.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 70 151 324 699 Ldn: 18 40 86 185 CNEL: 75 162 348 750 CNEL: 20 43 92 198 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 20,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,030 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 23,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks. 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Barrier Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.12 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.11 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -20.07 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.40 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.3 62.4 60.6 54.6 63.2 63.8 Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.3 55.2 63.8 64.5 Medium Trucks: 58.0 56.5 50.2 48.6 57.1 57.3 Medium Trucks: 58.7 57.2 50.8 49.3 57.7 58.0 Heavy Trucks. 58.9 57.4 48.4 49.7 58.0 58.1 Heavy Trucks. 59.5 58.1 49.1 50.3 58.7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.4 61.2 56.5 65.1 65.5 Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 61.9 57.2 65.7 66.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 47 101 218 470 Ldn: 52 112 242 521 CNEL: 50 109 234 504 CNEL: 56 120 259 559 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-48 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,490 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraOic (Adt): 17,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,720 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Tmil Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.22 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.40 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.83 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.41 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.79 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.9 61.0 59.3 53.2 61.8 62.4 Autos., 63.6 61.7 59.9 53.8 62.5 63.1 Medium Trucks: 56.7 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.7 56.0 Medium Trucks: 57.3 55.8 49.4 47.9 56.4 56.6 Heavy Tmcks: 57.5 56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8 Heavy Tmcks: 58.1 56.7 47.7 48.9 57.3 57.4 Vehicle Noise: 64.8 63.0 59.9 55.2 63.7 64.2 Vehicle Noise: 65.4 63.6 60.5 55.8 64.4 64.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 38 82 177 382 Ldn: 42 91 195 421 CNEL: 41 88 190 410 CNEL: 45 97 209 451 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 22,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,280 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur 0.000 Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraOic (Adt): 23,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,350 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Night VehicleType REMEL Tmil Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 1.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.76 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -15.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.48 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -19.57 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -19.43 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3 Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.2 55.2 63.8 64.4 Medium Trucks: 58.5 57.0 50.7 49.1 57.6 57.8 Medium Trucks: 58.7 57.2 50.8 49.2 57.7 57.9 Heavy Tmcks: 59.4 58.0 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.6 Heavy Tmcks: 59.5 58.1 49.0 50.3 58.7 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.6 64.9 61.7 57.0 65.6 66.0 Vehicle Noise: 66.7 65.0 61.8 57.2 65.7 66.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 51 109 236 507 Ldn: 52 112 240 518 CNEL: 54 117 253 544 CNEL: 56 120 258 555 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-49 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =18) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =18) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 21,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,130 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right Vie- 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -3.96 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =18) Average Daily Traffic, (Adt): 5,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 560 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 1.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 66.51 -3.96 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.91 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.20 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.86 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.15 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.5 62.6 60.8 54.8 63.4 64.0 Autos., 56.8 54.9 53.2 47.1 55.7 56.3 Medium Trucks: 58.2 56.7 50.4 48.8 57.3 57.5 Medium Trucks: 50.8 49.3 42.9 41.4 49.9 50.1 Heavy Trucks: 59.1 57.7 48.6 49.9 58.2 58.4 Heavy Trucks: 52.1 50.7 41.7 42.9 51.3 51.4 Vehicle Noise: 66.3 64.6 61.4 56.7 65.3 65.7 Vehicle Noise: 58.8 57.1 53.8 49.3 57.8 58.3 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 48 104 225 485 Ldn: 15 33 72 154 CNEL: 52 112 241 520 CNEL: 17 36 77 165 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz Road Segment: Westof Jamboree SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =18) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =18) Average Daily Traffic, (Adt): 2,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 230 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos. 66.51 -3.81 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 66.51 -7.82 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.04 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -25.06 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.00 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -29.02 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 57.0 55.1 53.3 47.3 55.9 56.5 Autos., 53.0 51.1 49.3 43.3 51.9 52.5 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.1 41.5 50.0 50.2 Medium Trucks: 46.9 45.4 39.1 37.5 46.0 46.2 Heavy Trucks: 52.3 50.9 41.8 43.1 51.4 51.6 Heavy Trucks: 48.3 46.8 37.8 39.1 47.4 47.5 Vehicle Noise: 59.0 57.3 54.0 49.4 58.0 58.4 Vehicle Noise: 55.0 53.3 50.0 45.4 54.0 54.4 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 16 34 73 158 Ldn: 9 18 40 85 CNEL: 17 36 78 169 CNEL: 9 20 42 91 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-50 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,280 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,260 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -0.37 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -0.44 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.61 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.67 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.56 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -21.63 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 60.4 58.5 56.8 50.7 59.3 59.9 Autos., 60.4 58.5 56.7 50.6 59.3 59.9 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.5 45.0 53.4 53.7 Medium Trucks: 54.3 52.8 46.5 44.9 53.4 53.6 Heavy Trucks. 55.7 54.3 45.3 46.5 54.9 55.0 Heavy Trucks. 55.6 54.2 45.2 46.4 54.8 54.9 Vehicle Noise: 62.4 60.7 57.4 52.9 61.4 61.9 Vehicle Noise: 62.4 60.6 57.4 52.8 61.3 61.8 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 27 58 124 268 Ldn: 26 57 123 265 CNEL: 29 62 133 287 CNEL: 28 61 132 284 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 6,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 690 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -2.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -3.05 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -19.70 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.29 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -23.66 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -24.25 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 58.3 56.4 54.7 48.6 57.2 57.8 Autos., 57.7 55.8 54.1 48.0 56.6 57.3 Medium Trucks: 52.3 50.8 44.4 42.9 51.3 51.6 Medium Trucks: 51.7 50.2 43.8 42.3 50.8 51.0 Heavy Trucks. 53.6 52.2 43.2 44.4 52.8 52.9 Heavy Trucks. 53.0 51.6 42.6 43.8 52.2 52.3 Vehicle Noise: 60.3 58.6 55.3 50.8 59.3 59.8 Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.0 54.7 50.2 58.7 59.2 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 19 42 90 194 Ldn: 18 38 82 177 CNEL: 21 45 96 208 CNEL: 19 41 88 190 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-51 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfen I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -5.76 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.36 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -23.00 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.60 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -26.95 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.55 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 55.0 53.1 51.4 45.3 53.9 54.5 Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.8 50.8 59.4 60.0 Medium Trucks: 49.0 47.5 41.1 39.6 48.1 48.3 Medium Trucks: 54.3 52.8 46.4 44.8 53.3 53.5 Heavy Trucks. 50.3 48.9 39.9 41.1 49.5 49.6 Heavy Trucks. 55.1 53.7 44.6 45.9 54.3 54.4 Vehicle Noise: 57.0 55.3 52.0 47.5 56.0 56.5 Vehicle Noise: 62.3 60.6 57.4 52.8 61.3 61.8 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 12 25 54 117 Ldn: 26 57 122 264 CNEL: 13 27 58 125 CNEL: 28 61 131 283 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,440 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 18,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,810 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Trafc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.37 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.63 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.56 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.57 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.8 61.4 62.0 Autos., 63.5 61.6 59.8 53.8 62.4 63.0 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Medium Trucks: 57.2 55.7 49.4 47.8 56.3 56.5 Heavy Trucks. 57.1 55.7 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.4 Heavy Trucks. 58.1 56.7 47.6 48.9 57.2 57.4 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.8 63.3 63.8 Vehicle Noise: 65.3 63.6 60.4 55.8 64.3 64.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 36 77 166 358 Ldn: 42 90 193 417 CNEL: 38 83 178 384 CNEL: 45 96 208 447 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-52 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 26,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtfim I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 25,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 2.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 2.03 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.21 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -18.86 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.17 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 65.2 63.3 61.5 55.5 64.1 64.7 Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.2 55.2 63.8 64.4 Medium Trucks: 59.0 57.4 51.1 49.5 58.0 58.2 Medium Trucks: 58.6 57.1 50.8 49.2 57.7 57.9 Heavy Trucks: 59.8 58.4 49.3 50.6 58.9 59.1 Heavy Trucks: 59.5 58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.8 Vehicle Noise: 67.0 65.3 62.1 57.5 66.0 66.5 Vehicle Noise: 66.7 65.0 61.8 57.2 65.7 66.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 deA Ldn: 54 117 251 541 Ldn: 52 111 240 517 CNEL: 58 125 270 581 CNEL: 55 119 257 555 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel Job Numbe, 8211 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 12,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,250 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Date Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations TreMc Flow Distance VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Berm Allen Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data 6.59 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 71,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 7,150 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtfim Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -0.98 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 6.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -18.22 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -22.18 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -14.60 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.9 60.0 58.2 52.2 60.8 61.4 Autos., 69.7 67.8 66.1 60.0 68.6 69.2 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.8 46.2 54.7 54.9 Medium Trucks: 63.5 62.0 55.6 54.1 62.5 62.8 Heavy Tmcks: 56.5 55.1 46.0 47.3 55.6 55.8 Heavy Tmcks: 64.3 62.9 53.9 55.1 63.5 63.6 Vehicle Noise: 63.7 62.0 58.8 54.1 62.7 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 71.6 69.8 66.7 62.0 70.5 71.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 33 70 151 326 Ldn: 109 234 505 1,087 CNEL: 35 75 162 349 CNEL: 117 251 541 1,166 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-53 Tueatlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 58,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,830 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicieType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicieType REMELI Traffic Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtten I Berm Aden Autos: 68.46 5.71 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.53 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.49 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 68.9 67.0 65.2 59.1 67.8 68.4 Medium Trucks: 62.6 61.1 54.7 53.2 61.7 61.9 Heavy Trucks. 63.4 62.0 53.0 54.2 62.6 62.7 Vehicle Noise: 70.7 68.9 65.8 61.1 69.7 70.1 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 95 204 440 949 903 CNEL: 102 219 472 1,018 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,520 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicieType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 60.9 Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.64 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.59 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.7 65.8 64.1 58.0 66.6 67.3 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.5 60.8 Heavy Trucks. 62.3 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.6 69.0 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardevAtten I Berm Allen 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 80 173 372 801 903 CNEL: 86 185 399 859 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 6.1-54 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -11.86 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 54,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,410 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicieType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Heavy Trucks. Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 69.8 VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardevAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 5.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.86 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.81 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 76 feet VehicieType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 68.5 66.6 64.9 58.8 67.4 68.0 Medium Trucks: 62.3 60.8 54.4 52.9 61.3 61.6 Heavy Trucks. 63.1 61.7 52.7 53.9 62.3 62.4 Vehicle Noise: 70.4 68.6 65.5 60.8 69.3 69.8 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 90 195 419 903 CNEL: 97 209 450 968 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -12.77 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 43,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicieType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data VehicleType I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 60.6 Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 68.4 VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.73 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Medium Trucks: 61.4 59.9 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Heavy Trucks. 62.2 60.8 51.8 53.0 61.4 61.5 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.6 59.9 68.4 68.9 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 169 364 784 CNEL: 84 181 390 841 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type(0-Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: West of Macarthur 0.000 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 41,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,180 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 4.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.26 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.66 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.98 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.61 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.93 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 67.7 65.8 64.1 58.0 66.6 67.2 Autos., 67.4 65.5 63.7 57.7 66.3 66.9 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.5 60.8 Medium Trucks: 61.2 59.7 53.3 51.7 60.2 60.4 Heavy Trucks: 62.3 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Heavy Trucks: 62.0 60.6 51.5 52.8 61.2 61.3 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.5 69.0 Vehicle Noise: 69.2 67.5 64.4 59.7 68.2 68.7 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 80 172 371 798 Ldn: 76 164 353 760 CNEL: 86 185 398 857 CNEL: 82 176 378 815 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year2016 Without Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 61,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: North of Eastbluff 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 52,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,240 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 5.95 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.24 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.29 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.00 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.24 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.95 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and harrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Autos., 68.4 66.5 64.7 58.7 67.3 67.9 Medium Trucks: 62.9 61.3 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Medium Trucks: 62.1 60.6 54.3 52.7 61.2 61.4 Heavy Trucks. 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 63.0 Heavy Trucks. 63.0 61.6 52.5 53.8 62.1 62.3 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.4 69.9 70.4 Vehicle Noise: 70.2 68.5 65.3 60.7 69.2 69.7 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 99 212 457 985 Ldn: 88 190 410 884 CNEL: 106 228 491 1,057 CNEL: 95 204 440 948 Tuestla, May 29, 2012 6.1-55 Tuestlay, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Eastbluff to San Joaquin Hills Medium Tmcks: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.97 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 63,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,320 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Evening Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Bander Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Banner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtten I Bem1 Aden Autos: 68.46 6.06 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -11.18 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -15.14 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.2 67.3 65.5 59.5 68.1 68.7 Medium Tmcks: 63.0 61.4 55.1 53.5 62.0 62.2 Heavy Tmcks: 63.8 62.4 53.3 54.6 62.9 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 71.0 69.3 66.1 61.5 70.0 70.5 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 100 216 465 1,001 776 CNEL: 107 231 499 1,074 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number, 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 45,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,520 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Day Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Bander Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Banner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Tmcks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 69.0 VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 4.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.64 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -16.59 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.7 65.8 64.1 58.0 66.6 67.3 Medium Tmcks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.5 60.8 Heavy Tmcks: 62.3 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.6 69.0 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Sem1 Allen Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 80 173 372 801 776 CNEL: 86 185 399 859 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-56 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 43,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,310 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Banner: 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 68.3 VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Sem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 4.39 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.84 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -16.80 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.5 65.6 63.9 57.8 66.4 67.0 Medium Tmcks: 61.3 59.8 53.4 51.9 60.3 60.6 Heavy Tmcks: 62.1 60.7 51.7 52.9 61.3 61.4 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.6 64.5 59.8 68.3 68.8 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 167 360 776 CNEL: 83 179 386 832 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 41,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Tmcks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,110 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Leq Peak Hour I Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Heavy Tmcks: Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 68.6 VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 4.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -13.05 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -17.01 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.3 65.4 63.7 57.6 66.2 66.8 Medium Tmcks: 61.1 59.6 53.2 51.7 60.1 60.4 Heavy Tmcks: 61.9 60.5 51.5 52.7 61.1 61.2 Vehicle Noise: 69.2 67.4 64.3 59.6 68.1 68.6 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 75 162 349 752 CNEL: 81 174 374 806 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway Highway SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 38,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,870 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations 90.0 degrees VehicleType REMELI TreMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BaM rAtten I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Jamboree -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of Coast Highway Autos: SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -1.20 -4.87 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adi): 12,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 84.25 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leo Night VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 3.93 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.85 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.31 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.27 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Nofse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leo Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.4 66.0 66.6 Autos., 62.3 60.4 58.6 52.6 61.2 61.8 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 53.0 51.4 59.9 60.1 Medium Trucks: 56.1 54.5 48.2 46.6 55.1 55.3 Heavy Trucks. 61.7 60.2 51.2 52.5 60.8 60.9 Heavy Trucks. 56.9 55.5 46.4 47.7 56.0 56.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Vehicle Noise: 64.1 62.4 59.2 54.6 63.1 63.6 Centerifne Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerifne Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 72 156 335 722 Ldn: 35 75 161 347 CNEL: 77 167 360 775 CNEL: 37 80 173 372 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adi): 1,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 170 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Tm Medium cks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% BarrierHeight: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adi): 12,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,270 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrferAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 -9.65 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -26.88 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -30.84 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.11 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 UnV.gated Nofse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 53.2 51.3 49.6 43.5 52.1 52.7 Autos., 62.0 60.1 58.3 52.2 60.9 61.5 Medium Trucks: 47.0 45.5 39.1 37.6 46.0 46.3 Medium Trucks: 55.7 54.2 47.8 46.3 54.8 55.0 Heavy Trucks. 47.8 46.4 37.4 38.6 47.0 47.1 Heavy Trucks. 56.6 55.1 46.1 47.3 55.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 55.1 53.3 50.2 45.5 54.0 54.5 Vehicle Noise: 63.8 62.0 58.9 54.2 62.8 63.2 Centerifne Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerifne Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 9 19 40 86 Ldn: 33 71 153 329 CNEL: 9 20 43 92 CNEL: 35 76 164 353 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-57 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,240 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Bemr Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 10,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.02 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.95 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.26 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.19 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.21 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.15 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Notse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 61.8 60.0 58.2 52.1 60.8 61.4 Autos., 60.9 59.0 57.3 51.2 59.8 60.4 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.7 46.2 54.6 54.9 Medium Trucks: 54.7 53.2 46.8 45.3 53.7 53.9 Heavy Trucks: 56.4 55.0 46.0 47.2 55.6 55.7 Heavy Trucks: 55.5 54.1 45.1 46.3 54.7 54.8 Vehicle Noise: 63.7 61.9 58.8 54.1 62.7 63.1 Vehicle Noise: 62.7 61.0 57.9 53.2 61.7 62.2 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 32 70 150 324 Ldn: 28 60 130 281 CNEL: 35 75 161 347 CNEL: 30 65 140 301 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 950 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Cruz -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 4,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 460 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedins Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bemr Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.17 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -5.32 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.41 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.56 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -23.37 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -26.52 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Notse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.7 58.8 57.0 51.0 59.6 60.2 Autos., 57.5 55.6 53.9 47.8 56.4 57.1 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.6 45.0 53.5 53.7 Medium Trucks: 51.3 49.8 43.4 41.9 50.3 50.6 Heavy Trucks: 55.3 53.9 44.8 46.1 54.4 54.6 Heavy Trucks: 52.1 50.7 41.7 42.9 51.3 51.4 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.8 57.6 53.0 61.5 62.0 Vehicle Noise: 59.4 57.6 54.5 49.8 58.3 58.8 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 27 58 126 271 Ldn: 17 36 78 167 CNEL: 29 63 135 291 CNEL: 18 39 83 179 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-58 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BandarAtfen I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Sam; Allen Autos. 68.46 -3.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.97 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.21 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.17 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Autos., 60.2 58.3 56.5 50.5 59.1 59.7 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Medium Trucks: 53.9 52.4 46.1 44.5 53.0 53.2 Heavy Trucks: 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Heavy Trucks: 54.8 53.3 44.3 45.6 53.9 54.0 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Vehicle Noise: 62.0 60.3 57.1 52.4 61.0 61.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 51 110 238 Ldn: 25 54 116 250 CNEL: 25 55 118 255 CNEL: 27 58 125 269 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 6,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 690 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 6,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 630 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 -3.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.96 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.76 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -25.15 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.6 57.7 55.9 49.9 58.5 59.1 Autos., 59.2 57.3 55.5 49.5 58.1 58.7 Medium Trucks: 53.3 51.8 45.5 43.9 52.4 52.6 Medium Trucks: 52.9 51.4 45.1 43.5 52.0 52.2 Heavy Trucks: 54.2 52.8 43.7 45.0 53.3 53.5 Heavy Trucks: 53.8 52.4 43.3 44.6 52.9 53.1 Vehicle Noise: 61.4 59.7 56.5 51.8 60.4 60.8 Vehicle Noise: 61.0 59.3 56.1 51.5 60.0 60.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 23 49 106 229 Ldn: 22 46 100 215 CNEL: 25 53 114 245 CNEL: 23 50 107 231 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-59 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Cmz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 580 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TreMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfen I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -4.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.32 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -21.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.56 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -25.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -24.51 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 58.8 56.9 55.2 49.1 57.7 58.3 Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.2 50.1 58.7 59.3 Medium Trucks: 52.6 51.1 44.7 43.2 51.6 51.9 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.7 44.2 52.6 52.9 Heavy Trucks. 53.4 52.0 43.0 44.2 52.6 52.7 Heavy Trucks. 54.4 53.0 44.0 45.2 53.6 53.7 Vehicle Noise: 60.7 58.9 55.8 51.1 59.6 60.1 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 59.9 56.8 52.1 60.6 61.1 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 20 44 95 204 Ldn: 24 51 110 238 CNEL: 22 47 101 219 CNEL: 25 55 118 255 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 10,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,000 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 760 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.95 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -3.14 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -23.15 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.34 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.2 59.3 57.5 51.5 60.1 60.7 Autos., 60.0 58.1 56.3 50.3 58.9 59.5 Medium Trucks: 54.9 53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2 Medium Trucks: 53.8 52.2 45.9 44.3 52.8 53.0 Heavy Trucks. 55.8 54.4 45.3 46.6 54.9 55.1 Heavy Trucks. 54.6 53.2 44.1 45.4 53.7 53.9 Vehicle Noise: 63.0 61.3 58.1 53.5 62.0 62.5 Vehicle Noise: 61.8 60.1 56.9 52.3 60.8 61.3 Center) Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 deA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 29 63 136 293 Ldn: 24 53 113 244 CNEL: 31 68 146 314 CNEL: 26 56 121 262 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-60 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 10,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,090 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtfen I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -1.58 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.36 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.82 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -22.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -23.55 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 61.6 59.7 57.9 51.8 60.5 61.1 Autos., 60.8 58.9 57.1 51.1 59.7 60.3 Medium Trucks: 55.3 53.8 47.5 45.9 54.4 54.6 Medium Trucks: 54.5 53.0 46.7 45.1 53.6 53.8 Heavy Trucks: 56.2 54.7 45.7 47.0 55.3 55.4 Heavy Trucks: 55.4 54.0 44.9 46.2 54.5 54.7 Vehicle Noise: 63.4 61.7 58.5 53.8 62.4 62.8 Vehicle Noise: 62.6 60.9 57.7 53.0 61.6 62.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 31 67 144 310 Ldn: 28 59 128 275 CNEL: 33 72 154 333 CNEL: 30 64 137 295 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR (Circle 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,420 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Newport CTR -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,640 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.67 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.04 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.62 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.00 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.7 60.8 59.1 53.0 61.6 62.2 Autos., 63.3 61.4 59.7 53.6 62.2 62.9 Medium Trucks: 56.5 55.0 48.6 47.1 55.5 55.8 Medium Trucks: 57.1 55.6 49.2 47.7 56.1 56.4 Heavy Trucks. 57.3 55.9 46.9 48.1 56.5 56.6 Heavy Trucks. 57.9 56.5 47.5 48.7 57.1 57.2 Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.8 59.7 55.0 63.5 64.0 Vehicle Noise: 65.2 63.4 60.3 55.6 64.2 64.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 37 80 172 370 Ldn: 41 88 189 407 CNEL: 40 86 184 397 CNEL: 44 94 203 437 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-61 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 16,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -6.15 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 0.30 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -23.39 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.94 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -27.35 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -20.89 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Notse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 56.7 54.8 53.0 47.0 55.6 56.2 Autos., 63.2 61.3 59.5 53.4 62.1 62.7 Medium Trucks: 50.5 49.0 42.6 41.1 49.5 49.7 Medium Trucks: 56.9 55.4 49.1 47.5 56.0 56.2 Heavy Trucks: 51.3 49.9 40.9 42.1 50.5 50.6 Heavy Trucks: 57.8 56.3 47.3 48.6 56.9 57.0 Vehicle Noise: 58.5 56.8 53.7 49.0 57.5 58.0 Vehicle Noise: 65.0 63.3 60.1 55.4 64.0 64.4 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 15 32 68 147 Ldn: 40 85 184 397 CNEL: 16 34 73 158 CNEL: 43 92 197 425 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Trafc (Adt): 14,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,430 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Rosa -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.40 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -2.97 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.64 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -20.21 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.59 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -24.17 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Notse Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.7 61.4 62.0 Autos., 59.9 58.0 56.2 50.2 58.8 59.4 Medium Trucks: 56.2 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Medium Trucks: 53.6 52.1 45.8 44.2 52.7 52.9 Heavy Trucks: 57.1 55.6 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.3 Heavy Trucks: 54.5 53.1 44.0 45.3 53.6 53.8 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.7 63.3 63.7 Vehicle Noise: 61.7 60.0 56.8 52.2 60.7 61.2 Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centeriine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 36 77 165 356 Ldn: 24 52 111 240 CNEL: 38 82 177 382 CNEL: 26 55 119 257 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-62 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centedine Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BardarAtfen I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Number. 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 15,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,550 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centedine Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -4.45 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 0.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.69 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -16.77 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.64 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -20.73 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 56.3 54.4 52.7 46.6 55.2 55.9 Autos., 61.3 59.4 57.6 51.5 60.2 60.8 Medium Trucks: 50.3 48.8 42.4 40.9 49.4 49.6 Medium Trucks: 55.2 53.7 47.4 45.8 54.3 54.5 Heavy Trucks. 51.6 50.2 41.2 42.4 50.8 50.9 Heavy Trucks. 56.5 55.1 46.1 47.3 55.7 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 58.4 56.6 53.3 48.8 57.3 57.8 Vehicle Noise: 63.3 61.5 58.3 53.7 62.2 62.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 14 31 66 143 Ldn: 30 66 141 304 CNEL: 15 33 71 153 CNEL: 33 70 151 326 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Avocado -4.51 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 11,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,100 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centedine Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macerthur -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment North of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 80,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 8,050 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centedine Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -1.03 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 7.11 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -18.26 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.13 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -22.22 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -14.09 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 59.8 57.9 56.1 50.1 58.7 59.3 Autos., 70.3 68.4 66.6 60.5 69.2 69.8 Medium Trucks: 53.7 52.2 45.9 44.3 52.8 53.0 Medium Trucks: 64.0 62.5 56.1 54.6 63.1 63.3 Heavy Trucks. 55.1 53.6 44.6 45.9 54.2 54.3 Heavy Trucks. 64.9 63.4 54.4 55.6 64.0 64.1 Vehicle Noise: 61.8 60.0 56.8 52.2 60.8 61.2 Vehicle Noise: 72.1 70.3 67.2 62.5 71.1 71.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 24 52 112 242 Ldn: 118 254 546 1,177 CNEL: 26 56 120 259 CNEL: 126 272 586 1,262 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-63 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: South of Bonita Canyon SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 69,200 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,920 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Baffler Height: 0.0 het Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten I Berm Allen VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten I Bemr Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: North of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 68,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,810 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 6.45 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 6.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.79 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.86 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -14.74 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -14.81 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Toper and harrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.6 67.7 65.9 59.9 68.5 69.1 Autos., 69.5 67.6 65.9 59.8 68.4 69.0 Medium Trucks: 63.3 61.8 55.5 53.9 62.4 62.6 Medium Trucks: 63.3 61.8 55.4 53.9 62.3 62.6 Heavy Trucks: 64.2 62.8 53.7 55.0 63.3 63.5 Heavy Trucks: 64.1 62.7 53.7 54.9 63.3 63.4 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 69.7 66.5 61.9 70.4 70.9 Vehicle Noise: 71.4 69.6 66.5 61.8 70.3 70.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 106 229 494 1,064 Ldn: 105 227 489 1,053 CNEL: 114 246 530 1,141 CNEL: 113 243 524 1,129 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of San Joaquin Hills 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 43,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,340 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: North of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 38,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,880 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Peak Hour I VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten Bemr Allen Autos: 68.46 4.42 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.94 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.81 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.30 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.77 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.26 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Toper and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Autos., 67.1 65.2 63.4 57.4 66.0 66.6 Medium Trucks: 61.3 59.8 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Medium Trucks: 60.8 59.3 53.0 51.4 59.9 60.1 Heavy Trucks: 62.2 60.7 51.7 53.0 61.3 61.4 Heavy Trucks: 61.7 60.3 51.2 52.5 60.8 61.0 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.5 59.8 68.4 68.8 Vehicle Noise: 68.9 67.2 64.0 59.3 67.9 68.3 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dRA Ldn: 78 168 362 779 Ldn: 72 156 336 723 CNEL: 84 180 388 836 CNEL: 78 167 360 776 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-64 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: South of San Miguel 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 32,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,240 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI Trell Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAffen I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Macarthur -4.11 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: North of Coast Highway 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 32,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,250 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leg Peak Hour I VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAffen I Bann Allen Autos. 68.46 3.15 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 3.17 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.08 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.07 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.04 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.03 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leg Peak Hour I Leg Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leg Peak Hour I Leg Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 66.3 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.2 65.8 Autos., 66.3 64.4 62.6 56.6 65.2 65.8 Medium Trucks: 60.1 58.5 52.2 50.6 59.1 59.3 Medium Trucks: 60.1 58.6 52.2 50.7 59.1 59.3 Heavy Trucks: 60.9 59.5 50.4 51.7 60.0 60.2 Heavy Trucks: 60.9 59.5 50.5 51.7 60.1 60.2 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.4 63.2 58.6 67.1 67.6 Vehicle Noise: 68.1 66.4 63.3 58.6 67.1 67.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 64 138 298 641 Ldn: 64 138 298 643 CNEL: 69 148 319 688 CNEL: 69 149 320 690 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 15,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,530 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 12,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,230 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Tmcks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Tmcks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leg Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAffen Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 -0.10 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -1.05 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -17.34 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.29 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -21.30 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks., 84.25 -22.25 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leg Peak Hour Leg Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Lag Peak Hour I Leg Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 62.8 60.9 59.1 53.0 61.7 62.3 Autos., 61.8 59.9 58.1 52.1 60.7 61.3 Medium Trucks: 56.5 55.0 48.6 47.1 55.6 55.8 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.7 46.2 54.6 54.8 Heavy Tmcks: 57.4 55.9 46.9 48.2 56.5 56.6 Heavy Tmcks: 56.4 55.0 46.0 47.2 55.6 55.7 Vehicle Noise: 64.6 62.9 59.7 55.0 63.6 64.0 Vehicle Noise: 63.6 61.9 58.8 54.1 62.6 63.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 37 80 173 373 Ldn: 32 69 150 322 CNEL: 40 86 186 400 CNEL: 35 74 160 346 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-65 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 10,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,060 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Eastbluff/Ford/Bonita Cyn Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Bonita Canyon 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 39,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 3,940 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 -1.70 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.00 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.94 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -13.23 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.89 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -17.19 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 61.2 59.3 57.5 51.4 60.1 60.7 Autos., 66.9 65.0 63.2 57.2 65.8 66.4 Medium Trucks: 54.9 53.4 47.1 45.5 54.0 54.2 Medium Trucks: 60.6 59.1 52.8 51.2 59.7 59.9 Heavy Trucks: 55.8 54.3 45.3 46.6 54.9 55.0 Heavy Trucks: 61.5 60.0 51.0 52.3 60.6 60.7 Vehicle Noise: 63.0 61.3 58.1 53.4 62.0 62.4 Vehicle Noise: 68.7 67.0 63.8 59.1 67.7 68.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 29 63 135 292 Ldn: 70 151 325 700 CNEL: 31 67 145 313 CNEL: 75 162 349 751 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmftic (Adt): 5,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 20,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,040 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 -4.96 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.15 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -22.20 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.09 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -26.16 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -20.05 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 58.2 56.3 54.5 48.5 57.1 57.7 Autos., 64.3 62.4 60.6 54.6 63.2 63.8 Medium Trucks: 51.9 50.4 44.1 42.5 51.0 51.2 Medium Trucks: 58.0 56.5 50.2 48.6 57.1 57.3 Heavy Trucks: 52.8 51.4 42.3 43.6 51.9 52.1 Heavy Trucks: 58.9 57.5 48.4 49.7 58.0 58.2 Vehicle Noise: 60.0 58.3 55.1 50.4 59.0 59.4 Vehicle Noise: 66.1 64.4 61.2 56.6 65.1 65.6 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 18 40 86 185 Ldn: 47 102 219 471 CNEL: 20 43 92 198 CNEL: 51 109 235 505 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-66 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmlfic (Adt): 23,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TmMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel SarnerAtten I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 15,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel SarnerAtten I Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 1.80 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.19 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.44 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.40 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -21.38 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLoq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.3 55.2 63.8 64.5 Autos., 63.0 61.1 59.3 53.2 61.9 62.5 Medium Trucks: 58.7 57.2 50.8 49.3 57.7 58.0 Medium Trucks: 56.7 55.2 48.8 47.3 55.8 56.0 Heavy Trucks: 59.5 58.1 49.1 50.3 58.7 58.8 Heavy Trucks: 57.6 56.1 47.1 48.3 56.7 56.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 61.9 57.2 65.7 66.2 Vehicle Noise: 64.8 63.0 59.9 55.2 63.8 64.2 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 52 112 242 521 Ldn: 38 83 178 384 CNEL: 56 120 259 559 CNEL: 41 89 191 412 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Job Number 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmlfic (Adt): 17,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,730 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Rosa 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 22,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Semi Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 0.43 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 1.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.81 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -20.76 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.55 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.6 61.7 59.9 53.9 62.5 63.1 Autos., 64.8 62.9 61.1 55.1 63.7 64.3 Medium Trucks: 57.3 55.8 49.5 47.9 56.4 56.6 Medium Trucks: 58.5 57.0 50.7 49.1 57.6 57.8 Heavy Trucks: 58.2 56.8 47.7 49.0 57.3 57.4 Heavy Trucks: 59.4 58.0 48.9 50.2 58.5 58.7 Vehicle Noise: 65.4 63.7 60.5 55.8 64.4 64.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.6 64.9 61.7 57.1 65.6 66.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 42 91 196 422 Ldn: 51 110 236 509 CNEL: 45 98 210 453 CNEL: 55 118 253 546 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-67 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Macarthur Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmilic (Adt): 23,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,360 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise S- Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right Vie- 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Heavy Trucks: 92.547 VehicleType REMELI Tmfrc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel SarnierAtten I Berm Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Joaquin Hills Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 21,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,130 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel SarnierAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 1.78 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 68.46 1.33 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.91 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.42 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -19.86 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.3 55.2 63.8 64.4 Autos., 64.5 62.6 60.8 54.8 63.4 64.0 Medium Trucks: 58.7 57.2 50.8 49.3 57.7 58.0 Medium Trucks: 58.2 56.7 50.4 48.8 57.3 57.5 Heavy Trucks: 59.5 58.1 49.1 50.3 58.7 58.8 Heavy Trucks: 59.1 57.7 48.6 49.9 58.2 58.4 Vehicle Noise: 66.8 65.0 61.9 57.2 65.7 66.2 Vehicle Noise: 66.3 64.6 61.4 56.7 65.3 65.7 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 52 112 241 519 Ldn: 48 104 225 485 CNEL: 56 120 259 557 CNEL: 52 112 241 520 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Santa Barbara 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -3.73 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 5,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 570 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Clemente Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Santa Cruz 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -3.73 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Tmilic (Adt): 5,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 590 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Semi Berm Allen Autos. 66.51 -3.88 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos. 66.51 -3.73 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -21.12 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.97 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -25.07 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -24.93 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 56.9 55.0 53.3 47.2 55.8 56.4 Autos., 57.1 55.2 53.4 47.3 56.0 56.6 Medium Trucks: 50.9 49.4 43.0 41.5 49.9 50.2 Medium Trucks: 51.0 49.5 43.2 41.6 50.1 50.3 Heavy Trucks: 52.2 50.8 41.7 43.0 51.4 51.5 Heavy Trucks: 52.4 50.9 41.9 43.1 51.5 51.6 Vehicle Noise: 58.9 57.2 53.9 49.4 57.9 58.3 Vehicle Noise: 59.1 57.3 54.1 49.5 58.1 58.5 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 16 34 72 156 Ldn: 16 34 74 160 CNEL: 17 36 78 167 CNEL: 17 37 79 171 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 2,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 230 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten I Bemr Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 12,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,290 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -7.82 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -0.33 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -25.06 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.57 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -29.02 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -21.53 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 53.0 51.1 49.3 43.3 51.9 52.5 Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.8 50.7 59.4 60.0 Medium Trucks: 46.9 45.4 39.1 37.5 46.0 46.2 Medium Trucks: 54.4 52.9 46.6 45.0 53.5 53.7 Heavy Trucks: 48.3 46.8 37.8 39.1 47.4 47.5 Heavy Trucks: 55.8 54.3 45.3 46.5 54.9 55.0 Vehicle Noise: 55.0 53.3 50.0 45.4 54.0 54.4 Vehicle Noise: 62.5 60.7 57.5 52.9 61.4 61.9 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 9 18 40 85 Ldn: 27 58 125 269 CNEL: 9 20 42 91 CNEL: 29 62 134 288 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number 8211 Road Segment North of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 12,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,260 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TmMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: South of San Clemente 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 7,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 790 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BerrierAtten Bemr Allen Autos: 66.51 -0.44 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -2.46 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -17.67 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -19.70 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -21.63 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -23.66 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.4 58.5 56.7 50.6 59.3 59.9 Autos., 58.3 56.4 54.7 48.6 57.2 57.8 Medium Trucks: 54.3 52.8 46.5 44.9 53.4 53.6 Medium Trucks: 52.3 50.8 44.4 42.9 51.3 51.6 Heavy Trucks: 55.6 54.2 45.2 46.4 54.8 54.9 Heavy Trucks: 53.6 52.2 43.2 44.4 52.8 52.9 Vehicle Noise: 62.4 60.6 57.4 52.8 61.3 61.8 Vehicle Noise: 60.3 58.6 55.3 50.8 59.3 59.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Center ine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA I 7o deA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 26 57 123 265 Ldn: 19 42 90 194 CNEL: 28 61 132 284 CNEL: 21 45 96 208 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-69 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 6,900 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 690 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType I REMEL I VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Santa Barbara -4.51 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.51 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 3,700 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 370 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 40 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 36 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 98.412 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 98.372 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 98.413 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 66.51 -3.05 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 66.51 -5.76 -4.51 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -20.29 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 77.72 -23.00 -4.51 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 82.99 -24.25 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 82.99 -26.95 -4.51 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Lon CNEL Autos., 57.7 55.8 54.1 48.0 56.6 57.3 Autos., 55.0 53.1 51.4 45.3 53.9 54.5 Medium Trucks: 51.7 50.2 43.8 42.3 50.8 51.0 Medium Trucks: 49.0 47.5 41.1 39.6 48.1 48.3 Heavy Trucks. 53.0 51.6 42.6 43.8 52.2 52.3 Heavy Trucks. 50.3 48.9 39.9 41.1 49.5 49.6 Vehicle Noise: 59.8 58.0 54.7 50.2 58.7 59.2 Vehicle Noise: 57.0 55.3 52.0 47.5 56.0 56.5 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 18 38 82 177 Ldn: 12 25 54 117 CNEL: 19 41 88 190 CNEL: 13 27 58 125 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 9,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 910 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment.: 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 14,400 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,440 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Tmcks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tmcks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet MediumTrucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment., 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 -2.36 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.37 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -19.60 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -17.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Tmcks: 84.25 -23.55 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -21.56 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 60.5 58.6 56.8 50.8 59.4 60.0 Autos., 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.8 61.4 62.0 Medium Trucks: 54.3 52.8 46.4 44.8 53.3 53.5 Medium Trucks: 56.3 54.7 48.4 46.8 55.3 55.5 Heavy Trucks. 55.1 53.7 44.6 45.9 54.3 54.4 Heavy Trucks. 57.1 55.7 46.6 47.9 56.2 56.4 Vehicle Noise: 62.3 60.6 57.4 52.8 61.3 61.8 Vehicle Noise: 64.3 62.6 59.4 54.8 63.3 63.8 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 26 57 122 264 Ldn: 36 77 166 358 CNEL: 28 61 131 283 CNEL: 38 83 178 384 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-70 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 18,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,810 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Baffler Height: 0.0 het Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Sourae Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Road Elevation: Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Traffic Flow Distance VehicleType REMELI TreMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Bard rAtfim I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 26,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,680 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data 0.000 Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarderAtten I Berm Allen Autos. 68.46 0.63 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 2.33 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -16.61 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -14.91 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -20.57 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -18.86 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 63.5 61.6 59.8 53.8 62.4 63.0 Autos., 65.2 63.3 61.5 55.5 64.1 64.7 Medium Trucks: 57.2 55.7 49.4 47.8 56.3 56.5 Medium Trucks: 59.0 57.4 51.1 49.5 58.0 58.2 Heavy Trucks: 58.1 56.7 47.6 48.9 57.2 57.4 Heavy Trucks: 59.8 58.4 49.3 50.6 58.9 59.1 Vehicle Noise: 65.3 63.6 60.4 55.8 64.3 64.8 Vehicle Noise: 67.0 65.3 62.1 57.5 66.0 66.5 Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 42 90 193 417 Ldn: 54 117 251 541 CNEL: 45 96 208 447 CNEL: 58 125 270 581 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 25,000 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 2,500 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel Be Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: San Miguel -4.39 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.39 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TmMc (Adt): 12,500 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 1,250 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 52 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks., 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height(Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 96.607 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 96.566 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 96.608 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 2.03 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 -0.98 -4.39 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -15.21 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -18.22 -4.39 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -19.17 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -22.18 -4.39 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 64.9 63.0 61.2 55.2 63.8 64.4 Autos., 61.9 60.0 58.2 52.2 60.8 61.4 Medium Trucks: 58.6 57.1 50.8 49.2 57.7 57.9 Medium Trucks: 55.6 54.1 47.8 46.2 54.7 54.9 Heavy Trucks: 59.5 58.1 49.0 50.3 58.6 58.8 Heavy Trucks: 56.5 55.1 46.0 47.3 55.6 55.8 Vehicle Noise: 66.7 65.0 61.8 57.2 65.7 66.2 Vehicle Noise: 63.7 62.0 58.8 54.1 62.7 63.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 deA Ldn: 52 111 240 517 Ldn: 33 70 151 326 CNEL: 55 119 257 555 CNEL: 35 75 162 349 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-71 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: Westof Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 71,600 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 7,160 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barrier 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TraMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel BandarAtten I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Numbe, 8211 Road Segment: East of Jamboree 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 58,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,830 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType I REMEL I TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BanderAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 6.60 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.71 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -10.64 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.53 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -14.60 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -15.49 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 69.7 67.8 66.1 60.0 68.6 69.3 Autos., 68.9 67.0 65.2 59.1 67.8 68.4 Medium Trucks: 63.5 62.0 55.6 54.1 62.5 62.8 Medium Trucks: 62.6 61.1 54.7 53.2 61.7 61.9 Heavy Trucks: 64.3 62.9 53.9 55.1 63.5 63.6 Heavy Trucks: 63.4 62.0 53.0 54.2 62.6 62.7 Vehicle Noise: 71.6 69.8 66.7 62.0 70.6 71.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.7 68.9 65.8 61.1 69.7 70.1 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centerfine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 1 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 109 234 505 1,088 Ldn: 95 204 440 949 CNEL: 117 252 542 1,167 CNEL: 102 219 472 1,018 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: West of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TraOic (Adt): 54,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 5,410 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barter 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barter Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Newport CTR 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily TreMc (Adt): 45,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,530 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centerline Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Evening VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 5.38 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -11.86 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -15.81 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 68.5 66.6 64.9 58.8 67.4 68.0 Autos., 67.8 65.9 64.1 58.0 66.7 67.3 Medium Trucks: 62.3 60.8 54.4 52.9 61.3 61.6 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.6 60.8 Heavy Trucks. 63.1 61.7 52.7 53.9 62.3 62.4 Heavy Trucks. 62.4 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 70.4 68.6 65.5 60.8 69.3 69.8 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.6 69.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 90 195 419 903 Ldn: 80 173 372 802 CNEL: 97 209 450 968 CNEL: 86 185 399 860 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-72 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 43,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,380 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed: 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 feet Barrier Type (0 -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations FHWA Noise Model Calculations VehicleType REMELI TreMc Flow I Distance Finite Road Fresnel Band rAtfim I Bem1 Aden FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Jab Number: 8211 Road Segment: East of Avacado 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,100 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,510 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks., Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Trucks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Trucks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer. 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType I REMEL I Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten I Berm Allen Autos: 68.46 4.46 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 4.59 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.77 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -12.65 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.73 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -16.60 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.6 65.7 63.9 57.9 66.5 67.1 Autos., 67.7 65.8 64.1 58.0 66.6 67.2 Medium Trucks: 61.4 59.9 53.5 51.9 60.4 60.6 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.5 60.8 Heavy Trucks: 62.2 60.8 51.8 53.0 61.4 61.5 Heavy Trucks: 62.3 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Vehicle Noise: 69.4 67.7 64.6 59.9 68.4 68.9 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.5 69.0 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 78 169 364 784 Ldn: 80 172 371 800 CNEL: 84 181 390 841 CNEL: 86 185 398 858 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Westof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATANOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 45,300 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 4,530 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Site Data Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84% Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Berner 100.0 feet Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer, 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL Traffic Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtten Bem1 Allen Tuesday, May 29, 2012 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY Scenario: Year 2016 With Project NOISE PREDICTION MODEL Project Name: NNCPC Road Name: Coast Highway -4.11 Job Number: 8211 Road Segment: Eastof Macarthur 0.000 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA NOISE MODEL INPUTS Highway Data -4.11 Site Conditions (Hard =10, Soft =15) Average Daily Traffic (Adt): 61,800 vehicles Autos: 15 Peak Hour Percentage: 10% Medium Trucks (2 Axles): 15 Peak Hour Volume: 6,180 vehicles Heavy Trucks (3+Axles): 15 Vehicle Speed., 45 mph Vehicle Mix Near/Far Lane Distance: 76 feet VehicleType I Day Evening Night Daily Site Data Heavy Trucks: Autos: 77.5% 12.9% 9.6% 97.42% Medium Tracks: 84.8% 4.9% 10.3% 1.84 Baffler Height: 0.0 het Barrier Type (O -Wall, 1 -Berm): 0.0 Heavy Tmcks: 86.5% 2.7% 10.8% 0.74% Centerline Dist. to Barney. 100.0 feet No Source Elevations (in feet) Centedine Dist. to Observer 100.0 feet Autos: 2.000 Barrier Distance to Observer: 0.0 feet Medium Trucks: 4.000 Observer Height (Above Pad): 5.0 feet Heavy Trucks: 8.006 Grade Adjustment 0.0 Pad Elevation: 0.0 feet Lane Equivalent Distance (In feet) Road Elevation: 0.0 feet Autos: 92.547 Road Grade: 0.0% Left View: -90.0 degrees Medium Trucks: 92.504 Right View: 90.0 degrees Heavy Trucks: 92.547 FHWA Noise Model Calculations Leq Day FLeq VehicleType REMEL TreMc Flow Distance Finite Road Fresnel BarrierAtfim Bem1 Allen Autos: 68.46 4.61 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Autos: 68.46 5.96 -4.11 -1.20 -4.87 0.000 0.000 Medium Tmcks: 79.45 -12.63 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Medium Trucks: 79.45 -11.28 -4.11 -1.20 -4.97 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks: 84.25 -16.58 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Heavy Trucks., 84.25 -15.24 -4.11 -1.20 -5.16 0.000 0.000 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) VehicleType Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL VehicleType I Leq Peak Hour I Leq Day FLeq Evening Leq Night Ldn CNEL Autos., 67.8 65.9 64.1 58.0 66.7 67.3 Autos., 69.1 67.2 65.4 59.4 68.0 68.6 Medium Trucks: 61.5 60.0 53.6 52.1 60.6 60.8 Medium Trucks: 62.9 61.4 55.0 53.4 61.9 62.1 Heavy Trucks. 62.4 60.9 51.9 53.1 61.5 61.6 Heavy Trucks. 63.7 62.3 53.2 54.5 62.8 63.0 Vehicle Noise: 69.6 67.8 64.7 60.0 68.6 69.0 Vehicle Noise: 70.9 69.2 66.0 61.4 69.9 70.4 Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) Centedine Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) 7o dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA Ldn: 80 173 372 802 Ldn: 99 213 458 987 CNEL: 86 185 399 860 CNEL: 106 228 491 1,058 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6.1-73 Tuesday, May 29, 2012 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix D North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. May 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach 0 Stantec North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Traffic Analysis May 2012 Prepared For: City of Newport Beach 2073006780 North Newport Center San Joaquin Plaza TPO Cathy Lawrence, PE Joe Foust, PE Traffic Analysis City of Newport Beach May 16, 2012 Prepared for: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Submitted by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 19 Technology Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Prepared by: QRDFI=5S�O1�` rT 16 ►�� n No.TRoO1635 Transportation Engineer Exp. �2- Stantec ConsultingServices Inc. T rRAFF\ C � �T£ OFC . Reviewed by: Print' al, Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering St tet Consulting Services Inc. Stantec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1 2.0 TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS....................................................................1 3.0 CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS.............................................................................6 4.0 GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS.............................................................................................17 5.0 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................17 City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`ya ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 1 San Joaquin Plaza Project Description..................................................................... 2 Figure 2 TPO Analysis Study Intersections............................................................................ 3 Figure 3 General Project Trip Distribution and Project ADT ..................................................... 8 Figure 4 AM Peak Hour Project -Generated Trips................................................................... 9 Figure 5 PM Peak Hour Project -Generated Trips.................................................................. 10 Figure 6 Peak Hour Project -Generated Trips....................................................................... 11 List of Tables Table 1 Existing ICU Summary ............................................................................................4 Table 2 Approved Projects Summary ................................................................................... 5 Table 3 Trip Generation Summary ....................................................................................... 7 Table 4 Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary.......................................................................... 12 Table 5 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary................................................................... 13 Table 6 Year 2016 ICU Summary..................................................................................... 15 Table 7 Cumulative Projects Summary................................................................................ 16 Table 8 Cumulative ICU Summary ..................................................................................... 18 Appendices Appendix A: ICU Analysis Calculations Appendix B: One Percent Analysis Worksheets City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpi_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`}a ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1.0 Introduction This report summarizes an analysis performed for the proposed development of 524 residential units in the San Joaquin Plaza area of North Newport Center in the City of Newport Beach. A portion of the units (430 dwelling units) is currently entitled on the proposed site, a portion (79 units) is a conversion from unbuilt hotel rooms on a site within Newport Center to dwelling units, and the remainder (15 units) is unbuilt within Newport Center area (project location shown in Figure 1). The units which are not currently entitled on the site (94 units) are being analyzed in this report based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. In addition, this report summarizes the results of an analysis of cumulative conditions in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. 2.0 Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis The City of Newport Beach identified 20 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed residential project. These intersections are illustrated in Figure 2. Existing peak hour intersection volumes for the study locations were counted in March 2012 by Traffic Data Services, Inc., consistent with the TPO requirements. Existing intersection levels of service are based on intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values. The ICU values are a means of presenting the volume to capacity ratios, with a V/C ratio of .90 representing the upper threshold for an acceptable level of service (LOS D) in the City of Newport Beach. Existing lane configurations were assumed, and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized. The City methodology calculates the ICU value to three decimal places, and then reports the resulting ICU value rounded to two decimal places. Existing ICU values for the study intersections assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 1 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix A). As this table shows, the study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes along Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, and Coast Highway. The project is assumed to be complete in 2015; therefore, the study year is 2016 consistent with the TPO guidelines. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area (including the entitled 430 DU in San Joaquin Plaza), obtained from City Staff, were added to the existing -plus -growth peak hour volumes to obtain year 2016 background peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project -generated traffic. Table 2 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpi_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`ya ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 1 Existing ICU Summary Intersection 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff Existing AM .74/C PM .61/B 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .60/A .70/13 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .44/A .57/A 4. Jamboree & Coast H .56/A .65/13 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .36/A .44/A 6. Avocado & Coast H .44/A .50/A 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon .73/C .82/D 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .65/13 .80/C 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .53/A .44/A 10. MacArthur & Coast H .66/13 .64/13 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .26/A .36/A 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .14/A .25/A 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .15/A .31/A 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .29/A .49/A 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .12/A .34/A 16. Newport Center & San Miguel .14/A .32/A 17. Avocado & San Miguel .31/A .49/A 18. Newport Center & Newport Center .18/A .36/A 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente .27/A .33/A 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .12/A .21/A Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 2 Approved Projects Summary Project Island Expansion Percent Complete 40 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 65 CIOSA — Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 Hoag Hospital Phase III 0 St. Mark Presbyterian Church 77 OLQA Church Expansion 0 2300 Newport Blvd 0 Newport Executive Court 0 Hoag Health Center 75 North Newport Center 0 Santa Barbara Condo 0 Newport Beach City Hall 0 328 Old Newport Medical Office 0 Coastline Community College 0 Bayview Medical Office 0 Mariner's Pointe 0 4221 Dolphin Striker 0 City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Trip rates and the resulting trip generation for the proposed project are summarized in Table 3. These trips were distributed to the surrounding circulation system according to the general distribution shown in Figure 3. Figures 4 through 6 illustrate the peak hour project -generated trips at the study intersections. Existing -plus -project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project -generated peak hour trips to the existing peak hour volumes. The ICU values for existing - plus -project conditions are summarized in Table 4. Similarly, background -plus -project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project -generated peak hour trips to the 2016 background peak hour volumes presented above. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected background peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the projected background peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required for that intersection and no further analysis is necessary. If the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for each intersection which fails to pass the one percent test. Table 5 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis for the proposed project (the one percent analysis sheets are included in Appendix B). As this table indicates, the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis at 12 study intersections during the AM or PM peak hour; therefore, an ICU analysis is required for these 12 intersections. An ICU analysis was performed for the 12 intersections which did not pass the one percent test. Table 6 summarizes the existing, 2016 background, and 2016 background -plus -project ICU values during the AM and PM peak hours (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix A). As the ICU summary table indicates, each of the intersections will operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no mitigation is required. 3.0 Cumulative Conditions Analysis City Staff provided a list of six known but not approved projects for use in a cumulative conditions analysis. These cumulative projects are summarized in Table 7. Trip generation and distribution for each cumulative project was also provided by City Staff. The peak hour cumulative intersection volumes were added to the 2016 background peak hour volumes presented earlier, and the project peak hour trips were added to the resulting 2016 background -plus -cumulative City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`}a ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 3 Trip Generation Summary rResidential ITE 232 DU .06 .28 .34 .24 .14 .38 4.18 Trip Generation Residential 94 DU 6 26 32 23 13 36 393 Source: Trip Generation 8n Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec 10 11 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 4 Existing -Plus -Project ICU Summary - ction 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff AM .74/C PM .61/13 ExistingExisting AM .74/C Project- PM .61/B Project AM .00 PM .00 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .60/A .70/13 .60/A .70/13 .00 .00 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .44/A .57/A .44/A .57/A .00 .00 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy .56/A .65/13 .56/A .65/13 .00 .00 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .36/A .44/A .37/A .45/A .01 .01 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy .44/A .50/A .44/A .50/A .00 .00 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon .73/C .82/D .73/C .82/D .00 .00 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .65/13 .80/C .65/13 .80/C .00 .00 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .53/A .44/A .53/A .44/A .00 .00 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy .66/13 .64/13 .66/13 .64/13 .00 .00 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .26/A .36/A .27/A .37/A .01 .01 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .14/A .25/A .14/A .26/A .00 .01 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .15/A .31/A .15/A .31/A .00 .00 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .29/A .49/A .29/A .50/A .00 .01 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .12/A .34/A .12/A .34/A .00 .00 16. Newport Center & San Miguel .14/A .32/A .14/A .32/A .00 .00 17. Avocado & San Miguel .31/A .49/A .31/A .49/A .00 .00 18. Newport Center & Newport Center .18/A .36/A .18/A .36/A .00 .00 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente .27/A .33/A .27/A .33/A .00 .00 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .12/A .21/A .12/A .21/A .00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 5 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary Less Than 1 r AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Of Projected 2016 Intersection NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB --ak Hour Volumes? 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,892 2,207 865 697 2,766 1,891 614 386 Project Peak Hour Tris 10 2 0 1 5 7 0 2 Yes 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,406 2,549 395 199 1,644 2,250 143 912 Project Peak Hour Tris 8 2 0 3 6 9 0 1 No 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,528 1,819 60 181 1,481 1,687 81 726 Project Peak Hour Tris 2 0 0 14 6 1 0 7 No 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 465 1,243 2,596 1,194 432 1,599 2,623 2,284 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 7 1 1 0 3 4 2 Yes 5. Newport Ctr & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 0 113 2,188 1,292 0 849 1,704 1,690 Project Peak Hour Trips 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 3 No 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 361 191 1,374 1,455 295 603 1,456 1,548 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 0 4 2 0 0 2 3 Yes 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 2,133 3,156 415 2,080 2,773 3,744 425 1,165 Project Peak Hour Tris 4 1 2 0 2 5 2 1 Yes 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,493 3,203 509 1,071 1,613 2,811 1,172 728 Project Peak Hour Trips 0 1 5 0 0 4 3 1 No 9. MacArthur & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 1,554 1,536 330 470 1,125 1,513 1,225 455 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Yes 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 0 1,092 1,653 2,092 0 1,359 1,680 2,028 Project Peak Hour Trips 0 1 4 2 0 0 2 4 Yes Continued City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx Stant NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 5 One Percent Traffic Analysis Summary (Continued) Intersection 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills NB AM Peak SB Hour EB WB NB PM Peak SB Hour EB WB Less Than 1 r Of Projected 2016 --ak Hour Volumes? 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 118 82 932 399 781 39 783 584 Project Peak Hour Tris 4 0 5 1 2 0 7 5 No 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 144 360 95 35 577 315 336 102 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 3 5 0 2 6 3 0 No 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Ctr 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 60 269 140 178 254 255 280 317 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 No 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 169 132 583 1,015 797 143 789 767 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 0 5 1 0 0 3 5 Yes 15. Newport Ctr & Santa Rosa 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 204 107 84 400 509 320 270 508 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 No 16. Newport Ctr & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 255 106 39 288 423 298 347 609 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 No 17. Avocado & San Miguel 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 381 120 218 1,212 720 321 734 893 Project Peak Hour Tris 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Yes 18. Newport Ctr & Newport Ctr 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 461 24 128 191 428 192 361 472 Project Peak Hour Tris 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 No 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 100 724 0 65 404 278 0 406 Project Peak Hour Tris 1 0 0 6 1 2 0 4 No 20. Newport Ctr & Santa Barbara 2016 Projected Peak Hour Volume 256 146 204 40 281 334 280 148 Project Peak Hour Tris 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 No Note: 2016 Projected peak hour volume consists of existing volume, regional growth, and approved projects volume. City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx Rantec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 6 Year 2016 ICU Summary City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec + Growth I Existing + Growth + ProjectExisting + Approved I Approved + Project Increase Intersection 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .65/13 .80/C .65/13 .80/C .00 .00 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .48/A .61/B .48/A .61/B .00 .00 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .39/A .48/A .39/A .49/A .00 .01 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .69/13 .86/D .69/13 .87/D .00 .01 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .29/A .38/A .30/A .38/A .01 .00 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .14/A .26/A .14/A .26/A .00 .00 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .15/A .31/A .15/A .31/A .00 .00 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .15/A .40/A .15/A .40/A .00 .00 16. Newport Center & San Miguel .15/A .34/A .15/A .34/A .00 .00 18. Newport Center & Newport Center .18/A .38/A .18/A .38/A .00 .00 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente .28/A .33/A .28/A .33/A .00 .00 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .13/A .22/A .13/A .22/A .00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00- .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 7 Cumulative Projects Summary Project �Land Use Amount Medical Arts Medical Office 12.25 TSF Banning Ranch Single Family Detached 423 DU Condominium/Townhouse 952 DU Retail 75.00 TSF Hotel 75 Rm Sunset Ridge Park Park 13.67 Acre Marina Park Marina/Park 10.45 Acre Koll-Conexant Apartment 974 DU Newport Coast TAZ 1 — 4 Single Family Detached 954 DU Condominium/Townhouse 389 DU Multi-Familv Attached 175 DU City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec m NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS peak hour volumes. The previous one percent analysis without cumulative volumes represents the worst-case one percent analysis since the addition of cumulative traffic to the background volumes increases the chances of a project passing the one percent analysis. If an intersection passes the one percent analysis prior to the addition of cumulative traffic, then the intersection will pass the one percent analysis with the addition of cumulative traffic and no further analysis is required at that location. The results of the cumulative ICU analysis are summarized in Table 8 (actual ICU calculation sheets are included in Appendix A). As the cumulative ICU table indicates, the proposed project will have no significant impact on the study intersections, each of which will operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours, and no mitigation is required. 4.0 General Plan Analysis The TPO analysis evaluates a project's potential short-term impacts. The project's consistency with the General Plan was also evaluated. San Joaquin Plaza has 430 DU currently entitled on the project site. Newport Center has 79 hotel rooms and 15 DU that are currently unbuilt but are identified in the General Plan. The proposed project consists of converting the 79 hotel rooms to 79 dwelling units, and developing 94 DU (79 DU + 15 DU) not currently entitled in San Joaquin Plaza. The peak hour and daily trips generated by 79 DU are less than the trips generated by 79 hotel rooms; therefore, the impact of residential units in Newport Center is less than the impact of an equivalent amount of hotel rooms. The proposed project will have less impact than the uses identified in the General Plan; hence the project is consistent with the General Plan. 5.0 Conclusion The proposed 94 DU will generate 32 AM peak hour trips, 36 PM peak hour trips, and 393 daily trips. The marginal impact of project traffic on the street system was determined at 20 intersections in the vicinity. Of the 20 intersections, 12 did not pass the City's one percent analysis; however, the project had no marginal impact on the ICU values at these 12 intersections, which will continue to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under 2016 conditions. Consequently, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no additional intersection improvements are required. The impact of traffic from known but not approved projects was included in a cumulative conditions analysis. Under cumulative conditions, the project had no marginal impact during the City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`}a ntec m NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Table 8 Cumulative ICU Summary Intersection Existing + GrowthExisting Approved + Growth Approved + Cumulative Project+ Project - 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff .82/D .70/13 .82/D .70/13 .00 .00 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .68/1 .83/D .68/13 .83/D .00 .00 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .50/A .63/13 .51/A .63/13 .01 .00 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy .66/1 .83/D .67/13 .83/D .01 .00 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy .42/A .53/A .42/A .53/A .00 .00 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy .56/A .59/A .56/A .59/A .00 .00 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Canyon .78/C .89/D .78/C .89/D .00 .00 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills .71/C .89/D .71/C .89/D .00 .00 9. MacArthur & San Miguel .60/A .50/A .60/A .50/A .00 .00 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy .78/C .75/C .78/C .75/C .00 .00 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills .29/A .38/A .30/A .39/A .01 .01 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente .15/A .26/A .15/A .26/A .00 .00 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center .16/A .32/A .16/A .32/A .00 .00 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills .35/A .54/A .35/A .54/A .00 .00 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa .16/A .40/A .16/A .40/A .00 .00 16. Newport Center & San Miguel .16/A .35/A .16/A .35/A .00 .00 17. Avocado & San Miguel .34/A .55/A .34/A .55/A .00 .00 18. Newport Center & Newport Center .19/A .38/A .19/A .39/A .00 .01 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente .28/A .33/A .28/A .33/A .00 .00 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara .13/A .23/A .13/A .23/A .00 .00 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`y' ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AM or PM peak hour on the ICU values at all of the study intersections. Therefore the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections under cumulative conditions, and no intersection mitigation measures are required. The proposed project will generate less peak hour and daily traffic than the land uses identified in the General Plan; therefore the project is consistent with the General Plan. City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx S`}a ntec NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX A ICU Worksheets City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx Stantec m 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 419 .131* 328 .103 NBT 3 4800 1196 .269 1817 .444* NBR 0 0 93 314 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 31 .019* SBT 3 4800 1730 .360* 1570 .327 SBR 1 1600 143 .089 75 .047 EBL 1.5 182 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 284 .097* 234 .073* EBR f 390 272 WBL 1.5 160 .100 164 WBT 1.5 4800 485 .152* 189 .074* WBR 1 1600 40 .025 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .740 .610 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .741 .611 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 439 .137* 346 .108 NBT 3 4800 1354 .303 2089 .504* NBR 0 0 100 332 SBL 1 1600 76 .048 33 .021* SBT 3 4800 1981 .413* 1780 .371 SBR 1 1600 150 .094 78 .049 EBL 1.5 183 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 289 .098* 234 .073* EBR f 393 277 WBL 1.5 161 .101 170 WBT 1.5 4800 495 .155* 189 .075* WBR 1 1600 41 .026 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 419 .131* 328 .103 NBT 3 4800 1204 .271 1821 .445* NBR 0 0 95 NBR 315 0 SBL 1 1600 73 .046 31 .019* SBT 3 4800 1732 .361* 1577 .329 SBR 1 1600 143 .089 75 .047 EBL 1.5 78 182 EBL 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 284 .097* 234 .073* EBR f 234 390 EBR 272 WBL 1.5 277 161 .101 166 WBT 1.5 4800 485 .152* 189 .074* WBR 1 1600 40 .025 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Note: Assumes E/W Split TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .740 .610 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .741 .611 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 439 .137* 346 .108 NBT 3 4800 1354 .303 2089 .504* NBR 0 0 100 332 SBL 1 1600 76 .048 33 .021* SBT 3 4800 1981 .413* 1780 .371 SBR 1 1600 150 .094 78 .049 EBL 1.5 183 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 289 .098* 234 .073* EBR f 393 277 WBL 1.5 161 .101 170 WBT 1.5 4800 495 .155* 189 .075* WBR 1 1600 41 .026 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 439 .137* 346 .108 NBT 3 4800 1362 .305 2093 .505* NBR 0 0 102 333 SBL 1 1600 76 .048 33 .021* SBT 3 4800 1983 .413* 1787 .372 SBR 1 1600 150 .094 78 .049 EBL 1.5 183 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 289 .098* 234 .073* EBR f 393 277 WBL 1.5 162 .101 172 WBT 1.5 4800 495 .155* 189 .075* WBR 1 1600 41 .026 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .803 .673 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .803 .674 Stantec A-2 1. Jamboree & Ford/Eastbluff Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 448 .140* 351 .110 NBT 3 4800 1515 .336 2170 .521* NBR 0 0 100 332 SBL 1 1600 76 .048 33 .021* SBT 3 4800 2020 .421* 1943 .405 SBR 1 1600 150 .094 78 .049 EBL 1.5 183 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 296 .100* 255 .080* EBR f 395 286 WBL 1.5 161 .101 170 WBT 1.5 4800 516 .161* 203 .078* WBR 1 1600 41 .026 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 448 .140* 351 .110 NBT 3 4800 1523 .339 2174 .522* NBR 0 0 102 333 SBL 1 1600 76 .048 33 .021* SBT 3 4800 2022 .421* 1950 .406 SBR 1 1600 150 .094 78 .049 EBL 1.5 183 103 .064 EBT 1.5 4800 296 .100* 255 .080* EBR f 395 286 WBL 1.5 162 .101 172 WBT 1.5 4800 516 .161* 203 .078* WBR 1 1600 41 .026 27 .017 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .822 .700 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .822 .701 Stantec A-3 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016 55 .034 NBT 3 4800 1110 .231* 1289 .269* NBR f 140 131 SBL 2 3200 744 .233* 514 .161* SBT 3 4800 1450 .302 1330 .277 SBR f 78 164 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 89 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 36 .023 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 123 .038* 178 .056* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 17 .011 572 .358 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .181* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016 55 .034 NBT 3 4800 1117 .233* 1293 .269* NBR f 141 133 SBL 2 3200 746 .233* 522 .163* SBT 3 4800 1450 .302 1331 .277 SBR f 78 164 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 89 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 36 .023 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 123 .038* 178 .056* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 20 .013 573 .358 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .180* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .595 .695 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .597 .696 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 27 .017 58 .036 NBT 3 4800 1229 .256* 1442 .300* NBR f 150 144 SBL 2 3200 819 .256* 581 .182* SBT 3 4800 1649 .344 1499 .312 SBR f 81 171 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 90 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 40 .025 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 133 .042* 186 .058* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 58 .036 680 .425 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .230* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 27 .017 58 .036 NBT 3 4800 1236 .258* 1446 .301* NBR f 151 146 SBL 2 3200 821 .257* 589 .184* SBT 3 4800 1649 .344 1500 .313 SBR f 81 171 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 90 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 40 .025 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 133 .042* 186 .058* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 61 .038 681 .426 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .230* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .647 .798 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .650 .801 Stantec A-4 2. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 27 .017 58 .036 NBT 3 4800 1365 .284* 1544 .322* NBR f 150 144 SBL 2 3200 836 .261* 581 .182* SBT 3 4800 1707 .356 1639 .341 SBR f 81 171 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 90 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 40 .025 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 133 .042* 186 .058* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 58 .036 696 .435 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .240* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 27 .017 58 .036 NBT 3 4800 1372 .286* 1548 .323* NBR f 151 146 SBL 2 3200 838 .262* 589 .184* SBT 3 4800 1707 .356 1640 .342 SBR f 81 171 EBL 1.5 299 .093* 90 .028* EBT 1.5 4800 38 .024 40 .025 EBR f 58 13 WBL 1.5 133 .042* 186 .058* WBT 1.5 4800 8 .005 46 .029 WBR 1 1600 61 .038 697 .436 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .240* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .680 .830 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .683 .833 Stantec A-5 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 17 .011 NBT 3 4800 1115 .232* 1176 .245* NBR 1 1600 289 .181 128 .080 SBL 2 3200 543 .170* 157 .049* SBT 3 4800 1067 .222 1297 .270 SBR 1 1600 29 .018 74 .046 EBL 1 1600 33 .021* 45 .028* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 17 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 39 243 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .014* 5 .078* WBR 1 1600 99 .062 458 .286 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .171* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 17 .011 NBT 3 4800 1116 .233* 1178 .245* NBR 1 1600 290 .181 132 .083 SBL 2 3200 543 .170* 158 .049* SBT 3 4800 1067 .222 1297 .270 SBR 1 1600 29 .018 74 .046 EBL 1 1600 33 .021* 45 .028* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 17 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 46 246 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .016* 5 .078* WBR 1 1600 106 .066 462 .289 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .174* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .437 .571 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .440 .574 Existing + Growth + Approved EBL 1 1600 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR EBT LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 18 .011 NBT 3 4800 1214 .253* 1319 .275* NBR 1 1600 304 .190 144 .090 SBL 2 3200 570 .178* 178 .056* SBT 3 4800 1218 .254 1426 .297 SBR 1 1600 31 .019 83 .052 EBL 1 1600 39 .024* 47 .029* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 18 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 60 253 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .021* 6 .081* WBR 1 1600 115 .072 467 .292 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .169* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 18 .011 NBT 3 4800 1215 .253* 1321 .275* NBR 1 1600 305 .191 148 .093 SBL 2 3200 570 .178* 179 .056* SBT 3 4800 1218 .254 1426 .297 SBR 1 1600 31 .019 83 .052 EBL 1 1600 39 .024* 47 .029* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 18 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 67 256 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .023* 6 .082* WBR 1 1600 122 .076 471 .294 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .170* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .476 .610 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .478 .612 Stantec A-6 3. Jamboree & Santa Barbara Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 18 .011 NBT 3 4800 1350 .281* 1421 .296* NBR 1 1600 304 .190 144 .090 SBL 2 3200 570 .178* 178 .056* SBT 3 4800 1276 .266 1566 .326 SBR 1 1600 31 .019 83 .052 EBL 1 1600 39 .024* 47 .029* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 18 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 60 253 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .021* 6 .081* WBR 1 1600 115 .072 467 .292 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .169* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 10 .006 18 .011 NBT 3 4800 1351 .281* 1423 .296* NBR 1 1600 305 .191 148 .093 SBL 2 3200 570 .178* 179 .056* SBT 3 4800 1276 .266 1566 .326 SBR 1 1600 31 .019 83 .052 EBL 1 1600 39 .024* 47 .029* EBT 1 1600 5 .003 18 .011 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 16 .010 WBL 1.5 67 256 WBT 0.5 3200 6 .023* 6 .082* WBR 1 1600 122 .076 471 .294 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .170* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .504 .631 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .506 .633 Stantec A-7 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 17 .011 41 .026 NBT 2 3200 340 .134* 290 .115* NBR 0 0 88 NBR 79 0 SBL 1 1600 192 .120* 179 .112* SBT 2 3200 291 .091 417 .130 SBR f 437 594 SBR 856 EBL 3 4800 788 .164* 723 .151* EBT 4 6400 1557 .246 1589 .258 EBR 0 0 19 EBR 60 0 WBL 2 3200 76 .024 132 .041 WBT 4 6400 921 .144* 1729 .270* WBR f 1918 102 WBR 205 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .562 .648 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .563 .649 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 17 .011 41 .026 NBT 2 3200 340 .134* 290 .115* NBR 0 0 88 NBR 79 0 SBL 1 1600 194 .121* 180 .113* SBT 2 3200 291 .091 417 .130 SBR f 437 599 SBR 858 EBL 3 4800 789 .164* 727 .151* EBT 4 6400 1557 .246 1589 .258 EBR 0 0 19 EBR 60 0 WBL 2 3200 76 .024 132 .041 WBT 4 6400 921 .144* 1729 .270* WBR f 1918 103 WBR 207 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .562 .648 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .563 .649 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 18 .011 44 .028 NBT 2 3200 355 .140* 303 .122* NBR 0 0 93 86 SBL 1 1600 206 .129* 194 .121* SBT 2 3200 304 .095 437 .137 SBR f 734 968 EBL 3 4800 872 .182* 846 .176* EBT 4 6400 1703 .269 1715 .278 EBR 0 0 21 62 WBL 2 3200 80 .025 142 .044 WBT 4 6400 1007 .157* 1918 .300* WBR f 107 223 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 18 .011 44 .028 NBT 2 3200 355 .140* 303 .122* NBR 0 0 93 86 SBL 1 1600 208 .130* 195 .122* SBT 2 3200 304 .095 437 .137 SBR f 739 970 EBL 3 4800 873 .182* 850 .177* EBT 4 6400 1703 .269 1715 .278 EBR 0 0 21 62 WBL 2 3200 80 .025 142 .044 WBT 4 6400 1007 .157* 1918 .300* WBR f 108 225 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .608 .719 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .609 .721 Stantec A-8 4. Jamboree & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 18 .011 44 .028 NBT 2 3200 355 .140* 303 .122* NBR 0 0 93 86 86 SBL SBL 1 1600 243 .152* 323 .202* SBT 2 3200 304 .095 437 .137 SBR f 760 755 981 979 EBL EBL 3 4800 878 .183* 871 .181* EBT 4 6400 1784 .282 1933 .312 EBR 0 0 21 62 62 WBL WBL 2 3200 80 .025 142 .044 WBT 4 6400 1210 .189* 2072 .324* WBR f 238 237 302 300 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 18 .011 44 .028 NBT 2 3200 355 .140* 303 .122* NBR 0 0 93 86 SBL 1 1600 245 .153* 324 .203* SBT 2 3200 304 .095 437 .137 SBR f 760 981 EBL 3 4800 879 .183* 875 .182* EBT 4 6400 1784 .282 1933 .312 EBR 0 0 21 62 WBL 2 3200 80 .025 142 .044 WBT 4 6400 1210 .189* 2072 .324* WBR f 238 302 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .664 .829 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .665 .831 Stantec A-9 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 19 .006* 164 .051* SBT 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 SBR f 0 69 SBR 635 89 EBL 2 3200 315 .098 314 .098* EBT 3 4800 1718 .358* 1268 .264 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1051 .219 1416 .295* WBR f 1547 170 WBR 128 179 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .364 .444 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .366 .445 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 21 .007* 165 .052* SBT 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 SBR f 0 69 SBR 635 89 EBL 2 3200 315 .098 314 .098* EBT 3 4800 1720 .358* 1269 .264 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 0 0 1 {.0011* WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1052 .219 1418 .295* WBR f 1547 170 WBR 129 179 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .364 .444 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .366 .445 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR NBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL SBL 2 3200 24 .008* 170 .053* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBR SBR f 89 89 679 679 EBL EBL 2 3200 343 .107 348 .109* EBT 3 4800 1846 .385* 1357 .283 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT WBT 3 4800 1113 .232 1547 .322* WBR f 179 179 144 143 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 26 .008* 171 CJ -3* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 89 679 EBL 2 3200 343 .107 348 .109* EBT 3 4800 1848 .385* 1358 .283 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 1 1.0011* 0 WBT 3 4800 1114 .232 1549 .323* WBR f 179 144 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .393 .484 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .394 .485 Stantec A-10 5. Newport Center & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 24 .008* 170 .053* SBT 0 0 0 0 0 SBR f SBR 94 696 EBL 2 3200 356 .111* 359 .112* EBT 3 4800 1951 .406 1693 .353 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1441 .300* 1761 .367* WBR f WBR 179 143 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 26 .008* 171 .053* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR f 94 696 EBL 2 3200 356 .111* 359 .112* EBT 3 4800 1953 .407 1694 .353 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 1 0 WBT 3 4800 1442 .301* 1763 .367* WBR f 179 144 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .419 .532 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .420 .532 Stantec A-11 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 57 .036 253 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .113* SBR f 50 139 EBL 1 1600 140 .088* 89 .056* EBT 3 4800 1071 .223 1199 .250 EBR d 1600 49 .031 71 .044 WBL 1 1600 93 .058 100 .063 WBT 3 4800 1101 .229* 1260 .263* WBR 1 1600 165 .103 104 .065 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .440 .502 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .441 .502 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 62 .039 286 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .123* SBR f 60 208 EBL 1 1600 200 .125* 123 .077* EBT 3 4800 1124 .234 1259 .262 EBR d 1600 51 .032 75 .047 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 104 .065 WBT 3 4800 1157 .241* 1322 .275* WBR 1 1600 202 .126 121 .076 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 110 57 .036 253 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .113* SBR f 109 50 SBR 139 EBL 1 1600 140 .088* 89 .056* EBT 3 4800 1075 .224 1201 .250 EBR d 1600 49 .031 71 .044 WBL 1 1600 93 .058 100 .063 WBT 3 4800 1103 .230* 1263 .263* WBR 1 1600 165 .103 104 .065 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Note: Assumes NIS Split TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .440 .502 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .441 .502 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 62 .039 286 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .123* SBR f 60 208 EBL 1 1600 200 .125* 123 .077* EBT 3 4800 1124 .234 1259 .262 EBR d 1600 51 .032 75 .047 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 104 .065 WBT 3 4800 1157 .241* 1322 .275* WBR 1 1600 202 .126 121 .076 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 62 .039 286 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .123* SBR f 60 208 EBL 1 1600 200 .125* 123 .077* EBT 3 4800 1128 .235 1261 .263 EBR d 1600 51 .032 75 .047 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 104 .065 WBT 3 4800 1159 .241* 1325 .276* WBR 1 1600 202 .126 121 .076 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .489 .545 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .489 .546 Stantec A-12 6. Avocado & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 62 .039 286 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .123* SBR f 60 208 EBL 1 1600 200 .125* 123 .077* EBT 3 4800 1229 .256 1595 .332 EBR d 1600 51 .032 75 .047 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 104 .065 WBT 3 4800 1485 .309* 1536 .320* WBR 1 1600 202 .126 121 .076 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1600 98 .061 112 .070* NBT 1 1600 128 .080* 73 .046 NBR 1 1600 135 .084 110 .069 SBL 1.5 62 .039 286 SBT 0.5 3200 69 .043* 109 .123* SBR f 60 208 EBL 1 1600 200 .125* 123 .077* EBT 3 4800 1233 .257 1597 .333 EBR d 1600 51 .032 75 .047 WBL 1 1600 97 .061 104 .065 WBT 3 4800 1487 .310* 1539 .321* WBR 1 1600 202 .126 121 .076 Note: Assumes NIS Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .557 .590 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .558 .591 Stantec A-13 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 131 .041 88 .028 NBT 4 6400 1750 .273* 1870 .292* NBR f 2110 119 NBR 529 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 1116 .349* SBT 4 6400 2300 .359 2360 .369 SBR f 2534 18 SBR 46 EBL 2 3200 45 .014 30 .009 EBT 2 3200 287 .090* 343 .107* EBR 1 1600 78 .049 46 .029 WBL 2 3200 585 .183* 224 .070* WBT 2 3200 563 .176 276 .086 WBR f 280 918 WBR 649 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .725 .818 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .726 .820 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 131 .041 88 .028 NBT 4 6400 1754 .274* 1872 .293* NBR f 2110 119 NBR 529 SBL 2 3200 574 .179* 1116 .349* SBT 4 6400 2301 .360 2364 .369 SBR f 2534 18 SBR 47 EBL 2 3200 46 .014 31 .010 EBT 2 3200 288 .090* 344 .108* EBR 1 1600 78 .049 46 .029 WBL 2 3200 585 .183* 224 .070* WBT 2 3200 563 .176 277 .087 WBR f 280 918 WBR 649 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .725 .818 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .726 .820 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 137 .043 94 .029 NBT 4 6400 1864 .291* 2110 .330* NBR f 132 570 SBL 2 3200 597 .187* 1162 .363* SBT 4 6400 2540 .397 2534 .396 SBR f 19 48 EBL 2 3200 45 .014 30 .009 EBT 2 3200 291 .091* 347 .108* EBR 1 1600 79 .049 48 .030 WBL 2 3200 596 .186* 236 .074* WBT 2 3200 565 .177 280 .088 WBR f 919 649 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 137 .043 94 .029 NBT 4 6400 1868 .292* 2112 .330* NBR f 132 570 SBL 2 3200 597 .187* 1162 .363* SBT 4 6400 2541 .397 2538 .397 SBR f 19 49 EBL 2 3200 46 .014 31 .010 EBT 2 3200 292 .091* 348 .109* EBR 1 1600 79 .049 48 .030 WBL 2 3200 596 .186* 236 .074* WBT 2 3200 565 .177 281 .088 WBR f 919 649 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .755 .875 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .756 .876 Stantec A-14 7. MacArthur & Ford/Bonita Cyn Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 137 .043 94 .029 NBT 4 6400 1976 .309* 2162 .338* NBR f NBR 132 570 SBL 2 3200 597 .187* 1162 .363* SBT 4 6400 2565 .401 2649 .414 SBR f SBR 19 48 EBL 2 3200 45 .014 30 .009 EBT 2 3200 298 .093* 368 .115* EBR 1 1600 79 .049 48 .030 WBL 2 3200 596 .186* 236 .074* WBT 2 3200 586 .183 294 .092 WBR f WBR 919 649 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 137 .043 94 .029 NBT 4 6400 1980 .309* 2164 .338* NBR f 132 570 SBL 2 3200 597 .187* 1162 .363* SBT 4 6400 2566 .401 2653 .415 SBR f 19 49 EBL 2 3200 46 .014 31 .010 EBT 2 3200 299 .093* 369 .115* EBR 1 1600 79 .049 48 .030 WBL 2 3200 596 .186* 236 .074* WBT 2 3200 586 .183 295 .092 WBR f 919 649 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .775 .890 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .775 .890 Stantec A-15 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 121 .038 35 .011 NBT 3 4800 1280 .267* 1440 .300* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 13 .008 SBL 2 3200 792 .248* 666 .208* SBT 3 4800 1320 .275 1600 .333 SBR f 1699 851 SBR 366 EBL 2 3200 76 .024* 647 .202* EBT 3 4800 347 .082 313 .090 EBR 0 0 46 EBR 117 0 WBL 1 1600 51 .032 31 .019 WBT 2 3200 360 .113* 292 .091* WBR f 295 651 WBR 399 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .652 .801 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .653 .803 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 121 .038 35 .011 NBT 3 4800 1280 .267* 1440 .300* NBR 1 1600 22 .014 13 .008 SBL 2 3200 792 .248* 666 .208* SBT 3 4800 1320 .275 1600 .333 SBR f 1699 852 SBR 370 EBL 2 3200 80 .025* 649 .203* EBT 3 4800 348 .082 314 .090 EBR 0 0 46 EBR 117 0 WBL 1 1600 51 .032 31 .019 WBT 2 3200 360 .113* 293 .092* WBR f 295 651 WBR 399 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .652 .801 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .653 .803 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 128 .040 38 .012 NBT 3 4800 1341 .279* 1555 .324* NBR 1 1600 24 .015 20 .013 SBL 2 3200 825 .258* 694 .217* SBT 3 4800 1426 .297 1699 .354 SBR f 952 419 EBL 2 3200 113 .035* 739 .231* EBT 3 4800 350 .083 316 .090 EBR 0 0 46 117 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 34 .021 WBT 2 3200 363 .113* 295 .092* WBR f 651 399 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 128 .040 38 .012 NBT 3 4800 1341 .279* 1555 .324* NBR 1 1600 24 .015 20 .013 SBL 2 3200 825 .258* 694 .217* SBT 3 4800 1426 .297 1699 .354 SBR f 953 423 EBL 2 3200 117 .037* 741 .232* EBT 3 4800 351 .083 317 .090 EBR 0 0 46 117 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 34 .021 WBT 2 3200 363 .113* 296 .093* WBR f 651 399 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .685 .864 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .687 .866 Stantec A-16 8. MacArthur & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 128 .040 38 .012 NBT 3 4800 1419 .296* 1623 .338* NBR 1 1600 24 .015 20 .013 SBL 2 3200 825 .258* 694 .217* SBT 3 4800 1468 .306 1782 .371 SBR f SBR 969 419 EBL 2 3200 113 .035* 755 .236* EBT 3 4800 353 .083 325 .092 EBR 0 0 46 0 117 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 34 .021 WBT 2 3200 372 .116* 301 .094* WBR f WBR 651 399 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 128 .040 38 .012 NBT 3 4800 1419 .296* 1623 .338* NBR 1 1600 24 .015 20 .013 SBL 2 3200 825 .258* 694 .217* SBT 3 4800 1468 .306 1782 .371 SBR f 970 423 EBL 2 3200 117 .037* 757 .237* EBT 3 4800 354 .083 326 .092 EBR 0 0 46 117 WBL 1 1600 57 .036 34 .021 WBT 2 3200 372 .116* 302 .094* WBR f 651 399 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .705 .885 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .707 .886 Stantec A-17 9. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 123 .038 91 .028* NBT 3 4800 1220 .254* 771 .161 NBR 1 1600 147 .092 212 .133 SBL 2 3200 3 .001* 11 .003 SBT 3 4800 780 .163 960 .200* SBR 1 1600 637 .398 451 .282 EBL 3 4800 192 .040* 668 .139 EBT 2 3200 79 .037 331 .143* EBR 0 0 38 EBR 126 0 WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 261 .083* 173 .065 WBR 0 0 6 WBR 35 0 Right Turn Adjustment 35 SBR .151* Turn Adjustment Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .529 .441 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .529 .442 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 123 .038 92 .029* NBT 3 4800 1220 .254* 771 .161 NBR 1 1600 147 .092 212 .133 SBL 2 3200 3 .001* 11 .003 SBT 3 4800 780 .163 960 .200* SBR 1 1600 637 .398 451 .282 EBL 3 4800 192 .040* 668 .139 EBT 2 3200 79 .037 331 .143* EBR 0 0 39 EBR 126 0 WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 261 .083* 173 .065 WBR 0 0 6 WBR 35 0 Right Turn Adjustment 35 SBR .151* Turn Adjustment TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .529 .441 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .529 .442 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 130 .041 101 .032* NBT 3 4800 1271 .265* 804 .168 NBR 1 1600 153 .096 220 .138 SBL 2 3200 4 .001* 12 .004 SBT 3 4800 812 .169 999 .208* SBR 1 1600 719 .449 501 .313 EBL 3 4800 200 .042* 731 .152 EBT 2 3200 83 .041 356 .154* EBR 0 0 47 138 WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 274 .088* 195 .072 WBR 0 0 6 35 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .192* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 130 .041 102 .032* NBT 3 4800 1271 .265* 804 .168 NBR 1 1600 153 .096 220 .138 SBL 2 3200 4 .001* 12 .004 SBT 3 4800 812 .169 999 .208* SBR 1 1600 719 .449 501 .313 EBL 3 4800 200 .042* 731 .152 EBT 2 3200 83 .041 356 .154* EBR 0 0 48 138 WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 274 .088* 195 .072 WBR 0 0 6 35 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .192* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .588 .464 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .588 .464 Stantec A-18 9. MacArthur & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 167 .052 123 .038* NBT 3 4800 1349 .281* 872 .182 NBR 1 1600 153 .096 220 .138 SBL 2 3200 4 .001* 12 .004 SBT 3 4800 854 .178 1082 .225* SBR 1 1600 719 .449 501 .313 EBL 3 4800 200 .042* 731 .152 EBT 2 3200 83 .044 356 .166* EBR 0 0 59 175 175 WBL WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 274 .088* 195 .072 WBR 0 0 6 35 35 Right Right Turn Adjustment SBR SBR .187* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .599 .499 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 167 .052 124 .039* NBT 3 4800 1349 .281* 872 .182 NBR 1 1600 153 .096 220 .138 SBL 2 3200 4 .001* 12 .004 SBT 3 4800 854 .178 1082 .225* SBR 1 1600 719 .449 501 .313 EBL 3 4800 200 .042* 731 .152 EBT 2 3200 83 .045 356 .166* EBR 0 0 60 175 WBL 2 3200 190 .059 225 .070* WBT 2 3200 274 .088* 195 .072 WBR 0 0 6 35 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .187* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .599 .500 Stantec A-19 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 793 .248* 981 .307* SBT 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 SBR f 0 247 SBR 323 EBL 2 3200 575 .180* 298 .093* EBT 3 4800 1000 .208 1277 .266 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1110 .231* 1136 .237* WBR f 1202 862 WBR 789 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .659 .637 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .660 .637 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 NBL 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 SBL 2 3200 794 .248* 981 .307* SBT 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 SBR f 0 247 SBR 323 EBL 2 3200 575 .180* 298 .093* EBT 3 4800 1004 .209 1279 .266 EBR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1112 .232* 1139 .237* WBR f 1202 862 WBR 790 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .659 .637 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .660 .637 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 834 .261* 1023 .320* SBT 0 0 1 0 SBR f 257 336 EBL 2 3200 599 .187* 311 .097* EBT 3 4800 1054 .220 1369 .285 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1193 .249* 1202 .250* WBR f 898 826 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 835 .261* 1023 .320* SBT 0 0 1 0 SBR f 257 336 EBL 2 3200 599 .187* 311 .097* EBT 3 4800 1058 .220 1371 .286 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1195 .249* 1205 .251* WBR f 898 827 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .697 .667 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .697 .668 Stantec A-20 10. MacArthur & Coast Hwy Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 884 .276* 1132 .354* SBT 0 0 1 0 0 SBR f SBR 261 347 EBL 2 3200 605 .189* 320 .100* EBT 3 4800 1153 .240 1696 .353 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1516 .316* 1405 .293* WBR f WBR 1007 907 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3200 885 .277* 1132 .354* SBT 0 0 1 0 SBR f 261 347 EBL 2 3200 605 .189* 320 .100* EBT 3 4800 1157 .241 1698 .354 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 3 4800 1518 .316* 1408 .293* WBR f 1007 908 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .781 .747 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .782 .747 Stantec A-21 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 70 .022* 620 .194* NBT 1 1600 4 .011 14 .093 NBR 0 0 13 NBR 135 0 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 9 .006 SBT 2 3200 7 .004* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 512 .160* 486 .138* EBR 0 0 292 .183 178 0 WBL 1 1600 115 .072* 45 .028* WBT 3 4800 265 .057 444 AU WBR 0 0 7 WBR 20 0 Right Turn Adjustment 20 EBR .006* Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .264 .363 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .266 .368 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 73 .023* 621 .194* NBT 1 1600 4 .011 14 .094 NBR 0 0 14 NBR 136 0 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 9 .006 SBT 2 3200 7 .004* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 516 .161* 488 .140* EBR 0 0 293 .183 183 0 WBL 1 1600 116 .073* 50 .031* WBT 3 4800 265 .057 444 AU WBR 0 0 7 WBR 20 0 Right Turn Adjustment 20 EBR .005* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .264 .363 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .266 .368 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 99 .031* 631 .197* NBT 1 1600 4 .012 14 .094 NBR 0 0 15 136 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 SBT 2 3200 8 .005* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 587 .183* 515 .148* EBR 0 0 296 .185 196 WBL 1 1600 117 .073* 47 .029* WBT 3 4800 275 .059 517 .112 WBR 0 0 7 20 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 102 .032* 632 .198* NBT 1 1600 4 .013 14 .094 NBR 0 0 16 137 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 SBT 2 3200 8 .005* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 591 .185* 517 .150* EBR 0 0 297 .186 201 WBL 1 1600 118 .074* 52 .033* WBT 3 4800 275 .059 517 .112 WBR 0 0 7 20 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .292 .377 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .296 .384 Stantec A-22 11. Santa Cruz & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 99 .031* 647 .202* NBT 1 1600 4 .012 14 .094 NBR 0 0 15 136 1 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 SBT 2 3200 8 .005* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 587 .183* 515 .148* EBR 0 0 313 .196 196 1 WBL 1 1600 117 .073* 47 .029* WBT 3 4800 275 .059 517 .112 WBR 0 0 7 20 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .292 .382 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 102 .032* 648 .203* NBT 1 1600 4 .013 14 .094 NBR 0 0 16 137 SBL 1 1600 10 .006 10 .006 SBT 2 3200 8 .005* 5 .003* SBR 0 0 64 .040 24 .015 EBL 1 1600 49 .031 72 .045 EBT 3 4800 591 .185* 517 .150* EBR 0 0 314 .196 201 WBL 1 1600 118 .074* 52 .033* WBT 3 4800 275 .059 517 .112 WBR 0 0 7 20 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .296 .389 Stantec A-23 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente Existing AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 98 .061* NBT 3 4800 52 .016 432 .097 NBR 0 0 35 .022 35 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 140 .088* 204 .083* SBR 0 0 161 .101 61 EBL 0 0 19 280 EBT 2 3200 30 .025* 11 .094* EBR 0 0 46 .029 45 .028 WBL 1.5 10 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .135 .253 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .258 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 100 .063* NBT 3 4800 52 .016 432 .097 NBR 0 0 35 .022 35 0 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 142 .089* 205 .085* SBR 0 0 162 .101 66 0 EBL 0 0 23 EBL 282 0 EBT 2 3200 30 .026* 11 .095* EBR 0 0 47 .029 46 .029 WBL 1.5 45 10 WBL 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Note: Assumes E/W Split TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .135 .253 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .258 Existing + Growth + Approved AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 98 .061* NBT 3 4800 83 .025 444 .100 NBR 0 0 35 35 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 147 .092* 224 .089* SBR 0 0 161 .101 61 EBL 0 0 19 280 EBT 2 3200 30 .025* 11 .094* EBR 0 0 46 .029 45 .028 WBL 1.5 10 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 100 .063* NBT 3 4800 83 .025 444 .100 NBR 0 0 35 35 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 149 .093* 225 .091* SBR 0 0 162 .101 66 EBL 0 0 23 282 EBT 2 3200 30 .026* 11 .095* EBR 0 0 47 .029 46 .029 WBL 1.5 10 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .139 .259 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .141 .264 Stantec A-24 12. Santa Cruz & San Clemente Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 98 .061* NBT 3 4800 83 .025 460 .103 NBR 0 0 35 35 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 164 .102* 224 .089* SBR 0 0 161 61 EBL 0 0 19 280 EBT 2 3200 30 .025* 11 .094* EBR 0 0 46 .029 45 .028 WBL 1.5 10 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 26 .016* 100 .063* NBT 3 4800 83 .025 460 .103 NBR 0 0 35 35 SBL 1 1600 52 .033 30 .019 SBT 2 3200 166 .103* 225 .091* SBR 0 0 162 66 EBL 0 0 23 282 EBT 2 3200 30 .026* 11 .095* EBR 0 0 47 .029 46 .029 WBL 1.5 10 28 WBT 0.5 3200 9 .006* 20 .015* WBR 1 1600 16 .010 54 .034 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .149 .259 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .151 .264 Stantec A-25 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 {.012}* 50 0 NBT 2 3200 19 .014 159 .078* NBR 0 0 6 .079* 39 0 SBL 1 1600 84 .053 59 .037* SBT 1 1600 123 .077* 96 .060 SBR 1 1600 55 .034 80 .050 EBL 1 1600 46 .029* 157 .098* EBT 2 3200 70 .022 93 .029 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 92 .029* WBR 1 1600 75 .047 193 .121 Right Turn Adjustment .051 196 .123 WBR .064* Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .146 .306 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .147 .306 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 {.012}* 50 0 NBT 2 3200 19 .014 160 .078* NBR 0 0 6 .079* 39 0 SBL 1 1600 85 .053 59 .037* SBT 1 1600 124 .078* 96 .060 SBR 1 1600 56 .035 80 .050 EBL 1 1600 46 .029* 157 .098* EBT 2 3200 70 .022 93 .029 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 92 .029* WBR 1 1600 75 .047 194 .121 Right Turn Adjustment .051 196 .123 WBR .064* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .146 .306 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .147 .306 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 {.012}* 50 NBT 2 3200 35 .019 165 .079* NBR 0 0 6 39 SBL 1 1600 86 .054 64 .040* SBT 1 1600 126 .079* 106 .066 SBR 1 1600 57 .036 85 .053 EBL 1 1600 54 .034* 160 .100* EBT 2 3200 70 .022 93 .029 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 92 .029* WBR 1 1600 82 .051 196 .123 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .064* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 {.012}* 50 NBT 2 3200 35 .019 166 .080* NBR 0 0 6 39 SBL 1 1600 87 .054 64 .040* SBT 1 1600 127 .079* 106 .066 SBR 1 1600 58 .036 85 .053 EBL 1 1600 54 .034* 160 .100* EBT 2 3200 70 .022 93 .029 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 92 .029* WBR 1 1600 82 .051 197 .123 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .064* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .153 .312 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .153 .313 Stantec A-26 13. Santa Cruz & Newport Center Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR PM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR VOL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 1.0121* NBT 50 3200 NBT 2 3200 35 .019 173 .082* NBR 0 0 6 SBL 39 1600 SBL 1 1600 86 .054 64 .040* SBT 1 1600 135 .084* 106 .066 SBR 1 1600 65 .041 85 .053 EBL 1 1600 54 .034* 168 .105* EBT 2 3200 73 .023 95 .030 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 89 .028* 96 .030* WBR 1 1600 82 .051 196 .123 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .063* WBR .063* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .158 .320 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 19 1.0121* 50 NBT 2 3200 35 .019 174 .082* NBR 0 0 6 39 SBL 1 1600 87 .054 64 .040* SBT 1 1600 136 .085* 106 .066 SBR 1 1600 66 .041 85 .053 EBL 1 1600 54 .034* 168 .105* EBT 2 3200 73 .023 95 .030 EBR 1 1600 16 .010 27 .017 WBL 1 1600 8 .005 29 .018 WBT 2 3200 89 .028* 96 .030* WBR 1 1600 82 .051 197 .123 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .063* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .159 .320 Stantec A-27 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 32 .020 221 .138* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 75 .047 443 .277 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 265 .083* 550 .142* EBR 0 0 207 .129 133 0 WBL 2 3200 447 .140* 374 .117* WBT 3 4800 457 .116 280 .075 WBR 0 0 101 WBR 79 0 Right Turn Adjustment 79 EBR .006* NBR .090* Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .290 .494 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .290 .495 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 32 .020 221 .138* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 75 .047 443 .277 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 27 .017 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 270 .084* 553 .143* EBR 0 0 207 .129 133 0 WBL 2 3200 447 .140* 374 .117* WBT 3 4800 458 .116 285 .076 WBR 0 0 101 WBR 79 0 Right Turn Adjustment 79 EBR .005* NBR .090* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .290 .494 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .290 .495 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 51 .032 299 .187* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 102 .064 473 .296 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 28 .018 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 271 .085* 559 .150* EBR 0 0 284 .178 163 WBL 2 3200 452 .141* 401 .125* WBT 3 4800 462 .117 287 .076 WBR 0 0 101 79 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .053* NBR .054* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 51 .032 299 .187* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 102 .064 473 .296 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 28 .018 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 276 .086* 562 .151* EBR 0 0 284 .178 163 WBL 2 3200 452 .141* 401 .120* WBT 3 4800 463 .118 292 .0- WBR 0 0 101 79 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .052* NBR .054* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .340 .523 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .340 .524 Stantec A-28 14. Santa Rosa & San Joaquin Hills Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 51 .032 299 .187* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 105 .066 498 .311 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 28 .018 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 271 .085* 559 .150* EBR 0 0 284 .178 163 2 WBL 2 3200 478 .149* 407 .127* WBT 3 4800 462 .117 287 .076 WBR 0 0 101 79 Turn Adjustment Right Turn Adjustment .052* EBR .053* NBR .068* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .348 .539 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 51 .032 299 .187* NBT 1 1600 16 .010* 25 .016 NBR 1 1600 105 .066 498 .311 SBL 1 1600 81 .051* 73 .046 SBT 1 1600 12 .008 11 .007* SBR 1 1600 39 .024 59 .037 EBL 1 1600 28 .018 67 .042 EBT 3 4800 276 .086* 562 .151* EBR 0 0 284 .178 163 WBL 2 3200 478 .149* 407 .127* WBT 3 4800 463 .118 292 .077 WBR 0 0 101 79 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .052* NBR .068* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .348 .540 Stantec A-29 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 61 .019* 126 .039* NBR 1 1600 94 .059 273 .171 SBL 1 1600 54 .034* 141 .088* SBT 2 3200 37 .012 121 .038 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 1.0041* 0 12 2 EBT 2 3200 37 .019 147 .068* EBR 0 0 18 0 57 0 WBL 0 0 67 {.064}* 102 {.064}* 2 WBT 2 3200 140 .065* 238 .106 WBR 1 1600 111 .069 112 .070 Right Turn Adjustment .002* NBR .002* NBR .084* Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .124 .343 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .124 .343 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 61 .019* 127 .040* NBR 1 1600 94 .059 273 .171 SBL 1 1600 54 .034* 141 .088* SBT 2 3200 38 .012 121 .038 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 {.0041* 12 0 EBT 2 3200 37 .019 147 .068* EBR 0 0 18 .084* 57 0 WBL 0 0 67 WBL 102 {.064}* WBT 2 3200 140 .065* 238 .106 WBR 1 1600 111 .069 112 .070 Right Turn Adjustment .083 NBR .002* NBR .083* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .124 .343 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .124 .343 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 61 .019* 126 .039* NBR 1 1600 105 .066 300 .188 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 168 .105* SBT 2 3200 37 .012 121 .038 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 {.0041* 12 EBT EBT 2 3200 60 .026 201 .084* EBR 0 0 18 57 57 WBL WBL 0 0 87 116 116 {.072}* WBT WBT 2 3200 181 .084* 266 .119 WBR 1 1600 132 .083 126 .079 Right Turn Adjustment NBR NBR .095* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 61 .019* 127 .040* NBR 1 1600 105 .066 300 .188 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 168 .105* SBT 2 3200 38 .012 121 .038 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 {.004}* 12 EBT 2 3200 60 .026 201 .084* EBR 0 0 18 57 WBL 0 0 87 116 1.0721* WBT 2 3200 181 .084* 266 .119 WBR 1 1600 132 .083 126 .079 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .094* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .148 .395 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .148 .395 Stantec A-30 15. Newport Center & Santa Rosa Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 67 .021* 138 .043* NBR 1 1600 105 .066 308 .193 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 168 .105* SBT 2 3200 47 .015 131 .041 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 1.0041* 6 {.0041* 12 12 EBT 2 3200 60 .026 209 .087* EBR 0 0 18 18 57 57 WBL 0 0 95 95 116 1.0721* WBT 2 3200 190 .089* 266 .119 WBR 1 1600 132 .083 126 .079 Right Turn Adjustment Right Turn Adjustment NBR .096* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .155 .403 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 38 .024 83 .052 NBT 2 3200 67 .021* 139 .043* NBR 1 1600 105 .066 308 .193 SBL 1 1600 66 .041* 168 .105* SBT 2 3200 48 .015 131 .041 SBR 1 1600 4 .003 31 .019 EBL 0 0 6 {.0041* 12 EBT 2 3200 60 .026 209 .087* EBR 0 0 18 57 WBL 0 0 95 116 1.0721* WBT 2 3200 190 .089* 266 .119 WBR 1 1600 132 .083 126 .079 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .096* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .155 .403 Stantec A-31 16. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 17 .006* 204 .103* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 190 .119* WBT 2 3200 57 .036 201 .116 WBR 0 0 128 .080 170 Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 139 .043* 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 81 .051 213 .133 SBL 1 1600 41 .026* 78 .049 SBT 2 3200 49 .015 171 .053* SBR 1 1600 6 .004 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 17 .006* 204 .103* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 190 .119* WBT 2 3200 57 .036 201 .116 WBR 0 0 128 .080 170 Existing + Project EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 17 .006* 204 .103* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 190 .119* WBT 2 3200 57 .036 201 .116 WBR 0 0 128 .080 171 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .323 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .323 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 139 .043* 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 81 .051 213 .133 SBL 1 1600 42 .026* 78 .049 SBT 2 3200 49 .015 171 .053* SBR 1 1600 6 .004 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 17 .006* 204 .103* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 99 .062* 190 .119* WBT 2 3200 57 .036 201 .116 WBR 0 0 128 .080 171 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .323 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .137 .323 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 139 .043* 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 91 .057 222 .139 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 86 .054 SBT 2 3200 49 .015 171 .053* SBR 1 1600 6 .004 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 37 .012* 222 .108* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 100 .063* 202 .126* WBT 2 3200 59 .037 225 .127 WBR 0 0 129 .081 182 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 139 .043* 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 91 .057 222 .139 SBL 1 1600 52 .033* 86 .054 SBT 2 3200 49 .015 171 .053* SBR 1 1600 6 .004 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 16 EBT 2 3200 37 .012* 222 .108* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 100 .063* 202 .126* WBT 2 3200 59 .037 225 .128 WBR 0 0 129 .081 183 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .150 .335 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .151 .335 Stantec A-32 16. Newport Center & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 142 .044* 127 .040 NBR 1 1600 91 .057 222 .139 SBL 1 1600 51 .032* 86 .054 SBT 2 3200 50 .016 175 .055* SBR 1 1600 14 .009 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 0 24 24 EBT 2 3200 49 .016* 259 .123* EBR 0 0 2 2 109 109 WBL 1 1600 100 .063* 202 .126* WBT 2 3200 96 .060 247 .134 WBR 0 0 129 .081 182 183 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .155 .352 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 25 .016 77 .048* NBT 2 3200 142 .044* 127 .040 NBR 1 1600 91 .057 222 .139 SBL 1 1600 52 .033* 86 .054 SBT 2 3200 50 .016 175 .055* SBR 1 1600 14 .009 41 .026 EBL 0 0 0 24 EBT 2 3200 49 .016* 259 .123* EBR 0 0 2 109 WBL 1 1600 100 .063* 202 .126* WBT 2 3200 96 .060 247 .134 WBR 0 0 129 .081 183 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .156 .352 Stantec A-33 17. Avocado & San Miguel Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 107 .067* 137 .086* NBT 1 1600 73 .046 33 .021 NBR 1 1600 145 .091 440 .275 SBL 2 3200 48 .015 139 .043 SBT 1 1600 44 .038* 110 .079* SBR 0 0 16 SBR 17 0 EBL 1 1600 4 .003* 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 138 .036 605 .145* EBR 0 0 36 EBR 91 0 WBL 2 3200 512 .160 277 .087* WBT 2 3200 471 .198* 514 .175 WBR 0 0 162 WBR 46 0 Right Turn Adjustment 51 Right NBR .088* Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .306 .485 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .306 .485 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 107 .067* 137 .086* NBT 1 1600 73 .046 33 .021 NBR 1 1600 145 .091 440 .275 SBL 2 3200 48 .015 139 .043 SBT 1 1600 44 .038* 110 .079* SBR 0 0 16 SBR 17 0 EBL 1 1600 4 .003* 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 139 .036 605 .145* EBR 0 0 36 EBR 91 0 WBL 2 3200 512 .160 277 .087* WBT 2 3200 471 .198* 515 .175 WBR 0 0 162 WBR 46 0 Right Turn Adjustment 51 Right NBR .088* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .306 .485 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .306 .485 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .069* 170 .106* NBT 1 1600 116 .073 44 .028 NBR 1 1600 154 .096 506 .316 SBL 2 3200 50 .016 148 .046 SBT 1 1600 54 .044* 156 .108* SBR 0 0 16 17 EBL 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 146 .045* 626 .152* EBR 0 0 68 105 WBL 2 3200 567 .177* 313 .098* WBT 2 3200 471 .202 529 .181 WBR 0 0 174 51 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .074* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .069* 170 .106* NBT 1 1600 116 .073 44 .028 NBR 1 1600 154 .096 506 .316 SBL 2 3200 50 .016 148 .046 SBT 1 1600 54 .044* 156 .108* SBR 0 0 16 17 EBL 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 147 .045* 626 .152* EBR 0 0 68 105 WBL 2 3200 567 .177* 313 .098* WBT 2 3200 471 .202 530 .182 WBR 0 0 174 51 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .074* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .335 .538 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .335 .538 Stantec A-34 17. Avocado & San Miguel Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .069* 170 .106* NBT 1 1600 116 .073 44 .028 NBR 1 1600 154 .096 506 .316 SBL 2 3200 50 .016 148 .046 SBT 1 1600 54 .044* 156 .108* SBR 0 0 16 17 1 EBL 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 158 .047* 663 .160* EBR 0 0 68 105 2 WBL 2 3200 567 .177* 313 .098* WBT 2 3200 508 .213 551 .188 WBR 0 0 174 51 Turn Adjustment Right Turn Adjustment NBR .074* NBR .074* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .337 .546 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 111 .069* 170 .106* NBT 1 1600 116 .073 44 .028 NBR 1 1600 154 .096 506 .316 SBL 2 3200 50 .016 148 .046 SBT 1 1600 54 .044* 156 .108* SBR 0 0 16 17 EBL 1 1600 4 .003 3 .002 EBT 3 4800 159 .047* 663 .160* EBR 0 0 68 105 WBL 2 3200 567 .177* 313 .098* WBT 2 3200 508 .213 552 .188 WBR 0 0 174 51 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .074* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .337 .546 Stantec A-35 18. Newport Center & Newport Center (Circle) Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 162 .101* 127 .079* NBT 2 3200 40 .013 137 .043 NBR f 153 242 NBR 133 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 6 .002* 137 .044* SBR 0 0 0 SBR 5 0 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f 114 8 EBR 221 WBL 1 1600 6 .004 317 .198* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .176 .357 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .177 .358 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 163 .102* 128 .080* NBT 2 3200 40 .013 137 .043 NBR f 153 242 NBR 133 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 6 .002* 137 .044* SBR 0 0 0 SBR 5 0 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f 114 10 EBR 222 WBL 1 1600 6 .004 317 .198* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .176 .357 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .177 .358 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 166 .104* 134 .084* NBT 2 3200 49 .015 153 .048 NBR f 246 141 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 19 .006* 162 .052* SBR 0 0 0 5 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f 14 234 WBL 1 1600 12 .008 329 .206* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 167 .104* 135 .084* NBT 2 3200 49 .015 153 .048 NBR f 246 141 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 19 .006* 162 .052* SBR 0 0 0 5 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f 16 235 WBL 1 1600 12 .008 329 .206* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .183 .378 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .183 .378 Stantec A-36 18. Newport Center & Newport Center (Circle) Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 169 .106* 136 .085* NBT 2 3200 56 .018 159 .050 NBR f f 249 249 144 144 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 22 .007* 171 .055* SBR 0 0 0 0 5 5 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f f 15 17 238 239 WBL 1 1600 13 .008 333 .208* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .186 .384 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 170 .106* 137 .086* NBT 2 3200 56 .018 159 .050 NBR f 249 144 SBL 1 1600 5 .003 25 .016 SBT 2 3200 22 .007* 171 .055* SBR 0 0 0 5 EBL 1 1600 72 .045* 13 .008 EBT 2 3200 42 .013 114 .036* EBR f 17 239 WBL 1 1600 13 .008 333 .208* WBT 2 3200 88 .028* 100 .031 WBR 1 1600 91 .057 43 .027 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .186 .385 Stantec A-37 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente Existing Existing + Project 0 0 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 0 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 13 .008* 1 WBT NBT 3 4800 57 .013* 369 .080* NBR 0 0 6 Adjustment 14 WBR .200* SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 49 .031* SBT 2 3200 312 .098 202 .063 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 25 0 WBT WBL 1 1600 12 .008* 25 .016* WBT 0 0 0 Right 0 0 WBR 1 1600 53 .033 381 .238 Right Turn Adjustment 384 .240 Right WBR .199* Existing + Project EBL 0 0 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 0 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 13 .008* 1 WBT NBT 3 4800 57 .013* 369 .080* NBR 0 0 7 Adjustment 15 WBR .200* SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 51 .032* SBT 2 3200 312 .098 202 .063 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 13 .008* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 58 .036 384 .240 Right Turn Adjustment 0 WBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .274 .326 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .274 .328 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 1 0 NBT 3 4800 94 .021* 389 .084* NBR 0 0 6 .084* 14 0 SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 49 .031* SBT 2 3200 320 .100 229 .072 SBR 0 0 0 320 0 229 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 WBL 1 1600 12 .008* 25 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 0 WBL WBR 1 1600 53 .033 381 .238 Right Turn Adjustment 0 0 WBR .199* Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 NBT 3 4800 94 .021* 389 .084* NBR 0 0 7 15 SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 51 .032* SBT 2 3200 320 .100 229 .072 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 13 .008* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 58 .036 384 .240 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .282 .330 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .282 .332 Stantec A-38 19. Santa Barbara & San Clemente Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative AM PK HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 3 NBT 3 4800 94 .021* 389 .084* NBR 0 0 6 14 1 SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 49 .031* SBT 2 3200 320 .100 229 .072 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 WBL 1 1600 12 .008* 25 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 1 WBR 1 1600 53 .033 381 .238 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .200* WBR .199* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .282 .330 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 1 NBT 3 4800 94 .021* 389 .084* NBR 0 0 7 15 SBL 1 1600 404 .253* 51 .032* SBT 2 3200 320 .100 229 .072 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 13 .008* 26 .016* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 1 1600 58 .036 384 .240 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .200* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .282 .332 Stantec A-39 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing Existing + Project Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 88 .055* 122 .076* NBT 2 3200 139 .043 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 24 .015 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 65 .020* 201 .063* SBR 1 1600 48 .030 91 .057 EBL 1 1600 55 .034* 45 .028* EBT 2 3200 28 .018 71 .044 EBR 0 0 113 .071 137 .086 WBL 0 0 8 WBL 29 0 WBT 2 3200 8 .007* 62 .043* WBR 0 0 5 WBR 47 0 Existing + Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .116 .210 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .118 .211 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR AM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 89 .056* 123 .077* NBT 2 3200 139 .043 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 24 .015 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 66 .021* 201 .063* SBR 1 1600 48 .030 91 .057 EBL 1 1600 55 .034* 45 .028* EBT 2 3200 28 .018 71 .044 EBR 0 0 114 .071 138 .086 WBL 0 0 8 WBL 29 0 WBT 2 3200 8 .007* 62 .043* WBR 0 0 5 WBR 47 0 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .116 .210 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .118 .211 Existing + Growth + Approved Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 97 .061* 127 .079* NBT 2 3200 139 .043 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 24 .015 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 65 .020* 201 .063* SBR 1 1600 57 .036 96 .060 EBL 1 1600 57 .036* 52 .033* EBT 2 3200 32 .020 85 .053 EBR 0 0 115 .072 143 .089 WBL 0 0 8 29 WBT 2 3200 27 .013* 72 .046* WBR 0 0 5 47 Existing + Growth + Approved + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 98 .061* 128 .080* NBT 2 3200 139 .043 124 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 24 .015 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 66 .021* 201 .063* SBR 1 1600 57 .036 96 .060 EBL 1 1600 57 .036* 52 .033* EBT 2 3200 32 .020 85 .053 EBR 0 0 116 .073 144 .090 WBL 0 0 8 29 WBT 2 3200 27 .013* 72 .046* WBR 0 0 5 47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .130 .221 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .131 .222 Stantec A-40 20. Newport Center & Santa Barbara Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative Cumulative + Project AM PK AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 97 .061* 127 .079* NBT 2 3200 142 .044 126 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 32 .020 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 66 .021* 205 .064* SBR 1 1600 57 .036 96 .060 EBL 1 1600 57 .036* 52 .033* EBT 2 3200 32 .020 85 .053 EBR 0 0 115 .072 143 .089 WBL 0 0 8 8 29 29 WBT 2 3200 27 .013* 72 .049* WBR 0 0 5 5 55 55 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .131 .225 Existing + Growth + Approved + Cumulative + Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 98 .061* 128 .080* NBT 2 3200 142 .044 126 .039 NBR 1 1600 20 .013 30 .019 SBL 1 1600 32 .020 37 .023 SBT 2 3200 67 .021* 205 .064* SBR 1 1600 57 .036 96 .060 EBL 1 1600 57 .036* 52 .033* EBT 2 3200 32 .020 85 .053 EBR 0 0 116 .073 144 .090 WBL 0 0 8 29 WBT 2 3200 27 .013* 72 .049* WBR 0 0 5 55 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .131 .226 Stantec A-41 NORTH NEWPORT CENTER SAN JOAQUIN PLAZA TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX B 1% Analysis Worksheets City of Newport Beach CAL v:\2073\active\2073006780\san_joaquin_plaza_tpo\report\rpt_sanjoaquinplaza_tpo_051612.docx St me 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 1. Jamboree Rd & Ford Rd/Eastbluff Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1708 68 116 0 1892 19 10 Southbound 1946 78 183 0 2207 22 2 Eastbound 856 0 9 0 865 9 0 Westbound 685 0 12 0 697 7 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2459 98 209 0 2766 28 5 Southbound 1676 67 148 0 1891 19 7 Eastbound 609 0 5 0 614 6 0 Westbound 380 0 6 0 386 4 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-2 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1276 51 79 0 1406 14 8 Southbound 2272 91 186 0 2549 25 2 Eastbound 395 0 0 0 395 4 0 Westbound 148 0 51 0 199 2 3 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1475 59 110 0 1644 16 6 Southbound 2008 80 162 0 2250 23 9 Eastbound 138 0 5 0 143 1 0 Westbound 796 0 116 0 912 9 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-3 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 3. Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1414 57 57 0 1528 15 2 Southbound 1639 66 114 0 1819 18 0 Eastbound 54 0 6 0 60 1 0 Westbound 144 0 37 0 181 2 14 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1321 53 107 0 1481 15 6 Southbound 1528 61 98 0 1687 17 1 Eastbound 78 0 3 0 81 1 0 Westbound 706 0 20 0 726 7 7 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-4 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 4. Jamboree Rd & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 445 18 2 0 465 5 0 Southbound 1077 43 123 0 1243 12 7 Eastbound 2364 95 137 0 2596 26 1 Westbound 1099 44 51 0 1194 12 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 410 16 6 0 432 4 0 Southbound 1452 58 89 0 1599 16 3 Eastbound 2372 95 156 0 2623 26 4 Westbound 2066 83 135 0 2284 23 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-5 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 5. Newport Center Dr & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 88 0 25 0 113 1 2 Eastbound 2033 81 74 0 2188 22 2 Westbound 1221 49 22 0 1292 13 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 799 0 50 0 849 8 1 Eastbound 1582 63 59 0 1704 17 1 Westbound 1544 62 84 0 1690 17 3 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-6 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Avocado Ave & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 361 0 0 0 361 4 0 Southbound 176 0 15 0 191 2 0 Eastbound 1260 50 64 0 1374 14 4 Westbound 1359 54 42 0 1455 15 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 295 0 0 0 295 3 0 Southbound 501 0 102 0 603 6 0 Eastbound 1359 54 43 0 1456 15 2 Westbound 1464 59 25 0 1548 15 3 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-7 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 7. MacArthur Blvd & Ford Rd/Bonita Cyn Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2000 80 53 0 2133 21 4 Southbound 2892 116 148 0 3156 32 1 Eastbound 410 0 5 0 415 4 2 Westbound 2066 0 14 0 2080 21 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2487 99 187 0 2773 28 2 Southbound 3522 141 81 0 3744 37 5 Eastbound 419 0 6 0 425 4 2 Westbound 1149 0 16 0 1165 12 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-8 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 8. MacArthur Blvd & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1423 57 13 0 1493 15 0 Southbound 2963 119 121 0 3203 32 1 Eastbound 469 0 40 0 509 5 5 Westbound 1062 0 9 0 1071 11 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1488 60 65 0 1613 16 0 Southbound 2632 105 74 0 2811 28 4 Eastbound 1077 0 95 0 1172 12 3 Westbound 722 0 6 0 728 7 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-9 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 9. MacArthur Blvd & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1490 60 4 0 1554 16 0 Southbound 1420 57 59 0 1536 15 0 Eastbound 309 0 21 0 330 3 1 Westbound 457 0 13 0 470 5 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1074 43 8 0 1125 11 1 Southbound 1422 57 34 0 1513 15 0 Eastbound 1125 0 100 0 1225 12 0 Westbound 433 0 22 0 455 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-10 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 10. MacArthur Blvd & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1040 42 10 0 1092 11 1 Eastbound 1575 63 15 0 1653 17 4 Westbound 1972 79 41 0 2092 21 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1304 52 3 0 1359 14 0 Eastbound 1575 63 42 0 1680 17 2 Westbound 1925 77 26 0 2028 20 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-11 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 11. Santa Cruz Dr & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 87 0 31 0 118 1 4 Southbound 81 0 1 0 82 1 0 Eastbound 853 0 79 0 932 9 5 Westbound 387 0 12 0 399 4 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 769 0 12 0 781 8 2 Southbound 38 0 1 0 39 0 0 Eastbound 736 0 47 0 783 8 7 Westbound 509 0 75 0 584 6 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-12 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 12. Santa Cruz Dr & San Clemente Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 113 0 31 0 144 1 0 Southbound 353 0 7 0 360 4 3 Eastbound 95 0 0 0 95 1 5 Westbound 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 565 0 12 0 577 6 2 Southbound 295 0 20 0 315 3 6 Eastbound 336 0 0 0 336 3 3 Westbound 102 0 0 0 102 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-13 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 13. Santa Cruz Dr & Newport Center Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 44 0 16 0 60 1 0 Southbound 262 0 7 0 269 3 3 Eastbound 132 0 8 0 140 1 0 Westbound 171 0 7 0 178 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 248 0 6 0 254 3 1 Southbound 235 0 20 0 255 3 0 Eastbound 277 0 3 0 280 3 0 Westbound 314 0 3 0 317 3 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-14 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 14. Santa Rosa Dr & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 123 0 46 0 169 2 0 Southbound 132 0 0 0 132 1 0 Eastbound 499 0 84 0 583 6 5 Westbound 1005 0 10 0 1015 10 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 689 0 108 0 797 8 0 Southbound 143 0 0 0 143 1 0 Eastbound 750 0 39 0 789 8 3 Westbound 733 0 34 0 767 8 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-15 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 15. Newport Center Dr & Santa Rosa Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 193 0 11 0 204 2 0 Southbound 95 0 12 0 107 1 1 Eastbound 61 0 23 0 84 1 0 Westbound 318 0 82 0 400 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 482 0 27 0 509 5 1 Southbound 293 0 27 0 320 3 0 Eastbound 216 0 54 0 270 3 0 Westbound 452 0 56 0 508 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-16 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 16. Newport Center Dr & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 245 0 10 0 255 3 0 Southbound 96 0 10 0 106 1 1 Eastbound 19 0 20 0 39 0 0 Westbound 284 0 4 0 288 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 414 0 9 0 423 4 0 Southbound 290 0 8 0 298 3 0 Eastbound 329 0 18 0 347 3 0 Westbound 561 0 48 0 609 6 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-17 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 17. Avocado Ave & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 325 0 56 0 381 4 0 Southbound 108 0 12 0 120 1 0 Eastbound 178 0 40 0 218 2 1 Westbound 1145 0 67 0 1212 12 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 610 0 110 0 720 7 0 Southbound 266 0 55 0 321 3 0 Eastbound 699 0 35 0 734 7 0 Westbound 837 0 56 0 893 9 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-18 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 18. Newport Center Dr & Newport Center Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 444 0 17 0 461 5 1 Southbound 11 0 13 0 24 0 0 Eastbound 122 0 6 0 128 1 2 Westbound 185 0 6 0 191 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 397 0 31 0 428 4 1 Southbound 167 0 25 0 192 2 0 Eastbound 348 0 13 0 361 4 1 Westbound 460 0 12 0 472 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-19 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 19. Santa Barbara Dr & San Clemente Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 63 0 37 0 100 1 1 Southbound 716 0 8 0 724 7 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 65 0 0 0 65 1 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 384 0 20 0 404 4 1 Southbound 251 0 27 0 278 3 2 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 406 0 0 0 406 4 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-20 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 20. Newport Center Dr & Santa Barbara Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 247 0 9 0 256 3 1 Southbound 137 0 9 0 146 1 1 Eastbound 196 0 8 0 204 2 1 Westbound 21 0 19 0 40 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 276 0 5 0 281 3 1 Southbound 329 0 5 0 334 3 0 Eastbound 253 0 27 0 280 3 1 Westbound 138 0 10 0 148 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-21 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 1. Jamboree Rd & Ford Rd/Eastbluff Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1708 68 116 170 2062 21 10 Southbound 1946 78 183 39 2246 22 2 Eastbound 856 0 9 9 874 9 0 Westbound 685 0 12 21 718 7 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2459 98 209 86 2852 29 5 Southbound 1676 67 148 163 2054 21 7 Eastbound 609 0 5 30 644 6 0 Westbound 380 0 6 14 400 4 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-22 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 2. Jamboree Rd & San Joaquin Hills Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1276 51 79 136 1542 15 8 Southbound 2272 91 186 75 2624 26 2 Eastbound 395 0 0 0 395 4 0 Westbound 148 0 51 0 199 2 3 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1475 59 110 102 1746 17 6 Southbound 2008 80 162 140 2390 24 9 Eastbound 138 0 5 0 143 1 0 Westbound 796 0 116 16 928 9 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-23 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 3. Jamboree Rd & Santa Barbara Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1414 57 57 136 1664 17 2 Southbound 1639 66 114 58 1877 19 0 Eastbound 54 0 6 0 60 1 0 Westbound 144 0 37 0 181 2 14 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1321 53 107 102 1583 16 6 Southbound 1528 61 98 140 1827 18 1 Eastbound 78 0 3 0 81 1 0 Westbound 706 0 20 0 726 7 7 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-24 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 4. Jamboree Rd & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 445 18 2 0 465 5 0 Southbound 1077 43 123 58 1301 13 7 Eastbound 2364 95 137 87 2683 27 1 Westbound 1099 44 51 333 1527 15 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 410 16 6 0 432 4 0 Southbound 1452 58 89 140 1739 17 3 Eastbound 2372 95 156 243 2866 29 4 Westbound 2066 83 135 231 2515 25 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-25 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 5. Newport Center Dr & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 88 0 25 5 118 1 2 Eastbound 2033 81 74 118 2306 23 2 Westbound 1221 49 22 328 1620 16 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 799 0 50 17 866 9 1 Eastbound 1582 63 59 347 2051 21 1 Westbound 1544 62 84 214 1904 19 3 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-26 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 6. Avocado Ave & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 361 0 0 0 361 4 0 Southbound 176 0 15 0 191 2 0 Eastbound 1260 50 64 105 1479 15 4 Westbound 1359 54 42 328 1783 18 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 295 0 0 0 295 3 0 Southbound 501 0 102 0 603 6 0 Eastbound 1359 54 43 336 1792 18 2 Westbound 1464 59 25 214 1762 18 3 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-27 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 7. MacArthur Blvd & Ford Rd/Bonita Cyn Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2000 80 53 112 2245 22 4 Southbound 2892 116 148 25 3181 32 1 Eastbound 410 0 5 7 422 4 2 Westbound 2066 0 14 21 2101 21 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2487 99 187 52 2825 28 2 Southbound 3522 141 81 115 3859 39 5 Eastbound 419 0 6 21 446 4 2 Westbound 1149 0 16 14 1179 12 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-28 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 8. MacArthur Blvd & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1423 57 13 78 1571 16 0 Southbound 2963 119 121 59 3262 33 1 Eastbound 469 0 40 3 512 5 5 Westbound 1062 0 9 9 1080 11 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1488 60 65 68 1681 17 0 Southbound 2632 105 74 83 2894 29 4 Eastbound 1077 0 95 25 1197 12 3 Westbound 722 0 6 6 734 7 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-29 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 9. MacArthur Blvd & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1490 60 4 115 1669 17 0 Southbound 1420 57 59 42 1578 16 0 Eastbound 309 0 21 12 342 3 1 Westbound 457 0 13 0 470 5 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1074 43 8 90 1215 12 1 Southbound 1422 57 34 83 1596 16 0 Eastbound 1125 0 100 37 1262 13 0 Westbound 433 0 22 0 455 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-30 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 10. MacArthur Blvd & Coast Hwy Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1040 42 10 54 1146 11 1 Eastbound 1575 63 15 105 1758 18 4 Westbound 1972 79 41 432 2524 25 2 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 1304 52 3 120 1479 15 0 Eastbound 1575 63 42 336 2016 20 2 Westbound 1925 77 26 284 2312 23 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-31 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 11. Santa Cruz Dr & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 87 0 31 0 118 1 4 Southbound 81 0 1 0 82 1 0 Eastbound 853 0 79 17 949 9 5 Westbound 387 0 12 0 399 4 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 769 0 12 16 797 8 2 Southbound 38 0 1 0 39 0 0 Eastbound 736 0 47 0 783 8 7 Westbound 509 0 75 0 584 6 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-32 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 12. Santa Cruz Dr & San Clemente Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 113 0 31 0 144 1 0 Southbound 353 0 7 17 377 4 3 Eastbound 95 0 0 0 95 1 5 Westbound 35 0 0 0 35 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 565 0 12 16 593 6 2 Southbound 295 0 20 0 315 3 6 Eastbound 336 0 0 0 336 3 3 Westbound 102 0 0 0 102 1 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-33 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 13. Santa Cruz Dr & Newport Center Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 44 0 16 0 60 1 0 Southbound 262 0 7 17 286 3 3 Eastbound 132 0 8 3 143 1 0 Westbound 171 0 7 1 179 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 248 0 6 8 262 3 1 Southbound 235 0 20 0 255 3 0 Eastbound 277 0 3 10 290 3 0 Westbound 314 0 3 4 321 3 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-34 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 14. Santa Rosa Dr & San Joaquin Hills Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 123 0 46 3 172 2 0 Southbound 132 0 0 0 132 1 0 Eastbound 499 0 84 0 583 6 5 Westbound 1005 0 10 26 1041 10 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 689 0 108 25 822 8 0 Southbound 143 0 0 0 143 1 0 Eastbound 750 0 39 0 789 8 3 Westbound 733 0 34 6 773 8 5 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-35 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 15. Newport Center Dr & Santa Rosa Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 193 0 11 6 210 2 0 Southbound 95 0 12 10 117 1 1 Eastbound 61 0 23 0 84 1 0 Westbound 318 0 82 17 417 4 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 482 0 27 20 529 5 1 Southbound 293 0 27 10 330 3 0 Eastbound 216 0 54 8 278 3 0 Westbound 452 0 56 0 508 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-36 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 16. Newport Center Dr & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 245 0 10 3 258 3 0 Southbound 96 0 10 9 115 1 1 Eastbound 19 0 20 12 51 1 0 Westbound 284 0 4 37 325 3 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 414 0 9 3 426 4 0 Southbound 290 0 8 4 302 3 0 Eastbound 329 0 18 45 392 4 0 Westbound 561 0 48 22 631 6 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-37 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 17. Avocado Ave & San Miguel Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 325 0 56 0 381 4 0 Southbound 108 0 12 0 120 1 0 Eastbound 178 0 40 12 230 2 1 Westbound 1145 0 67 37 1249 12 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 610 0 110 0 720 7 0 Southbound 266 0 55 0 321 3 0 Eastbound 699 0 35 37 771 8 0 Westbound 837 0 56 22 915 9 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-38 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 18. Newport Center Dr & Newport Center Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 444 0 17 13 474 5 1 Southbound 11 0 13 3 27 0 0 Eastbound 122 0 6 1 129 1 2 Westbound 185 0 6 1 192 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 397 0 31 11 439 4 1 Southbound 167 0 25 9 201 2 0 Eastbound 348 0 13 4 365 4 1 Westbound 460 0 12 4 476 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-39 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 19. Santa Barbara Dr & San Clemente Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 63 0 37 0 100 1 1 Southbound 716 0 8 0 724 7 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 65 0 0 0 65 1 6 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 384 0 20 0 404 4 1 Southbound 251 0 27 0 278 3 2 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 406 0 0 0 406 4 4 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-40 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 20. Newport Center Dr & Santa Barbara Dr Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2012 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 % of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 247 0 9 3 259 3 1 Southbound 137 0 9 9 155 2 1 Eastbound 196 0 8 0 204 2 1 Westbound 21 0 19 0 40 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 276 0 5 2 283 3 1 Southbound 329 0 5 4 338 3 0 Eastbound 253 0 27 0 280 3 1 Westbound 138 0 10 8 156 2 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or greater of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: San Joaquin Plaza FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2016 Stantec B-41 No ■ 1-1 Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix E Water Supply Assessment T&B Planning, Inc. June 13, 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 June 13, 2012 Prepared by: T&B Planning, Inc. Submitted By: Georgl4e,murd6ch General Manager, Municipal Operations Department City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table of Contents Section Preface.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of this Water Supply Assessment....................................................................................................... 3 CEQACompliance Background............................................................................................................................ 8 Findings.......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Summary of Existing and Projected Demand.................................................................................................. 10 WaterSupply Sources.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Imported Water from Metropolitan via the MWDOC................................................................... 12 Groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin ........................................ 16 RecycledWater............................................................................................................................................ 17 Reliabilityand Supply............................................................................................................................................... 18 Water Conservation Programs and Requirements........................................................................................ 19 Analysisand Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figures Figure1, Location Map............................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of Existing Urban Setting................................................................................ 7 Tables Table 1, City of Newport Beach Water Demand Projections..................................................................... 10 Table 2, City of Newport Beach Water Demand by Source....................................................................... 11 Table 3, City of Newport Beach Water Demand Percentage by Source ............................................... 11 Table 4, Metropolitan's Water Supply Capacity............................................................................................. 13 Table 5, Historic Groundwater Supplies 2005-2009..................................................................................... 15 Table 6, City of Newport Beach Projected Normal Year Water Supply and Demand ...................... 18 Table 7, City of Newport Beach Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand ................ 19 Table 8, City of Newport Beach Projected Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand.......... 19 Table 9, Water Demand for 79 Multi -Family Residential Units................................................................ 22 Table 10, Water Demand for 15 Multi -Family Residential Units.............................................................. 22 Table 11, Water Demand for430 Multi -Family Residential Units............................................................. 22 Table 12, Total Residential Water Demand in San Joaquin Plaza............................................................ 22 Table 13, Anticipated Water Demand Eliminated from Hotel Rooms ................................................... 23 Appendices City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Ordinance City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 1 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Preface California Senate Bill 610 (Costa) and Senate Bill 221 (Kuehl) amended California State law effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision -makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. Both statutes also require that this detailed information be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. The City of Newport Beach provides water service to the Project site evaluated in this Water Supply Assessment. Therefore, the Newport Beach City Council serves as the lead agency with authority to approve this Water Supply Assessment as well as the lead agency that will consider approval of the proposed Project described below.' Project Description The proposed Project evaluated in this Water Supply Assessment is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the subject property is located in the Newport Center Statistical Area (Statistical Area 1-1), commonly known as Newport Center/Fashion Island, which is a mixed use district that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential uses in a master -planned development. The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element describes the City's existing and planned development pattern. It includes maps and tables that specify where certain land uses can occur and assigns maximum development limits (also called development "intensity") to specific locations. Specific areas of the City are identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Anomaly Locations," where a maximum development intensity is allowed pursuant to General Plan Tables LU1 and LU2. The General Plan recognizes that although Newport Beach is mostly built -out, growth and change will continue to occur; therefore, to allow flexibility, the City Council may allow transfers of un -built development intensity. In February 2012, Irvine Company (hereafter "Project Applicant") submitted an application to the City's Planning Division requesting that the development intensity allowed by the General Plan for 79 un -built hotel rooms in Statistical Area Ll, Anomaly Location 43, be converted from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and transferred to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC). The Project Applicant also requests that 15 un -built multi -family residential units allowed by the General Plan in MU -H3 designated portions of Statistical Area L1 be specifically assigned to the NNCPC in San Joaquin Plaza. If the requested development intensity conversion, transfer, and assignment are approved by the City, a total of 94 additional residential units would be allowed in San Joaquin Plaza. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 2 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Under existing conditions, there is no residential development in San Joaquin Plaza, but 430 multi -family residential units are allowed there pursuant to the City's General Plan and the NNCPC Development Plan. With the addition of 94 units, the maximum number of multi -family residential units allowed in San Joaquin Plaza would increase from 430 to 524 units. No specific subdivision map or development project is proposed at this time. The proposed Project is limited to the requested development intensity conversion, transfer, and assignment and, in total, the vesting of 94 units of residential development intensity to San Joaquin Plaza (79 converted and transferred units and 15 units previously unassigned) and the reallocation of 430 multi -family residential units already allowed within the NNCPC's Block 500, Block 600, and the San Joaquin Plaza solely to the San Joaquin Plaza. In order for the Project Applicant's application to be approved, the City of Newport Beach would need to approve the following: 1) Convert un -built non-residential development intensity (79 hotel rooms) to multi -family residential development intensity (79 multi -family units) and transfer the converted development intensity into the NNCPC; 2) Assign 15 residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of the Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza; 3) Amend the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by a total of 94 units and to allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza; 4) Amend the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations; 5) Approve a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and 6) Amend the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). An exhibit showing the location of San Joaquin Plaza (outlined in red) in relation to the NNCPC (highlighted in yellow) is shown on Figure 1. Puroose of this Water Suooly Assessment The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment (Assessment) is to satisfy the requirements under Senate Bill 610 (Costa) (California Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and Water Code Section 10910 et seq.) and Senate Bill 221 (Kuehl) (California Government Code Section 66473.7), which require that an assessment be conducted to demonstrate that adequate water supplies are or will be available to meet the water demand associated with proposed projects. SB 610 focuses on the content of a water supply agency's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). It also stipulates that, when an environmental impact report (EIR) is required in connection with a project, the appropriate water supply agency must provide an assessment of whether its total projected water supplies will meet projected water demand associated with the proposed project. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 3 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Senate Bill 221 requires a water supply verification when a tentative map, parcel map, or development agreement for a project is submitted to a land use agency for approval. Senate Bill 221 applies to proposed residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units with some exceptions. Section 66473.7(i) exempts residential projects proposed on a site located within an urbanized area that has been previously developed for urban uses, or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously have been, developed for urban uses. The San Joaquin Plaza is currently developed with multi -tenant commercial office land uses, surface parking lots, a parking structure, and ornamental landscaping. As shown on Figure 2, abutting the site on the Northwest is the Newport Beach Police Department, the Newport Beach Fire Department Station 3, and an automotive dealership. To the South is a commercial office building and the Orange County Museum of Art, beyond which and further to the South is the Fashion Island shopping mall. To the Southwest is a commercial office building and a rental apartment complex. To the Northeast, across San Joaquin Hills Road, is a single-family residential neighborhood. To the Southeast, across Santa Cruz Drive are multi -tenant office/commercial land uses, a hotel with 295 rooms presently operated as the Island Hotel, and several parking structures. As such, the City of Newport Beach is not required to issue a written water supply verification pursuant to Senate Bill 221 because the proposed Project site is in an urbanized area, is currently developed with urbanized uses, and is surrounded by urbanized uses. The City can still opt to issue a written verification, but the verification is not required because the Project site is currently developed with urban uses, is surrounded by developed urban uses, and the proposed Project is clearly an infill project. Senate Bill 610 applies to a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, or large commercial, industrial or mixed-use development. The need for a water supply assessment is determined by the lead agency for the project. For the proposed Project evaluated in this Water Supply Assessment, the City of Newport Beach serves as the lead agency, which required that this Water Supply Assessment be prepared. In accordance with Water Code Section 10910(d) — (f), the Water Supply Assessment shall: 1) Identify any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed Project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, under existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts; 2) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, identify the other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts to the same source of water as the public water system. 3) If groundwater is included in the proposed supply, identify the groundwater basin or basins from which the Proposed Project will be supplied; any applicable documentation of adjudicated rights to pump; if the basin is not adjudicated, whether the basin has been identified as over -drafted; a detailed description and analysis of the amount and NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 4 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT location of groundwater pumped by the public water system for the past five (5) years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed Project will be supplied; a detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed Project will be supped to meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project. Under existing conditions, the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC contains no residential units. However, the City's General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan currently allow for 430 multi -family residential units. Should the development intensity transfers requested by the Project Applicant be approved by the City of Newport Beach, 94 additional residential units would be permitted in San Joaquin Plaza, bringing the maximum number of permitted multi- family residential dwelling units allowed in this area to 524 units. Although no specific development project to build these units is proposed at this time, because: 1) the number of permitted residential units in San Joaquin Plaza would exceed 500, 2) approval of the Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and 3) San Joaquin Plaza is located in the NNCPC, which is the subject of a development agreement titled "Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company Concerning North Newport Center," the City of Newport Beach, serving as lead agency, is required to conduct a Water Supply Assessment in compliance with Senate Bill 610 (Costa) (California Public Resources Code Section 21151.9). In addition to meeting the requirements of Senate Bill 610, this Water Supply Assessment also will be used by the City of Newport Beach as part of the proposed Project's environmental review process under CEQA. This Assessment evaluates water supplies that are or will be available during normal year, dry year, and multiple dry -year conditions over a 20 -year projection period, considering existing demands, expected demands from the proposed Project, and reasonably foreseeable future demands in geographic areas that are supplied water by the City of Newport Beach. This Assessment is a technical, informational, advisory opinion only. The information included is based on information available at the time this Assessment was prepared and changing circumstances could affect the water supply evaluation presented in this document. This Water Supply Assessment does not explicitly entitle the San Joaquin Plaza to receive additional water rights, water service, or any water rights or service priorities and allocations. It also does not affect the City's obligation to provide services to its existing water customers and future customers. City Council approval of this Water Supply Assessment is not an entitlement to water rights or service to San Joaquin Plaza, nor is it a commitment to serve the area with increased water service capacities and/or supplies. Because the proposed Project that is the subject of this Water Supply Assessment is limited to a request to vest permitted development intensity to San Joaquin Plaza and because no specific development project is proposed at this time, this Assessment is a general evaluation of water supply and is not an engineered analysis related to any particular or specific residential development project. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 5 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Figure 1, Location Map NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 6 r or "Resi ierptial �- Y 01 Z R4 Tm 1 0 At 6° � " StC�fivrl 4 RoeFanfo,! '�R�- si`d tial ,,� , rr - NKI f,.. i.:,• � ,� � � � _ \, Mme; ;�,[" Co�rie�ci:al, p 1 �menfe i r �--in Newpert Beach Golf Course I o ~° r: ,�,• n� � ••� �'!�� r � lar= � '� .� _ Center Dr_ City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT CEQA Compliance Background In 2006, the City of Newport Beach approved an update to its General Plan and certified the General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR (SCH No. 2006011119) as adequately addressing the potential environmental impacts associated with planned buildout of the City of Newport Beach, inclusive of the property encompassing the NNCPC and San Joaquin Plaza. Section 4.14 of the General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR addressed "Utilities and Service Systems," including the topic of water supply. The Final Program EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence cited in the EIR and the City's Administrative Record for the EIR, that with the implementation of mandatory regulatory requirements applicable General Plan goals and policies, impacts associated with water supplies would be less than significant. Similarly, Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR, which addressed City adoption of the NNCPC Development Plan and related actions, concluded that water supply impacts would be less than significant with adherence to regulatory requirements and the General Plan. The General Plan 2006 Update Final Program EIR relied on the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMPs are required by Senate Bill 610 and serve as important source documents for cities and counties as they update their General Plans. Conversely, General Plans are used as source documents as water suppliers update their UWMPs. The City of Newport Beach General Plan and UWMP are linked and their accuracy and usefulness are interdependent. As discussed later in this document, the City of Newport Beach published an updated UWMP in 2010, which is currently pending final approval by the California Department of Water Resources. Because the proposed Project involves a request to transfer development intensity permitted by the City's General Plan from one location to another location, the City's General Plan and 2010 UWMP are used as a primary reference documents in this Water Supply Assessment. Findings The Project involves the proposed conversion of permitted development intensity for 79 un- built hotel rooms to 79 multi -family residential units and the transfer of those 79 units and the assignment of an additional 15 un -built units of residential development intensity permitted by the General Plan to the San Joaquin Plaza area of the NNCPC. If the Project is approved, the Project Applicant would have entitlement to construct up to 524 multi -family residential units in San Joaquin Plaza (the 79 transferred units, 15 assigned units, plus 430 units already allocated to the NNCPC). Future residential development in San Joaquin Plaza, if and when it is proposed, would be subject to the development standards, design guidelines, and administration procedures required by the NNCPC Development Plan, which serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for activities within its boundaries, including San Joaquin Plaza. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 8 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Water demand for the City of Newport Beach, including anticipated demand associated with buildout of the City's General Plan (inclusive of the NNCPC), is included in the water demand forecasts identified in the City's 2010 UWMP and within the planning documents of water districts, authorities, and agencies that directly or indirectly supply and/or manage the City's water supplies. These include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (hereafter, "Metropolitan"), the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), and the Orange County Water District (OCWD). As such, water demand and supply evaluations conducted by Metropolitan, MWDOC, OCWD, as well as the City of Newport Beach itself are directly applicable to the proposed Project. Given the characteristics of the Project (the proposed conversion and transfer of development intensity permitted by the City's General Plan from one location to another location (79 units) and the assignment of previously unassigned development intensity (15 units) to a specific property in Newport Center, the primary subject of this Water Supply Assessment is to determine if the City has adequate water supplies to serve 79 multi -family residential units instead of 79 hotel rooms, and to confirm that water supplies are available to serve 524 residential units in San Joaquin Plaza (94 additional residential units (79 +15) and the 430 units already permitted). As set forth in this Water Supply Assessment, the City's water supply comes from three sources: 1) imported water from Metropolitan as wholesaled to the City by the MWDOC, 2) local groundwater pumped from the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin by wells owned and operated by the City and managed by the OCWD, and 3) recycled water wholesaled by OCWD through its Green Acres Project (GAP). As such, the analysis and conclusions reached herein rely exclusively on the water supply projections and reliability information contained in the following documents: a) Newport Beach, 2011. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. b) Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2010. Regional Urban Water Management Plan. November 2010. c) Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2011. 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. d) Orange County Water District, 2009. Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. July 9, 2010. In the four documents listed above, the City of Newport Beach, Metropolitan, MWDOC, and OCWD all conclude that there are sufficient water supply capacities to serve their respective service areas through year 2035, including projected water demand in the City of Newport Beach associated with buildout of the city's General Plan. As discussed in more detail in the "Analysis and Conclusions" section of this document, this Water Supply Assessment concludes NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 9 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT that adequate and reliable water supplies are and will be available to serve the proposed Project (the addition of 94 units of development intensity and a maximum overall development intensity of 524 units in San Joaquin Plaza) for the next 20 years. Summary of Existina and Proiected Demand The City of Newport Beach provides water service to a population of approximately 67,000 throughout its 35.77 square mile service area. Based on data available in the City of Newport Beach's 2010 UWMP, the total 2010 water demand for retail customers served by the City was approximately 16,645 acre-feet per year (AFY).2 Between 2005 and 2010, the City's water demand decreased by about 5 percent while population increased by 1.5 percent. This illustrates the City's proactive efforts in promoting water use efficiency. In addition to documenting existing demand, the UWMP also calculates the City's future water demand, using population and land use buildout assumptions from the City's General Plan. Water demand projections for years 2005 to 2035 by land use type are given in the table below. Table 1, City of Newport Beach Water Demand Projections Fiscal Water Demand by Water Use Sectors (AFY) Year Ending Single Family Multi- Family Commercial /Industrial Institutional Landscape Total Demand 2005 7,482 2,597 3,300 734 3,719 17,831 2010 7,297 2,308 2,960 370 3,710 16,645 2015 7,258 2,300 2,947 378 4,140 17,023 2020 7,411 2,348 3,009 386 4,268 17,422 2025 7,565 2,397 3,072 394 4,346 17,774 2030 7,718 2,446 3,134 402 4,424 18,124 2035 7,872 2,494 3,196 410 4,502 18,474 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 2-4. Water Supply Sources The City of Newport Beach receives its water from three sources: 1) Imported water from Metropolitan as wholesaled to the City by the MWDOC, 2) Local groundwater stored in the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the OCWD and based on basin pumping percentages (BPP) drawn from four (4) active wells owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach, and 3) Recycled water from the OCWD's Green Acres Project (GAP).3 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 10 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT The City's UWMP projects that water demand in the City of Newport Beach will increase by 11% over the 25 period of 2010 — 2035, to 18,474 acre-feet by 2035 as shown on the following table and listed by the source of supply.4 Table 2, City of Newport Beach Water Demand by Source Water Supply Sources Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -Opt MWDOC (Imported Treated Full Service (non -int.)) 6,161 6,298 6,430 6,564 6,697 r BPP Groundwater 10,052 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 ;1,1 Recycled Water 432 450 500 500 500 300 Total 16,645 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 2-9. As shown in the graph below, in 2010 the City's total water demand of 16,645 acre-feet was supplied by approximately 37% imported water, 60% local groundwater, and 3% recycled water.' These percentages are expected to remain relatively the same though 2035. Table 3, City of Newport Beach Water Demand Percentage by Source 300% 90% 90% 70% Sax 4D% 30% 20% 1D% 0% 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MS Aug Year Endit ■MWDOC ■BPPGroundwater <Reryded Water NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 1 1 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT The City's three (3) main sources of water supply are described below. 1. Imported Water from Metropolitan via the MWDOC Overview The City of Newport Beach relies on imported water wholesaled by Metropolitan through the MWDOC. Metropolitan's principal sources of water originate from two sources - the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project (SWP). This imported water is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the Metropolitan Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The City of Newport Beach has six (6) connections to the imported water system along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The total available capacity is 104 cubic feet per second (cfs). Supply Capacity and Reliability — Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) reports on water supply reliability and identifies projected supplies to meet the long-term demand within its service area. It presents Metropolitan's demand and supply capacities from 2015 through 2035 under three hydrologic conditions: average year, single dry -year, and multiple dry -years. Additionally, Metropolitan completed an updated Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) in 2010 that reports on water use efficiency measures and local resource developments that are projected to meet future water needs. Metropolitan also publishes annual reports that provide information about water supplies, water initiatives, and resource management and operations in addition to other topics. The most recent annual report available is for 2011. Metropolitan receives its water supplies from three (3) primary sources: the Colorado River Aqueduct, the State Water Project, and Storage. Colorado River Supplies A number of water agencies within California have rights to divert water from the Colorado River. Metropolitan is one of those agencies. The water is delivered to Metropolitan's service area by way of the Colorado River Aqueduct, which has a capacity of nearly 1.3 million AFY. The Aqueduct conveys water 242 miles from its Lake Havasu intake to its terminal reservoir, Lake Mathews, near the city of Riverside. Metropolitan is appropriated 550,000 AFY of Colorado River Water per an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Up to an additional 842,000 AFY are available to Metropolitan when there is surplus water or when water remains unused by Arizona, Nevada, and higher priority users in California. Metropolitan is party to several agreements regarding the supply, delivery, transfer, and conservation of water from the Aqueduct.6 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 12 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Fiscal year 2010/11 began with concerns of prolonged drought conditions in the Colorado Basin. However, the winter of 2010/11 saw record-breaking snowfall in much of the Colorado River Basin which substantially raised water levels in Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The increased storage has postponed the risk of shortage for several years and increased the chance that surplus water could be made available to Metropolitan in the near future.' State Water Project The State Water Project (SWP), which is owned by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is the second source of Metropolitan's imported water supplies. The SWP conveys water from Northern California to the north and south of the San Francisco Bay Area and areas south of the Bay Delta region. That water, along with all additional unused water from the watershed, flows into the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Water from the Delta is then either pumped to water users in the San Francisco Bay area or transported through the California Aqueduct to water users in Central and Southern California. The amount of entitlement DWR approves for delivery varies annually with contractor demands and projected water supplies from tributary sources to the Delta, based on snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, reservoir storage, operational constraints, and demands of other water users. Historically, the SWP has been able to meet all of its contractors' requests for entitlement water except in a few years when there was a shortage. The most recent shortage occurred in 2007-09, requiring Metropolitan to draft water from its storage supplies; but, a combination of improved SWP supplies and continued investments in water conservation and recycling have allowed Metropolitan to meet demands while also reducing its requirements for SWP water in recent years. Going forward, a primary factor affecting the future reliability and supply of SWP water is the listing of several fish species in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta (Delta) under both state and federal Endangered Species Acts. Future SWP deliveries will continue to be impacted by restrictions placed on SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) Delta pumping required by the biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (December 2008) and National Marine Fisheries Service (June 2009).$ SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), "The Water Conservation Bill of 2009", was signed into law on February 3, 2010, as part of a comprehensive statewide water legislation package to reduce pumping out of the San Francisco Bay Delta. The bill sets a goal of achieving a 20% statewide reduction in urban per capita water use, which is being complied with in Newport Beach through local water conservation efforts discussed below under "Water Conservation Programs and Requirements." NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 13 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Storage A key component of Metropolitan's water supply capability is the amount of water in Metropolitan's storage facilities. Storage is a major component of Metropolitan's dry - year resource management strategy. Metropolitan is party to numerous voluntary Central Valley storage and transfer programs, aiming to develop additional dry -year water supplies. To date, Metropolitan's Central Valley/SWP storage programs consist of partnerships with Central Valley agricultural districts. These partnerships allow Metropolitan to store its SWP supplies during wetter years for return in future drier years. Metropolitan's Central Valley transfer programs include partnerships with Sacramento Valley Central Valley Project (CVP) and SWP settlement contractors. They allow Metropolitan to purchase water in drier years for delivery via the California Aqueduct to Metropolitan's service area.9 The end -of -year storage for calendar year 2011 was approximately 2.5 million AF, the highest level of dry -year storage reserves in Metropolitan's history. These increases improve Metropolitan's supply and demand outlook for future years."' Metropolitan's RUWMP concludes that Metropolitan has supply capabilities that are sufficient to meet expected water demands from 2015 through 2035 under the single dry -year and multiple dry -year conditions, as charted below in Table 4. As shown, imported water supplies from Metropolitan as wholesaled to the City of Newport Beach by the MWDOC, is a reliable source of water through at least 2035. In the event of a water shortage, Metropolitan has comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address up to a 50 percent reduction in its water supplies and a catastrophic interruption in water supplies through its Water Surplus and Drought Management and Water Supply Allocation Plans. Metropolitan also developed an Emergency Storage Requirement to mitigate against potential interruption in water supplies resulting from catastrophic occurrences within the Southern California region, including seismic events along the San Andreas fault. In addition, Metropolitan is working with the State of California to implement a comprehensive improvement plan to address catastrophic occurrences that could occur outside of the Southern California region, such as a maximum probable seismic event in the Delta that would cause levee failure and disruption of SWP deliveries." NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 14 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 4, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Projected Water Supply Capacity a.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 Million 2.5 Acre -Feet per Year 2.0 1.5 1.4 D_5 0.0 2415 2020 2025 2030 2035 mmim Supply Capability Single Dry -Year Supply Capability Multiple Dry -Years - 761ol Demands on Metropolitan Single Dry -Year Total Demands on Metropolitan Multiple Dry -Years Source: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Figure ES -1 Supply Capacity and Reliability — Municipal Water District of Orange County MWDOC is a member agency of Metropolitan and a regional water wholesaler and resource planning agency. It receives imported water from Metropolitan and then wholesales that water to its member agencies, including the City of Newport Beach. MWDOC's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) addresses the water demand and supplies for all of Orange County, except for the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana, which are not MWDOC member agencies. The regional approach to urban water management planning via the RUWMP allows MWDOC to provide a comprehensive assessment of water resource needs in its service area, but also coordinate the implementation of water conservation programs and determine how to maximize the beneficial use of recycled water and local groundwater supplies, providing the region with new sources of local water to reduce the need for imported supplies from the Metropolitan. As a wholesaler, MWDOC develops and implements regional water use efficiency and water conservation programs on behalf of its retail water agencies and their customers, including the City of Newport Beach. The RUWMP concludes that the MWDOC service area will have sufficient existing and planned supplies from Metropolitan, groundwater, surface water, and recycled water to meet full service demands under average year, dry year, and multi dry year scenarios from 2015 through 2035.12 During water shortages, MWDOC works with its member agencies to manage the water supply in the region to ensure it meets the demands of its member agencies. During a severe water NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 15 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT shortage (Stage 7 supply reduction as defined in Metropolitan's Water Surplus and Drought Management [WSDM] Plan), the MWDOC Board is responsible for allocating imported water from Metropolitan according to a specific formula." 2. Groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin The City of Newport Beach uses approximately 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater annually, drawn from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Orange County Basin). As of 2010, this local source of supply met approximately 60% of the City's total annual demand. The Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin underlies the north half of Orange County, covering an area of approximately 350 square miles, and is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The OCWD manages the Basin's water supplies pursuant to a Groundwater Management Plan, the most recent update of which was published in 2009. The 2009 OCWD Groundwater Management Plan addresses several topics, including but not limited to: 1) Basin hydrogeology; 2) groundwater monitoring; 3) groundwater recharge; 4) groundwater quality management; and 5) efforts to protect water supplies and water quality.14 OCWD reports that although the amount of recharge and total pumping from the Basin may not be the same each year, over the long-term the amount of recharge needs to be similar to total pumping.15 The Basin is assured an adequate supply of water by a managed recharge system fed by natural recharge (rainfall and infiltration), water from the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek, water released into the Santa Ana River at Prado Dam by the Western Municipal Water District, and imported and supplemental water released into recharge basins by Metropolitan, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, and from the Arlington Desalter.16 The Santa Ana River is the largest coastal stream in southern California with a length of 80 miles and a drainage area of 2,470 square miles. OCWD has legal rights to and permits from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to collect and store water from the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. OCWD operates 1,067 acres of recharge facilities located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Santiago Creek. 17 The City of Newport Beach obtains groundwater pumped from four (4) wells owned and operated by the City and managed by OCWD. Groundwater production from these wells from 2005 to 2009 is shown below. During certain seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007, OCWD operated an In -lieu program with Metropolitan by purchasing water from Metropolitan to meet demands of member agencies rather than pumping water from the groundwater basin. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD did not utilize in -lieu water because such water was not available to purchase from Metropolitan.l$ NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 16 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 5. Historic Groundwater Suaalies 2005-2009 Basin Name(s) Fiscal Year Ending 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 BPP GW 4,984 3,446 3,605 14,338 11,309 10,047 9,574 In -Lieu for OCWS 6,652 7,682 8,553 -- -- -- -- Subtotal OCWD Basin GW 11,636 11,228 12,158 14,338 11,309 10,047 9,574 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-6 for years 2005-2009; City of Newport Beach Water Production Division for years 2010-2011. The City's wells are located in the City of Fountain Valley, approximately five (5) miles north of the City. The only constraints affecting groundwater supply to the City of Newport Beach are the pumping capacity of the wells and pumping limitations established by OCWD to maintain the groundwater basin.19 Each year the OCWD determines the optimum level of water storage for the following year. The primary mechanism used by OCWD to manage pumping is the Basin Production Percentage (BPP), defined as "the ratio that all water to be produced from groundwater supplies with the district bears to all water to be produced by persons and operators within the District from supplemental sources as well as from groundwater within the District." In other words, the BPP is a percentage of each producer's water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. The BPP is set uniformly for all producers.20 OCWD uses a pricing approach that serves to discourage, but not eliminate, production above the BPP. Raising or lowering the BPP allows the District to manage the amount of pumping from the basin. The BPP is lowered when basin conditions necessitate a decrease in pumping. A lower BPP results in the need for Producers to purchase additional, more expensive imported water from Metropolitan.21 In summary, Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin serves as a safe, reliable buffer, sufficient source of groundwater for the City of Newport Beach. OCWD manages recharge of the Basin and implements measures that encourage withdraw amounts that secure the Basin's water supply.22 Additionally, the Groundwater Replenishment System jointly implemented by the OCWD and the Orange County Sanitation District secures stability of the groundwater basin by taking highly treated wastewater otherwise released into the ocean and purifies it to augment groundwater supplies. 3. Recycled Water The City of Newport Beach participates in a reclaimed/recycled water program and uses recycled water supplies available to irrigate greenbelts, parkways, golf courses, and other landscape areas that may otherwise use potable water. This reclaimed/recycled water is wholesaled by OCWD through its Green Acres Project (GAP). In 2009/10, usage of recycled water within the City's Water Utility service area was about 400 acre feet. Recycled water usage meets approximately 3% of the City's water demand. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 17 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT As reported by the OCWD, the region collects nearly 313,000 AF of wastewater per year and 35% of that wastewater is used for recycled water supply. That the amount of recycled water supply will increase in the future. The amount of wastewater is expected to grow to approximately 440,000 AFY in 2035, with 37% expected to be treated for recycled use. As stated by the MWDOC, recycled water is a significant, reliable source of supply.23 Reliability of Supply in Normal Year, Single Dry Year and Multiple Dry Year Conditions Every urban water supplier is required to assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry years. As stated above, the City is assured a reliability of supply from Metropolitan as wholesaled to the City by the MWDOC (Imported), local groundwater pumped from the Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin managed by the OCWD (BPP Groundwater), and recycled water wholesaled by OCWD through its GAP (Recycled Water). The RUWMPs of Metropolitan and MWDOC document a reliable supply through year 2035. Additionally OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan documents a reliable supply of groundwater through 2035. The tables below show supply and demand for the City of Newport Beach under normal year, dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Because water supplies are projected to be available from all sources (Metropolitan, MWDOC and OCWD), supply and demand numbers are identica1.24 Table 6, City of Newport Beach Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY) Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-16. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 18 Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 6,298 6,430 6,564 1 6,697 1 6,830 Total Supply 17,023 17,422 1 17,774 18,124 1 18,474 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-16. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 18 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 7, City of Newport Beach Projected Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-17. Table 8, City of Newport Beach Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY) Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-17. Table 8, City of Newport Beach Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY) Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-18. Water Conservation Programs and Requirements MWDOC Water Conservation Programs MWDOC works with its member agencies, including the City of Newport Beach, on water use efficiency programs. In terms of water management, MWDOC became a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1991, monitored by the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), which outlines 14 Best Management Practices (BMP) for urban NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 19 Fiscal Year Ending 201S 2020 2025 2030 2035 First Year Supply Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Second Year Supply Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,805 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Third Year Supply BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Source: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-18. Water Conservation Programs and Requirements MWDOC Water Conservation Programs MWDOC works with its member agencies, including the City of Newport Beach, on water use efficiency programs. In terms of water management, MWDOC became a signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 1991, monitored by the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), which outlines 14 Best Management Practices (BMP) for urban NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 19 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT water use efficiency. The urban water use efficiency practices are intended to reduce long-term urban demands from what they would have been without implementation of these practices, and are in addition to programs that may be instituted during occasional water supply shortages.zs City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Ordinance A Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in 2009 and is included in the City's municipal code as Chapter 14.16, "Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations." The Ordinance creates a Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program that established four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach has been a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council's (CUWCC) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) since August 2005 and implements Demand Management Measures (DMMs) to satisfy the requirements of MOU Section 10631 (f) & 0). Many DMMs also are administered by the MWDOC on behalf of its member agencies, including the City of Newport Beach. SBx7-7 (Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session), "The Water Conservation Bill of 2009", was signed into law on February 3, 2010, as part of a comprehensive statewide water legislation package in response to legal action brought by the National Resources Defense Council to reduce pumping out of the San Francisco Bay Delta. The bill sets a goal of achieving a 20% statewide reduction in urban per capita water use, and directs urban retail water suppliers to develop targets to meet a 20% reduction in per capita water use by 2020, and an interim 10% reduction by 2015. As the wholesale water supplier to the City of Newport Beach and other member agencies, MWDOC is not required to establish and meet these reduction targets. MWDOC's role in implementing the legislation is to assist each retail water supplier in analyzing the requirements and establishing their baseline and target water use, as guided by the California Department of Water Resources.26 The retail agency may choose to comply with SBx7-7 as an individual or as a region in collaboration with other water suppliers. MWDOC and 26 of its member agencies, including the City of Newport Beach, as well as the cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana have created the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance in an effort to help these agencies meet the water use reduction targets required by SBx7-7. With MWDOC's assistance, the City of Newport Beach selected to comply with Option 1 of the SBx7-7 compliance options, which requires a 20% reduction from baseline water usage by 2020 and 10% by 2015. The City's baseline, calculated from the ten year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005, is 253 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Thus, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 228.1 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 202.8 GPCD.Z' NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 20 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Analvsis and Conclusions The proposed Project evaluated in this Water Supply Assessment is a request to convert permitted development intensity associated with 79 un -built hotel rooms in the City of Newport Beach's Statistical Area L1 from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and transfer those units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. The proposed Project also involves assigning previously unassigned development intensity for 15 un -built multi -family residential units permitted by the General Plan in MU -H3 designated areas to the NNCPC in San Joaquin Plaza. If the requested development intensity conversion, transfer, and assignment is approved by the City of Newport Beach, a total of 524 units would be permitted in San Joaquin Plaza (94 additional residential units and 430 units already permitted by the General Plan and NNCPC Development Plan). Buildout of the City of Newport Beach's General Plan was considered in the water demand projections calculated by Metropolitan, MWDOC and OCWD. Therefore, Metropolitan's Regional Urban Water Management Plan. (2010), MWDOC's Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2011), and OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update evaluate the supply that would be required to service the 430 residential units already permitted in San Joaquin Plaza and the 15 un -built units allowed by the General Plan that are proposed to be assigned to San Joaquin Plaza. Metropolitan, MWDOC and OCWD all conclude that there will be adequate supplies in the average year, dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios through 2035. Therefore, Metropolitan's Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2010), MWDOC's Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2011), and OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update evaluate the supply that would be required to service the 430 residential units already permitted in San Joaquin Plaza and the 15 un -built units allowed by the General Plan that are proposed to be assigned to San Joaquin Plaza. Thus, the focus of this Assessment primarily involves the proposed conversion of 79 hotel units to 79 multi -family residential units, and whether supplies are sufficient to service 524 units of multi -family residential development that would be vested to the location of San Joaquin Plaza. The water demand for this Project is calculated below for planning purposes only. This estimate is for planning purposes and shall not be construed as guaranteed water rights for the project. Actual water use would likely be reduced through water conservation programs being implemented in the City of Newport Beach and the continued use of recycled water where possible. The demand calculation is based on 228.1 GPCD, which is the City's target goal for year 2015. Because no specific development project is proposed as part of the Project, this Assessment assumes that the number of persons expected to reside in each multi -family residential is 2.19 persons per household, which is the average number of persons per household cited in the General Plan EIR. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 21 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 9, Water Demand for 79 Multi -Family Residential Units (not considered by the General Plan) Table 10, Water Demand for 15 Multi -Family Residential Units (considered by the General Plan) Units/Population Gallons/Day/Capita Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Multi -Family 524/1,148 79 units/173 2281 261,858 293.2 Residential persons 228.1 39,463 44.20 Units persons Table 10, Water Demand for 15 Multi -Family Residential Units (considered by the General Plan) Table 11, Water Demand for 430 Multi -Family Residential Units (considered by the General Plan) Units/Population Gallons/Day/Capita Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Multi -Family 524/1,148 15 units/33 2281 261,858 293.2 Residential persons 228.1 7,527 8.43 Units persons Table 11, Water Demand for 430 Multi -Family Residential Units (considered by the General Plan) Table 12, Total Residential Water Demand Proiected in San Joaquin Plaza Units/Population Gallons/Day/Capita Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Multi -Family 524/1,148 430 units/942 2281 261,858 293.2 Residential persons 228.1 214,870 240.58 Units persons Table 12, Total Residential Water Demand Proiected in San Joaquin Plaza As mentioned above, the proposed Project involves a request to convert permitted development intensity associated with 79 un -built hotel rooms in Statistical Area L1 from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and transfer those units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Therefore, this analysis also calculates the projected demand reduction associated with the elimination of 79 hotel rooms. Water use in hotels is highly dependent on occupancy rate, the number of persons occupying each room, the water conservation features incorporated into the hotel building, the water conservation operational practices of the hotel's management and the amount of water conservation practiced by hotel guests. In the City of Newport Beach, the MWDOC encourages water use reduction conservation programs for hotels in its service area, which has some effect on water use reduction. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the water demand of a hotel room equates to the same demand as a residential unit housing one (1) person. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 22 Units Gallons/Day/Capita Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Multi -Family 524/1,148 2281 261,858 293.2 Residential Units persons As mentioned above, the proposed Project involves a request to convert permitted development intensity associated with 79 un -built hotel rooms in Statistical Area L1 from "hotel rooms" to "multi -family residential units" and transfer those units to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Therefore, this analysis also calculates the projected demand reduction associated with the elimination of 79 hotel rooms. Water use in hotels is highly dependent on occupancy rate, the number of persons occupying each room, the water conservation features incorporated into the hotel building, the water conservation operational practices of the hotel's management and the amount of water conservation practiced by hotel guests. In the City of Newport Beach, the MWDOC encourages water use reduction conservation programs for hotels in its service area, which has some effect on water use reduction. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the water demand of a hotel room equates to the same demand as a residential unit housing one (1) person. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 22 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Table 13, Anticipated Water Demand Eliminated from Hotel Rooms (considered by the General Plan) Comparing Table 9 and Table 13, the proposed Project would result in an increased water demand of 24.02 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is less than one-tenth of one percent of the City's projected year 2035 total demand of 17,474 AFY. Based on the information contained in this Water Supply Assessment regarding the existing and future availability and reliability of imported water supplies as surmised from the Urban Water Management Plans of Metropolitan (2010), MWDOC (2011) and the City of Newport Beach (2010), and the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (2009), there is an availability of sufficient supplies from imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to service the proposed Project and other existing and projected development in the City of Newport Beach in normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Additionally, there has been a trend of per capita water use reduction since 2005 and that trend is expected to continue to reach the City's water usage reduction goal of 202.8 GPCD by year 2020. These further reductions are not reflected in the calculated water demands above. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 23 Rooms Gallons/Day/Unit Gallons/Day Acre-Feet/Year Hotel Rooms -79/-79 persons 228.1 -18,019 -20.18 Comparing Table 9 and Table 13, the proposed Project would result in an increased water demand of 24.02 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is less than one-tenth of one percent of the City's projected year 2035 total demand of 17,474 AFY. Based on the information contained in this Water Supply Assessment regarding the existing and future availability and reliability of imported water supplies as surmised from the Urban Water Management Plans of Metropolitan (2010), MWDOC (2011) and the City of Newport Beach (2010), and the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan (2009), there is an availability of sufficient supplies from imported water, local groundwater, and recycled water to service the proposed Project and other existing and projected development in the City of Newport Beach in normal year, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Additionally, there has been a trend of per capita water use reduction since 2005 and that trend is expected to continue to reach the City's water usage reduction goal of 202.8 GPCD by year 2020. These further reductions are not reflected in the calculated water demands above. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 23 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY Consultant Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 City of Newport Beach George Murdoch; General Manager, Municipal Operations Department Kathryne Cho; Junior Engineer, Public Works Department ENDNOTES 1 California Department of Water Resources, 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 200. Page iii. October 8, 2003. 2 Ibid. 3 Newport Beach, 2011. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Available online at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=10182. Page 1. May 2011. 4 Ibid. Page 2-10 and Table 2-9. 5 Ibid. Page 2-10. 6 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2010. Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Available online at http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/RUWMP/RUWMP 201O.pdf. Pages A.2-12 to 13. November 2010. 7 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2011. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Annual Report 2011. Available online at http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/about/ar/arll.html. Pages 27-29. 8 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2010. Page 2-15. 9 Ibid. Section 3.3 10 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 2011. Pages 7-10. 11 Ibid. Page ES -5. 12 Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2011. 2010 Final Regional Urban Water Management Plan. Available online at http://www.mwdoc.com/filesgallery/MWDOC llery/MWDOC Final 2010 RUWMP.pdf. Page 2. April 2011. 13 Ibid. Page 6. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 24 City of Newport Beach WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 14 Orange County Water District, 2009. Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. Available online at http://www.ocwd.com/Publications---Reports/ca-43.aspx. Pgs. ES -1 to ES -17. July 9, 2010. 15 Ibid. Page 4-1. 16 Ibid. Page 4-11. Table 4-2. 17 Ibid. Page 4-1. 18 Ibid. 19 Newport Beach, 2011. Page 3-13. 20 Orange County Water District, 2009. Section 6.7 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. Section 6. 23 Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2011. Page ES -5. 24 Newport Beach, 2011. Pages 3-18 to 3-19. 25 Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2011. Page 1-6. 26 Ibid. Pages 3 to 4. 27 Newport Beach, 2011. Pages 2-6 to 2-8. NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 13, 2012 Page 25 APPENDIX A — City of Newport Beach Water Conservation Ordinance NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 14.16 WATER CONSERVATION AND SUPPLY LEVEL REGULATIONS* Sections: 14.16.010 Findings and Purpose. 14.16.020 Definitions. 14.16.030 Applicability. 14.16.040 Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. 14.16.050 Procedure for Declaration of Water Supply Shortage—Continued Monitoring of Conditions. 14.16.060 Level One Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. 14.16.070 Level Two Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. 14.16.080 Level Three Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. 14.16.090 Level Four Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. 14.16.100 Exemptions. 14.16.110 Relief from Compliance. 14.16.120 Enforcement. * Prior ordinance history Ords. 794, 1755, 91-17, 92-31 and 96-22. 14.16.010 Findings and Purpose. A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a water conservation and supply shortage program that, to the greatest extent possible, will reduce water consumption within the City of Newport Beach, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, maximize the efficient use of water and minimize the effect and hardship of water shortage. B. The water conservation and supply shortage program created by this chapter establishes permanent water conservation requirements intended to alter behavior related to water use efficiency for non - shortage conditions and further establishes four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage. C. The City Council finds as follows: 1. A reliable minimum supply of water is essential to the public health, safety and welfare of the people and economy of the Southern California region. 2. Southern California is a semi -arid region and is largely dependent upon imported water supplies. A growing population, climate change, environmental concerns and other factors in other parts of the state and western United States make the region highly susceptible to water supply reliability issues. 3. Careful water management that includes active water conservation measures, not only in times of drought but at all times, is essential to ensure a reliable minimum supply of water to meet current and future supply needs. 4. Article X, Section 2, of the California Constitution declares that the general welfare requires that water resources be put to beneficial use, that waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water is prevented and that conservation of water be fully exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof. 5. Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution declares that a city or county may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. 6. California Water Code Section 375 authorizes a water supplier to adopt and enforce a comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water consumption and conserve supplies. 7. The adoption and enforcement of the water conservation and supply shortage program is necessary to manage the City's water supply in the short and long term and to avoid or minimize the effects of a supply shortage within the City's service area. Such a program is essential to ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for public health, safety and welfare. 8. Recycled water is supplied in various areas throughout the City to conserve potable water. Recycled water, like potable water, must be used efficiently and is therefore included in this program. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.020 Definitions. In this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: "Base amount" means a base amount of water usage per billing period to be determined for each customer. For any particular billing period, the base amount shall be as indicated on the customer's municipal services statement for the prior billing cycle. For customers occupying premises for which the City's water billing history is more than three years, the base amount shall be the three-year moving average, which is calculated by the City for each water customer. For customers occupying premises for which the City's water billing history is less than three years, the base amount shall be the estimate of the water usage per billing period of similar premises and users. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in calculating the base amount, the base amount shall exclude any billing periods during which water consumption restrictions were in effect. "Billing period" means the period of time for which the City calculates monthly water service rates for a particular customer under Section 14.12.020. "City" shall mean the City of Newport Beach. "City Council" shall mean the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. "Commercial kitchen" means a facility containing a kitchen in which food is prepared for sale, such as a restaurant, cafe, hotel, catering establishment, or other food preparation establishment. "Customer" shall mean any person using or receiving water service from the City. The term "customer" shall not include a person receiving water service within the City from the Irvine Ranch Water District or from the Mesa Consolidated Water District. "Department of Public Health" shall mean the Orange County Department of Health. "Excessive flow or runoff' shall mean frequent and/or large amounts of runoff from irrigation and/or other outdoor water use. "Fire Marshall" shall mean the City of Newport Beach's Fire Marshall or his or her designee. "Fuel modification zone" shall mean combustible native or ornamental vegetation that has been modified and partially or totally replaced with drought -tolerant, fire -retardant plants and maintained per Fire Code guidelines. "Implementation plan" shall mean the plan developed by the Utilities Director that provides the resources (staffing and equipment) required to ensure the fair and timely execution of these requirements, as well as a detailed execution strategy. "Irrigate" means any exterior application of water, other than for firefighting purposes, including but not limited to the watering of any vegetation whether it be natural or planted. "Landscape irrigation system" means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that are operated by and/or through an automated system. "MET" shall mean the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. "Person" shall have the meaning ascribed to it by Section 1.08.120. "Potable water" means water that is suitable for drinking and excludes recycled water from any source. "Premises" means a parcel of land, or portion of a parcel, including any improvements located there, that are served by a City water meter. "Recirculating" means the reuse of existing water, by means of capturing/containing water used, then circulating back to point of origin. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of nonpotable water and/or wastewater for beneficial use, such as irrigation. "Safety/sanitary hazards" means the condition that may cause or threaten to cause injury to any person or persons. "Single -pass cooling system" means equipment where water is circulated only once to cool equipment before being disposed. "Utilities Director" shall mean the Director of the City of Newport Beach's Utilities Department or his or her designee. "Water" shall mean potable water and recycled water. "Water -conserving kitchen spray valve" means a dishwashing spray valve that uses 1.6 gallons of water or less per minute of use. "Water conservation plan" means a plan submitted by a customer for the approval of the Utilities Director, in conjunction with a request for an exemption or partial exemption, that proposes the maximum feasible reduction in consumption. "Water consumption restrictions" shall mean those provisions in this chapter that require customers to reduce the amount of water consumed during a water supply shortage in relation to the base amount. "Water supply shortage" means the effective period of time during which the City Council, by resolution adopted under Section 14.16.050, has declared the existence of a water supply shortage or threatened shortage. The City Council, depending on the severity of conditions, may declare a Level One, Level Two, Level Three, or Level Four water supply shortage. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.030 Applicability. A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all persons using water in the City. B. For the purposes of this chapter, the use of water by a tenant, employee, agent, contractor, representative or person acting on behalf of a customer, may, at the City's election, be imputed to the customer. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.040 Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. The following prohibitions and mandatory water conservation requirements are effective at all times, including during a water supply shortage. Violations of this section will be considered waste and an unreasonable use of water. A. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn and/or ornamental landscape area using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended unless such irrigation is limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes' watering per day per station. 1. This restriction does not apply to the following unless the City has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use. a. Landscape irrigation systems that exclusively use very low flow drip type irrigation systems in which no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour or weather - based controllers or stream rotor sprinklers that meet a seventy (70) percent efficiency standard. B. No person shall use water to irrigate any lawn and/or ornamental landscape area in a manner that causes or allows excessive flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch. C. No person shall use water to wash down hard or paved surfaces, including, but not limited to, sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys, except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, and then only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, or a low-volume, high- pressure cleaning machine (e.g., "water broom") equipped to recycle any water used. D. No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the person's plumbing or distribution system for any period of time after such escape of water should have reasonably been discovered and corrected and in no event more than seven days after receiving notice of the condition from the City. E. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate lawns, groundcover, shrubbery or other ornamental landscape material during a rainfall event. F. By July 1, 2012, all landscape irrigation systems connected to dedicated landscape meters shall include rain sensors that automatically shut off such systems during periods of rain or include evapotranspiration systems that schedule irrigation based on climatic conditions. G. No customer shall operate a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use a recirculating water system. H. No customer shall use water to clean a vehicle, including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device. 1. This subsection does not apply to any commercial car washing facility. I. Effective January 1, 2010, all new commercial conveyor car wash systems in commercial car washing facilities shall be operational recirculating water systems. J. By January 1, 2013, all commercial conveyor car wash systems in commercial car washing facilities shall be operational recirculating water systems, or the customer must have secured an exemption from this requirement pursuant to Section 14.16.100. K. Customers operating eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, cafeterias, bars, or other public places where food or drinks are sold, served, or offered for sale, shall not provide drinking water to any person unless expressly requested by the person. L. Customers operating hotel, motel, and other commercial lodging establishments shall provide persons the option of not having towels and linen laundered daily. Commercial lodging establishments must prominently display notice of this option. M. No customer shall install a new single pass cooling system in a building or premises requesting new water service. This provision shall not prevent the replacement or repair of single pass cooling systems that were installed prior to December 31, 2009. N. Effective January 1, 2010, all new washing machines installed in commercial and/or coin-operated laundries shall be ENERGY STAR® and CEE Tier III qualified. By January 1, 2014, all washing machines installed in commercial and/or coin-operated laundries shall be ENERGY STAR® and CEE Tier III qualified. O. No customer shall use water from any fire hydrant for any purpose other than fire suppression or emergency aid without first: (1) requesting and posting the appropriate fees at the City, and (2) obtaining a hydrant meter to record all water consumption for a specified project. Absent a meter, water theft and meter tampering fees will be applied as appropriate. P. Construction Site Requirements. The requirements of this subsection apply to persons engaged in construction activities. A permittee's refusal or failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute grounds for revocation of a construction or grading permit. In addition, the City may withhold occupancy and inspections until such time as the permit holder has complied. 1. No person shall use potable water for soil compaction or dust control in a construction site where there is an available and feasible source of recycled water or nonpotable water approved by the Department of Public Health and appropriate for such use. 2. No person shall operate a hose within a construction site that is not equipped with an automatic shut-off nozzle; provided, that such devices are available for the size and type of hose in use. Q. Commercial Kitchen Requirements. No customer may operate a commercial kitchen that does not comply with the following requirements. 1. Water -Conserving Pre -Rinse Kitchen Spray Valves. New or remodeled commercial kitchens shall be equipped with water -conserving kitchen spray valves. By January 1, 2010, all commercial kitchens shall either remove all existing kitchen spray valves or retrofit kitchen spray valves with water -conserving kitchen spray valves. 2. Best -Available Water -Conserving Technology. New or remodeled commercial kitchens shall ensure that all water -using equipment in new or remodeled commercial kitchens uses the best - available, water -conserving technology. 3. No customer operating a commercial kitchen shall defrost food or allow food to be defrosted with running water. 4. Scoop sinks shall be set at minimum water flow at all times of use and shut off during non- working hours. 5. When hosing or washing kitchen or garbage areas or other areas for sanitary reasons as required by the Department of Health, hoses shall be equipped with positive self-closing nozzles. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.050 Procedure for Declaration of Water Supply Shortage—Continued Monitoring of Conditions. A. From time to time, the City Council may declare by resolution the existence of a Level One, a Level Two, a Level Three, or a Level Four water supply shortage. In so doing, the Council shall determine that a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists, due to drought or other water supply conditions, and that it is necessary to impose the mandatory conservation requirements applicable to the particular level of water supply shortage. It will be necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to conditions created by the water supply shortage. Prior to adopting a resolution declaring the existence of a water supply shortage, the City Council shall enact a resolution indicating its intention to do so, the conditions necessitating the declaration, the nature of the mandatory conservation restrictions proposed to be imposed, including the specifics of any proposed water consumption restrictions, and the day, hour and place when and where persons may appear before the City Council and be heard on whether a resolution declaring the water supply shortage should be enacted. The resolution of intention shall direct the City Clerk to publish said resolution at least once, within fifteen (15) days of the passage thereof, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Said notice shall be published at least ten days prior to the date of hearing. Within ten (10) days of the adoption of a resolution declaring a water supply shortage, the City Clerk shall cause the resolution to be published or posted in the manner required by California Water Code Section 376. B. The mandatory conservation requirements that become effective following the adoption of a resolution declaring the existence of a particular level of water supply shortage shall remain in full force and effect until the resolution is repealed or until new mandatory conservation requirements become effective following the adoption of a subsequent resolution declaring the existence of a water supply shortage. C. During the existence of a water supply shortage, the Utilities Director shall provide periodic reports to the City Council regarding compliance with the mandatory conservation requirements of the level of water supply shortage, current and anticipated allocations of water from MET, and any change in circumstances that could warrant a position of more stringent measures or relaxation of measures then in effect. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.060 Level One Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. On the tenth day after a resolution declaring the existence of a Level One water supply shortage becomes effective, the following mandatory water conservation requirements shall take effect. A. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area except on the scheduled irrigation days established for each customer by the Utilities Director. During a Level One water supply shortage, the schedule established by the Utilities Director shall specify for each customer (a) four irrigation days per week during the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, and (b) two irrigation days per week during the months of November, December, January, February, and March. Prior to the foregoing restriction becoming effective, the Utilities Director shall have notified the customer of the scheduled irrigation days by mail, which may be done by an indication on the customer's municipal services statement. This restriction does not apply to the following unless the City has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use: 1. Maintenance of vegetation, including trees and shrubs, that is watered using a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or a very low flow drip type irrigation system when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour. 2. Irrigation of food crops (including fruit trees and vegetable gardens). 3. Short periods of irrigation for the exclusive purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. B. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level One water supply shortage, which percentage shall be in the range from one hundred (100) percent and ninety (90) percent of the base amount. C. No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the user's plumbing or distribution system for more than seventy-two (72) hours after receiving notice of the condition from the City. D. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill an ornamental lake, pond, or fountain more than once per week, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life; provided, that such animals were being actively managed within the water feature at the time of the City's initial declaration of a then - continuing water supply shortage. E. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill by more than one foot a residential swimming pool or outdoor spa more than once a week. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.070 Level Two Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. On the tenth day after a resolution declaring the existence of a Level Two water supply shortage becomes effective, the following mandatory water conservation requirements shall take effect. A. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on any day, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for short periods of irrigation for the exclusive purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. B. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area except on the scheduled irrigation days established by City Council resolution. During a Level Two water supply shortage, the schedule established by City Council resolution shall specify for each customer (a) three irrigation days per week during the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, and (b) one irrigation day per week during the months of November, December, January, February, and March. Prior to the foregoing restriction becoming effective, the City shall notify the customer of the scheduled irrigation days by mail, which may be done by an indication on the customer's municipal services statement. This restriction does not apply to the following unless the City has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use: 1. Maintenance of vegetation, including trees and shrubs, that is watered using a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or a very low flow drip type irrigation system when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour. 2. Irrigation of food crops (including fruit trees and vegetable gardens); provided, that such irrigation does not exceed five times per week on a schedule established and posted by the City's Utilities Department. 3. Short periods of irrigation for the exclusive purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. C. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level Two water supply shortage, which percentage shall be in the range from ninety (90) percent to seventy-five (75) percent of the base amount. D. No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the user's plumbing or distribution system for more than forty-eight (48) hours after receiving notice of the condition from the City. E. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill an ornamental lake, pond, or fountain more than once every other week, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life; provided, that such animals were being actively managed within the water feature at the time of the City's declaration of the water supply shortage under this chapter. F. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill by more than one foot a residential swimming pool or outdoor spa more than once every other week. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.080 Level Three Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. On the tenth day after a resolution declaring the existence of a Level Three water supply shortage becomes effective, the following mandatory water conservation requirements shall take effect. A. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on any day, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for short periods of irrigation for the exclusive purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. B. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area except on the scheduled irrigation days established by City Council resolution. During a Level Three water supply shortage, the schedule established by City Council resolution shall specify for each customer (a) two irrigation days per week during the months of April, May, June, July, August, September, and October, and (b) one irrigation day per week during the months of November, December, January, February, and March. Prior to the foregoing restriction becoming effective, the City shall notify the customer of the scheduled irrigation days by mail, which may be done by an indication on the customer's municipal services statement. This restriction does not apply to the following unless the City has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use: 1. Maintenance of vegetation, including trees and shrubs, that is watered using a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or a very low flow drip type irrigation system when no emitter produces more than two gallons of water per hour. 2. Irrigation of food crops (including fruit trees and vegetable gardens); provided, that such irrigation does not exceed three days per week on a schedule established and posted by the City's Utilities Department. 3. Short periods of irrigation for the exclusive purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. C. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level Three water shortage, which percentage shall be in the range from seventy-five (75) percent and sixty (60) percent of the base amount. D. No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the user's plumbing or distribution system for more than twenty-four (24) hours after receiving notice from the City. E. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill an ornamental lake, pond, or fountain, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life; provided, that such animals were being actively managed within the water feature at the time of the City's declaration of the water supply shortage under this chapter. F. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill a residential swimming pool or outdoor spa. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.090 Level Four Mandatory Water Conservation Requirements. On the tenth day after a resolution declaring the existence of a Level Four water supply shortage becomes effective, the following mandatory water conservation requirements shall take effect. A. No customer shall use potable water to irrigate any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area. This restriction does not apply to the following categories of use unless the City has determined that recycled water is available and may be lawfully applied to the use: 1. Maintenance of vegetation, including trees and shrubs, that are watered using a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut- off nozzle or device; 2. Maintenance of existing landscape to the extent necessary for fire protection; 3. Maintenance of existing landscape to the extent necessary for soil erosion control; 4. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well-being of rare animals; 5. Maintenance of landscape within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens; provided, that such irrigation does not exceed two times per week on a schedule established by resolution of the City Council and posted by the Utilities Director; 6. Public works projects and actively irrigated environmental mitigation projects; 7. Food crops (including fruit trees and vegetable gardens); provided, that such irrigation does not exceed two times per week on a schedule established and posted by the City's Utilities Department. B. The City will not (a) provide new potable water service, new temporary meters, or new permanent meters, or (b) issue statements of immediate ability to serve or to provide potable water service, except under the following circumstances: 1. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; or 2. The project is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare; or 3. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that, ensures, to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director, the water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s). This restriction does not preclude the resetting or turn -on of meters to provide continuation of water service or the restoration of service that has been interrupted for a period of one year or less. C. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level Four water shortage, which percentage shall be less than sixty (60) percent of the base amount. D. No person shall permit excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the user's plumbing or distribution system for more than twenty-four (24) hours after receiving notice from the City. E. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill an ornamental lake, pond, or fountain, except to the extent needed to sustain aquatic life; provided, that such animals were being actively managed within the water feature at the time of the City's declaration of the water supply shortage under this chapter. F. No customer may use potable water to fill or refill a residential swimming pool or outdoor spa. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.100 Exemptions. A. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to any of the following. 1. Uses of water necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential government services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services. 2. The filling, operation, and maintenance of a swimming pool that is open to the public at rates of charge deemed reasonable by the City Council. 3. The washing of refuse, sanitation and service vehicles owned and operated by a public entity to the extent necessary to ensure public health, safety and welfare; provided, that recycled water or a recirculating water system will be used where feasible. B. Any restrictions imposed by this chapter that require the reduction of consumption shall not be applicable to any of the following. 1. Customers who have participated in a fuel load modification program and have received an exemption from the Utilities Director and Fire Marshall. The Utilities Director and Fire Marshall shall only grant exemptions necessary to mitigate the impacts of participation in the fuel modification zone program, such as the need to irrigate replacement vegetation. 2. Customers that operate hospitals, medical care facilities, nurseries or other businesses whose main stock and trade consists of the sale or cultivation of plants and vegetation, and businesses in which water consumption is an integral part of production or manufacturing; provided, that such customers shall first submit a water conservation plan to, and obtain the approval of, the Utilities Director. This exemption does not extend to the use of potable water for the irrigation of landscape areas. C. The Utilities Director shall approve a water conservation plan only if the plan proposes the maximum feasible reduction in consumption. As a condition of approving the water conservation plan, the Utilities Director may require the use of water conservation devices or practices as he or she deems appropriate to result in the maximum feasible reduction in consumption. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.110 Relief from Compliance. A. Intent and Purpose. The City Council recognizes that water consumption can increase or decrease because of factors unrelated to wasteful water use practices. Many customers have installed water - saving devices and adopted water conservation practices that make it difficult to satisfy the water consumption restrictions required by this chapter. This section recognizes that adjustments to the base amount may be necessary to ensure that application of this chapter to any particular customer does not produce unjust or inequitable results. In addition, the section recognizes unique circumstances may result in undue or disproportionate hardship as to a person using water which is different from the impacts to water users generally. As a general rule, the Utilities Director should not grant relief to any person or customer for any reason in the absence of showing that the person or customer has achieved the maximum feasible reduction in water consumption other than in the specific area or areas for which relief is requested. B. Procedures. A person or customer may file an application for relief from the provisions of this chapter with the Utilities Director. The application shall be submitted in writing to the Utilities Department. The application must be filed within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this chapter or ninety (90) days after implementation of the then -current water supply shortage level, whichever shall occur last. The Utilities Director may require the submission of additional supporting documentation that he or she deems necessary to grant the application for relief. The Utilities Director shall approve or disapprove the application for relief within thirty (30) days after it is filed and deemed complete. C. Factors to Be Considered. 1. Relief from Water Consumption Restrictions. In determining whether relief should be granted from water consumption restrictions, the Utilities Director shall consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following: a. Whether compliance with the water conservation requirements then in effect would result in unemployment or layoff of workers; b. Whether additional persons are now living or working in the customer's premises that were not living or working in the premises during all or a portion of the billing periods used to calculate the base amount; c. Whether the customer had, during all or a portion of the billing periods used to calculate the base amount, begun using water conservation practices that remain in use and that reduced the customer's water usage by an amount equivalent to the reduction required by the water supply shortage; d. Whether any current or anticipated increase in production or manufacturing will require the use of additional water; e. The extent to which irrigation or watering of landscaping has been made necessary by compliance with fuel load modification programs; and f. The extent to which the customer needs to use water to mitigate any emergency health or safety hazards. 2. Relief from All Other Requirements. In determining whether relief should be granted from all requirements other than water consumption restrictions, the Utilities Director must find, based on the application and supporting documentation, that: a. The relief does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations imposed by this chapter on other persons and customers; b. Because of special circumstances applicable to the customer's or person's property or its use, the strict application of this chapter would have an impact on the person or customer that is disproportionate to the impact on other similarly situated persons or customers; c. The condition or situation of the person's or customer's premises for which the relief is sought is not common or general in nature; and d. The person or customer has achieved or will achieve the maximum feasible reduction in water consumption other than in the specific area or areas from which relief is requested. D. Agreement. The Utilities Director is empowered to enter into an agreement with any person or customer to resolve the application for relief. The agreement shall be memorialized in writing signed by the person or customer. The agreement shall fix the rights of the person or customer and the City. During the effectiveness of the agreement, the person or customer shall have no further right to seek relief pursuant to the provisions of this section. E. Final Decision. The Utilities Director shall notify the person or customer of the decision on the application for relief by mailing a notice of the decision to the person or customer by means of first class, postage prepaid, to the address specified on the application. F. Appeal of Final Decision. A person or customer may appeal the decision of the Utilities Director by submitting a written request within (90) days of the date of the Utilities Director's written decision. A written appeal request shall be submitted to the City Manager and include the reasons for the request and signature of the person or customer submitting the request. The City Manager may approve or disapprove the appeal within (30) days from receipt of a request. The decision of the City Manager shall be final. G. Willful Misrepresentation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall make any willful misrepresentation of a material fact with respect to any application for relief submitted pursuant to this section. Any violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be considered a misdemeanor, punishable as otherwise provided in this Code. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) 14.16.120 Enforcement. A. Responsibility—Implementation Plan. The Utilities Director shall be responsible for the enforcement of this chapter. The Utilities Director shall develop an implementation plan to be used as a guideline for enforcing the provisions of this chapter. The implementation plan shall provide the resources (staffing and equipment) required to ensure the fair and timely execution of these requirements, as well as a detailed execution strategy. In addition, the implementation plan shall ensure, so far as is reasonable under the circumstances, that persons are notified of violations and are provided an opportunity to cure the violation prior to being cited. B. Additional Enforcement Options. In addition to the means of ensuring compliance set forth in Section 1.04.010, the City may elect to impose the following requirements on a customer in the event of a continuing violation: 1. Water Flow Restrictors. The City may install a water flow restrictor of approximately one gallon per minute for services up to one and one-half inches in size and comparatively sized restrictors for larger services. Prior to doing so, the City shall first provide a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours' notice of its intent to install a water flow restrictor. In the event that a customer refuses to permit the installation of a water flow restrictor following the City's election to do so, the City may terminate the customer's water service. 2. Termination of Service. The City may disconnect a customer's water service for willful violations of mandatory restrictions in this chapter. (Ord. 2009-24 § 1 (part), 2009) APPENDIX B — City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. • Newport Beach, CA 92663 2010 Urban Water Management Plan May 2011 Report Prepared By: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 8001 Irvine Center Drive Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92618 949-450-9901 Table of Contents Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1. Urban Water Management Plan Requirements............................................................ 1-1 1.2. Agency Overview.......................................................................................................... 1-4 1.3. Service Area and Facilities........................................................................................... 1-4 1.3.1. Newport Beach's Service Area..................................................................... 1-4 1.3.2. Newport Beach's Water Facilities................................................................. 1-5 2. Water Demand 2-1 2.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Factors Affecting Demand............................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1. Climate Characteristics................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.2. Demographics............................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.3. Land Use....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3. Water Use by Customer Type....................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.1. Overview....................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2. Residential.....................................................................................................2-5 2.3.3. Non-Residential.............................................................................................2-5 2.3.4. Other Water Uses.......................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.4.1. Sales to Other Agencies..................................................................... 2-6 2.3.4.2. Non -Revenue Water........................................................................... 2-6 2.4. SBx7-7 Requirements................................................................................................... 2-6 2.4.1. Overview....................................................................................................... 2-6 2.4.2. SBx7-7 Compliance Options......................................................................... 2-7 2.4.3. Regional Alliance........................................................................................... 2-7 2.4.4. Baseline Water Use....................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.5. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets........................................................................... 2-9 2.5. Demand Projections.................................................................................................... 2-10 2.5.1. 25 -Year Projections..................................................................................... 2-10 2.5.2. Low Income Household Projections............................................................ 2-10 3. Water Sources and Suaaly Reliabilitv 3-1 3.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2. Imported Water............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.1. Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan .................... 3-3 3.2.2. Newport Beach's Imported Water Supply Projections .................................. 3-8 3.3. Groundwater................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.3.1. Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin ................................................. 3-9 3.3.2. Basin Production Percentage...................................................................... 3-10 3.3.3. Recharge Facilities...................................................................................... 3-11 3.3.4. Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program ................................... 3-12 3.3.5. Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program ...................................................... 3-12 3.3.6. Historical Groundwater Production............................................................. 3-12 3.3.7. Projections of Groundwater Production...................................................... 3-13 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan Table of Contents 3.4. Recycled Water........................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5. Supply Reliability......................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5.1. Overview..................................................................................................... 3-14 3.5.2. Factors Impacting Reliability....................................................................... 3-15 3.5.2.1. Water Quality.................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.3. Normal -Year Reliability Comparison........................................................... 3-18 3.5.4. Single Dry -year Reliability Comparison....................................................... 3-18 3.5.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison.................................................... 3-19 4. Demand Manaaement Measures 4-1 4.1. Overview ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 4-1 4.2. Water Use Efficiency Programs.................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1. DMM 1: Water Survey Programs for Single -Family Residential and Multi - Current Recycled Water Uses...................................................................................... 6-2 Family Residential Customers...................................................................... 4-3 4.2.2. DMM 2: Residential Plumbing Retrofit..........................................................4-3 6-4 4.2.3. DMM 3: System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair ..........................4-4 6.5. 4.2.4. DMM 4: Metering with Commodity Rates ...................................................... 4-4 4.2.5. DMM 5: Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives ............. 4-4 4.2.6. DMM 6: High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs ...................... 4-5 4.2.7. DMM 7: Public Information Programs........................................................... 4-5 4.2.8. DMM 8: School Education Programs............................................................4-6 4.2.9. DMM 9: Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts........................................................................................................ 4-6 4.2.10. DMM 10: Wholesale Agency Programs........................................................ 4-8 4.2.11. DMM 11: Conservation Pricing..................................................................... 4-8 4.2.12. DMM 12: Water Conservation Coordinator................................................... 4-8 4.2.13. DMM 13: Water Waste Prohibition................................................................ 4-8 4.2.14. DMM 14: Residential Ultra -Low -Flush Toilet Replacement Programs ......... 4-8 5. Water Suaalies Continaerll Plan 5-1 5.1. Shortage Actions........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Three -Year Minimum Water Supply............................................................................. 5-5 5.3. Catastrophic Supply Interruption.................................................................................. 5-8 5.4. Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods ................................... 5-11 5.5. Impacts to Revenue.................................................................................................... 5-16 5.6. Reduction Measuring Mechanism.............................................................................. 5-17 6. Recycled Water 6-1 6.1. Agency Coordination..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2. Wastewater Description and Disposal.......................................................................... 6-1 6.3. Current Recycled Water Uses...................................................................................... 6-2 6.4. Potential Recycled Water Uses.................................................................................... 6-3 6.4.1. Direct Non -Potable Reuse............................................................................. 6-4 6.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse.................................................................................. 6-4 6.5. Optimization Plan.......................................................................................................... 6-5 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan II Table of Contents 7. Future Water Supply Proiects and Programs 7-1 7.1. Water Management Tools............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities............................................................................. 7-1 7.3. Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs............................................................ 7-1 7.4. Desalination Opportunities............................................................................................ 7-1 7.4.1. Groundwater..................................................................................................7-2 7.4.2. Ocean Water................................................................................................. 7-2 8. UWMP Adoption Process 8-1 8.1. Overview....................................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2. Public Participation....................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3. Agency Coordination..................................................................................................... 8-2 8.4. UWMP Submittal........................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4.1. Review of Implementation of 2005 UWMP................................................... 8-3 8.4.2. Filing of 2010 UWMP.................................................................................... 8-3 List of Tables Table 2-1: Climate Characteristics............................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2: Population — Current and Projected............................................................................ 2-3 Table 2-3: Past, Current and Projected Service Accounts by Water Use Sector ....................... 2-5 Table 2-4: Past, Current and Projected Water Demand by Water Use Sector ............................ 2-5 Table 2-5: Additional Water Uses and Losses (AFY)................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-6: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 10 -year range .................................................... 2-9 Table 2-7: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 5 -year range ...................................................... 2-9 Table 2-8: Preferred Compliance Option and Water Use Targets ............................................ 2-10 Table 2-9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY)......................................................... 2-10 Table 2-10: Newport Beach's Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (AFY).... 2-10 Table 2-11: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AFY).......................................................................................................................................... 2-12 Table 3-1: Metropolitan Average Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-2: Metropolitan Single -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-6 Table 3-3: Metropolitan Multiple -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035.............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 Table 3-4: Wholesaler Identified & Quantified Existing and Planned Sources of Water (AFY) .. 3-8 Table 3-5: Current Basin Production Percentage...................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-6: Amount of Groundwater Pumped in the Past 5 Years (AFY)................................... 3-13 Table 3-7: Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped (AFY)......................................... 3-14 Table 3-8: Wholesaler Supply Reliability - % of Normal AFY.................................................... 3-15 Table 3-9: Basis of Water Year Data......................................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-10: Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Supply........................................................ 3-16 Table 3-11: Water Quality — Current and Projected Water Supply Impacts (AFY) ................... 3-18 Table 3-12: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY)............................................. 3-18 Table 3-13: Projected Single -Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) ............................... 3-19 Table 3-14: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY)............................ 3-19 Table 4-1: Urban Supplier's Demand Management Measures Overview .................................... 4-2 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan III Table of Contents Table 4-2: Retrofit Devices and Rebate Amounts Available Under Save Water Save a Buck Program........................................................................................................................................ 4-7 Table 5-1: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages ......................... 5-5 Table 5-2: Metropolitan Shortage Conditions.............................................................................. 5-7 Table 5-3: Three -Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply (AFY)............................................... 5-8 Table 5-4: Preparation Actions for Catastrophe......................................................................... 5-10 Table 5-5: Mandatory Prohibitions............................................................................................. 5-11 Table 5-6: Consumption Reduction Methods............................................................................ 5-16 Table 5-7: Penalties and Charges............................................................................................. 5-16 Table 5-8: Revenue Impacts Analysis........................................................................................ 5-17 Table 5-9: Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms.......................................................................... 5-18 Table 6-1: Participating Agencies................................................................................................ 6-1 Table 6-2: Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY)............................................................ 6-2 Table 6-3: Disposal of Wastewater (Non-Recycled)(AFY).......................................................... 6-2 Table 6-4: Current Recycled Water Uses (AFY).......................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-5: Projected Future Use of Recycled Water in Service Area(AFY)................................ 6-3 Table 6-6: Projected Recycled Water Uses (AFY)...................................................................... 6-4 Table 6-7: Recycled Water Uses — 2005 Projections compared with 2010 Actual (AFY)........... 6-4 Table 7-1: Opportunities for Desalinated Water........................................................................... 7-2 Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach.......................................................................... 8-1 Table 8-2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies.................................................................... 8-2 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier.............................................................. 1-3 Figure 1-2: City of Newport Beach's Service Area....................................................................... 1-5 Figure 3-1: Current and Projected Water Supplies(AFY)............................................................ 3-2 Appendices A. Urban Water Management Plan Checklist B. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update C. Bump Calculation Methodology D. Chapter 14.16 Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations, Chapter 14.36 Water Quality E. 60 Day Notification Letters F. Public Hearing Notice G. Copy of Plan Adoption City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan IV Acronyms Acronyms Used in the Report 20x2020 20% reduction by 2020 Act Urban Water Management Planning Act AF acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year Basin Orange County Groundwater Basin BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan BEA Basin Equity Assessment BMP Best Management Practice BPP Basin Production Percentage CDR Center for Demographic Research cfs cubic feet per second CII Commercial/Industrial/Institutional CIMIS California Irrigation Management Information System City City of Newport Beach CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CUP Conjunctive Use Program CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council DMM Demand Management Measure DWR Department of Water Resources EOCF #2 East Orange County Feeder #2 ETo Evapotranspiration FY Fiscal Year FYE Fiscal Year Ending GAP Green Acres Project GPCD gallons per capita per day gpm gallons per minute GWRS Groundwater Replenishment System HECW High Efficiency Clothes Washer HET high efficiency toilet HOA Homeowners Association IRP Integrated Water Resources Plan IWA International Water Association LOI Letter of Intent MCL Maximum Contaminant Level Metropolitan Metropolitan Water District of Southern California MF Microfiltration MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MOU Memorandum of Understanding MWDOC Municipal Water District of Orange County NBMC Newport Beach Municipal Code NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District Poseidon Poseidon Resources LLC City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan v Acronyms PPCP Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Product PSA Public Service Announcements QSA Quantification Settlement Agreement RA Replenishment Assessment RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RO Reverse Osmosis RUWMP Regional Urban Water Management Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SBx7-7 Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority SOI Sphere of Influence SWP State Water Project TDS Total Dissolved Solids ULFT ultra -low -flush toilet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WEROC Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County WOCWBF #2 West Orange County Water Board Feeder #2 WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WSDM Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan VI Executive Summary This report serves as the 2010 update of the City of Newport Beach's (City) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP has been prepared consistent with the requirements under Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act), which were added by Statute 1983, Chapter 1009, and became effective on January 1, 1984. The Act requires "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. 2010 UWMP updates are due to DWR by August 1, 2011. Since its passage in 1983, several amendments have been added to the Act. The most recent changes affecting the 2010 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBx7-7) and SB 1087. Water Conservation Act of 2009 or SBx7- 7 enacted in 2009 is the water conservation component of the Delta package. It stemmed from the Governor's goal to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in per capita water use by 2020 (20x2020). SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. Service Area and Facilities The City provides water to a population of approximately 67,000 throughout its 35.77 square mile service area. The City receives its water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). Groundwater is pumped from 4 active wells located throughout the City, and imported water is treated at the Diemer Filtration Plant and is delivered to the City through six imported water connections. Water Demand Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by the City is approximately 16,640 acre-feet annually consisting of 10,052 acre-feet of local groundwater and 432 acre-feet of recycled water. In the last five years, the City's water demand has decreased by about 5 percent while population has increased by 1.5 percent. This illustrates the City's proactive efforts in promoting water use efficiency. With its diligence in the promotion of water conservation as well as financial incentives to customers to retrofit their homes and businesses with water efficient devices and appliances, the City is City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1 Executive Summary projecting a flattening demand trend in the next 25 years despite a projected 11 percent population growth. With MWDOC's assistance, the City has selected to comply with Option 1 of the SBx7- 7 compliance options. The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County. Under Compliance Option 1, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 228.1 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 202.8 GPCD. Water Sources and Supply Reliability The City's main source of water supply is groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Recycled water was recently added to the City's water supply portfolio. Today, the City relies on 60% groundwater, 37% imported, and 3% recycled water. It is projected that by 2035, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full-service demands (non -interruptible agricultural and replenishment supplies) at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet full service demands of its member agencies with existing supplies from 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The City is therefore capable of meeting the water demands of its customers in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years between 2015 and 2035, as illustrated in Table 3-12, Table 3-13, and Table 3-14, respectively. Future Water Supply Projects Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. These potential users are typically landscape or agricultural irrigation systems, or possibly water users. However, due to the limited access to the project mains and some financial impact on end users, it is not feasible to distribute all of the potential recycled water, and the City does not predict that there will be many other end users in the near future. In Orange County, there are three proposed ocean desalination projects that could serve MWDOC, including one specifically that may benefit the City. On January 20, 2010, the City signed a non-binding LOI for 7.1 MGD (8,000 AFY) of Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project supplies. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2 Executive Summary City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3 1. Introduction 1.1. Urban Water Management Plan Requirements Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Act) requires "every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually" to prepare, adopt, and file an UWMP with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years. 2010 UWMP updates are due to DWR by August 1, 2011. This UWMP provides DWR with information on the present and future water resources and demands and provide an assessment of the City's water resource needs. Specifically, this document will provide water supply planning for a 25 -year planning period in 5 -year increments. The plan will identify water supplies for existing and future demands, quantify water demands during normal year, single -dry year, and multiple -dry years, and identify supply reliability under the three hydrologic conditions. The City's 2010 UWMP update revises the 2005 UWMP. This document has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the Act as amended in 2009, and includes the following analysis: • Water Service Area and Facilities • Water Sources and Supplies • Water Use by Customer Type • Demand Management Measures • Water Supply Reliability • Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs • Water Shortage Contingency Plan • Recycled Water Since its passage in 1983, several amendments have been added to the Act. The most recent changes affecting the 2010 UWMP include Senate Bill 7 as part of the Seventh Extraordinary Session (SBx7-7) and SB 1087. Water Conservation Act of 2009 or SBx7- 7, enacted in 2009, is the water conservation component of the historic Delta package. It stemmed from the Governor's goal to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in per capita water use by 2020 (20x2020). SBx7-7 requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. Each urban retail water supplier must include in its 2010 UWMPs the following information from its target -setting process: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-1 Section 1 Introduction • Baseline daily per capita water use • 2020 Urban water use target • 2015 Interim water use target • Compliance method being used along with calculation method and support data Wholesale water suppliers are required to include an assessment of present and proposed future measures, programs, and policies that would help achieve the 20 by 2020 goal. The other recent amendment made to the UWMP Act to be included in the 2010 UWMP is set forth by SB 1087, Water and Sewer Service Priority for Housing Affordable to Low -Income Households. SB 1087 requires water and sewer providers to grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include low income housing. SB 1087 also requires UWMPs to include projected water use for single- and multi -family housing needed for low-income households. The sections in this Plan correspond to the outline of the Act, specifically Article 2, Contents of Plans, Sections 10631, 10632, and 10633. The sequence used for the required information, however, differs slightly in order to present information in a manner reflecting the unique characteristics of the City's water utility. The UWMP Checklist has been completed, which identifies the location of Act requirements in this Plan and is included as Appendix A. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-2 Section 1 Introduction sari eemaromo cwmry La Hal Bf48 Los Angeles _ G—dY Fullerton Yortra Linda Water District i� La Palm IllG, Park �� Irvine Ranch Anaheim Serrano Wat Water District DieYlriGt Golden aren Co. f—:..�': oran W ge -ty Ic.s.w.c.a EOCWOr2eta Garden Grove Zone G.S. Seal Westminster -- Beach Tus [i n Sante Rna Fountain Val ley Irvine Randi Ines. Water District Huntington Tretru co Beach Consolidated Canyon Writ. r❑, t. WaIel' Newport Beach El Toro Water 6istrict ii 15anca Margarita Water District Emerald Day Service DisirictMoulton Niguel Laguna beach County Water District Water District San served by Juan South 7-4wn Capistrano Fir , San . Clean ente South Coast Water District a. rl� GGiorj MVVDOC Member Agency East Orange County Water District (Wholesale) Orange County Water District 0 Non-MWDOC Service Area Inside MWDOC but Outside Retail Water Agency Boundary Freeway or Tollway — Proposed Freeway or Tollway N W+E S a 2 4 B Miles Figure 1-1: Regional Location of Urban Water Supplier City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-3 Section 1 Introduction 1.2. Agency Overview The City is located in Orange County, California. It serves a population of approximately 67,000 within a 35.77 square mile through 26,300 service connections. The City supplies groundwater, imported water, and recycled water to its customers. Groundwater is produced from local groundwater wells managed by OCWD and imported water is purchased from MWDOC, the regional wholesale water supplier of Orange County who in turn purchases imported water from northern California and the Colorado River through Metropolitan. The City purchases recycled water from OCWD. Today, the total water demand for the City is approximately 17,000 acre-feet annually consisting of 16,500 acre-feet of potable water and 450 acre-feet of recycled water. Due to its active efforts in promoting water conservation and water use efficiency to residents, the City is projecting a flattening demand trend in the next 25 years despite a projected 11 percent population growth. The City Council operates under a Council -Manager format of government. Its seven City Council Members are elected by district, but voted on by the population as a whole. The current City Council members are: • Michael F. Henn, Mayor • Steven Rosansky • Rush N. Hill, II • Leslie Daigle • Edward D. Selich • Nancy Gardner, Mayor Pro Tem • Keith D. Curry The City receives its water from two main sources, the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). MWDOC is Orange County's wholesale supplier and is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). 1.3. Service Area and Facilities 1.3.1. Newport Beach's Service Area Located along the Orange County coast of Southern California, the City is bounded to the west by the Pacific Ocean. To the north, south, and east, the City is surrounded by the cities of Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Irvine and Costa Mesa. The water service area is entirely within the City's boundaries, and covers approximately 35.77 square miles. A map of the City's service area is shown in Figure 1-2. The City serves a population of approximately 67,000 through 26,300 service connections. The City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-4 Section 1 Introduction City supplies groundwater, imported water, and recycled water to its residential and commercial customers. The City does not supply water to any agency customers. Figure 1-2: City of Newport Beach's Service Area 1.3.2. Newport Beach's Water Facilities Imported Water Supply Facilities MWDOC provides imported water to the City. MWDOC receives its water from Metropolitan. Most of Metropolitan's imported water supply is provided through the State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and is treated at the Diemer and Weymouth plants. A large groundwater supply is also available, as described in Section 3.3. The use of this supply is regulated by the Basin Pumping Percentage (BPP) as set by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). All of the water supplied by the City is sold to its retail customers (residential and commercial). The City maintains its own retail distribution system. The City delivers potable water through its water system which consists of approximately 284 miles of pipelines ranging in size from 4 -inch to 30 -inch with various pipe materials. The City has an extensive distribution system, which includes five pressure zones and six connections City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-5 Section 1 Introduction along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The total available capacity is 104 cfs. The City has five pump stations which deliver water to the upper zones, and backup generation facilities ensure that the City can still deliver water to all zones during a rolling blackout. Groundwater Facilities In addition to surface water, the City receives a large percentage of its supply from groundwater. Groundwater is pumped from four wells within the City of Fountain Valley and travels through over 6 miles of the 30 -inch Groundwater Transmission Main in Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Costa Mesa. In addition, a pump station, a treatment facility, and a 3 -MG reservoir assist in the transmission and treatment effort. The City meets up to 62 percent of its demand through groundwater, under regulations of OCWD's BPP. Recycled Water Facilities Through an agreement with the OCWD, the City purchases between 300 and 800 acre- feet per year (AFY) of recycled water for some large irrigation users. The City has no capability of treating water to produce reclaimed water, but OCWD has an elaborate system. The City began serving recycled water in 1999. OCWD provides water through the Green Acres Project, which has the capability to delivery up to 1,000 AFY. The City has investigated future sites or locations for reclaimed water, but there are limitations to the availability of reclaimed connections. The City is looking into the possibility of inter - district reclaimed water transfers to provide reclaimed water to some associations and recreation facilities. Water Transmission System Water is delivered to the City's customers from the Groundwater Transmission Main, and from diversions off of the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The transmission system consists of pipelines, booster pump stations, and storage tanks. The current capacity of the City's potable water supply is 104 cfs. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 1-6 2. Water Demand 2.1. Overview Currently, the total water demand for retail customers served by the City is approximately 16,640 acre-feet annually consisting of 10,052 acre-feet of local groundwater and 432 acre-feet of recycled water. In the last five years, the City's water demand has decreased by about 5 percent while population has increased by 1.5 percent. This illustrates the City's proactive efforts in promoting water use efficiency. With its diligence in the promotion of water conservation as well as financial incentives to customers to retrofit their homes and businesses with water efficient devices and appliances, the City is projecting a flattening demand trend in the next 25 years despite a projected 11 percent population growth. The passage of SBx7-7 will increase efforts to reduce the use of potable supplies in the future. This new law requires all of California's retail urban water suppliers serving more than 3,000 AFY or 3,000 service connections to achieve a 20 percent reduction in demands (from a historical baseline) by 2020. Due to great water conservation efforts in the past decade, the City is on its way to meeting this requirement on its own. Moreover, the City has elected to join the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance. The City together with 28 other retail agencies in Orange County are committed to reduce the region's water demand by 2020 through the leadership of MWDOC, the region's wholesale provider. This section will explore in detail the City's current water demands by customer type and the factors which influence those demands as well as providing a perspective of its expected future water demands for the next 25 years. In addition, to satisfy SBx7-7 requirements, this section will provide details of the City's SBx7-7 compliance method selection, baseline water use calculation, and its 2015 and 2020 water use targets. 2.2. Factors Affecting Demand Water consumption is influenced by many factors from climate characteristics of that hydrologic region, to demographics, land use characteristics, and economics. The key factors affecting water demand in the City's service area are discussed below. 2.2.1. Climate Characteristics The City is located in Southern California's coastal plain where the climate is characteristically Mediterranean, with mild year-round temperatures, sunny days, and cool evenings. The average summer and winter temperatures are 757 and 657, City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-1 Section 2 Water Demand respectively, and the average annual rainfall is just under 12 inches (Table 2-1). The average Evapotranspiration (ETo) is almost 50 inches per year which is four times the annual average rainfall. This translates to a high demand for landscape irrigation for homes, commercial properties, parks, and golf courses. Moreover, a region with low rainfall like Southern California is also more prone to droughts. Table 2-1: Climate Characteristics [1] CIMIS Station #75, Irvine, California from October 1987 to Present [2] NOAA, Newport Beach Harbor, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Precipitation Total [3] NOAA, Newport Beach Harbor, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Temperature The source of the City's imported water supplies, the State Water Project and Colorado River Project, is influenced by weather conditions in Northern California and along the Colorado River. Both regions have recently been suffering from multi-year drought conditions and record low rainfalls which directly impact demands and supplies to Southern California. 2.2.2. Demographics The City serves a population of 67,030. The population within the City's service area is expected to increase by 11 percent in the next 25 years, or 0.44 percent annually. Table 2- 2 shows the population projections for the next 25 years based on the California State University at Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research (CDR) projections. Due to proactive water conservation efforts, future water demands are expected to increase at a much lower rate compared to the population growth. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-2 Standard Monthly Average ETo (inches) [1] Annual Rainfall (inches) [2] Average Temperature (-F) [3] Jan 2.18 2.60 55.9 Feb 2.49 2.54 56.7 Mar 3.67 2.25 57.4 Apr 4.71 0.70 59.5 May 5.18 0.18 61.7 Jun 5.87 0.08 64.3 Jul 6.29 0.02 67.3 Aug 6.17 0.09 68.7 Sep 4.57 0.30 68.1 Oct 3.66 0.28 65.1 Nov 2.59 1.02 60.0 Dec 2.25 1.59 56.1 Annual 49.63 11.65 61.7 [1] CIMIS Station #75, Irvine, California from October 1987 to Present [2] NOAA, Newport Beach Harbor, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Precipitation Total [3] NOAA, Newport Beach Harbor, California 1971 to 2000, Mean Temperature The source of the City's imported water supplies, the State Water Project and Colorado River Project, is influenced by weather conditions in Northern California and along the Colorado River. Both regions have recently been suffering from multi-year drought conditions and record low rainfalls which directly impact demands and supplies to Southern California. 2.2.2. Demographics The City serves a population of 67,030. The population within the City's service area is expected to increase by 11 percent in the next 25 years, or 0.44 percent annually. Table 2- 2 shows the population projections for the next 25 years based on the California State University at Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research (CDR) projections. Due to proactive water conservation efforts, future water demands are expected to increase at a much lower rate compared to the population growth. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-2 Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-2: Population — Current and Projected [ 1 ] Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2010 Other demographic factors that also play a role in influencing demands include recreation and tourism which is an important industry in the City. Tourism affects seasonal demands with higher demands in the summer especially at beach facilities as well as hotels and restaurants. Over 50 percent of the City's residents are employed in professional, managerial, and administrative occupations. The median age of City residents is 40 years, and the median household income is estimated at about $110,500 per year'. The average household is 2.8 persons per dwelling unit. 2.2.3. Land Use Land use within the City's service area is characterized as mostly suburban, and the City is almost built -out. The City may consider the approval of a 401 -acre Newport Banning Ranch development project located within the City's Coastal Zone. The development will comprise of approximately 252 acres of open space and development of up to 1,375 residential dwelling units, 75,000 square feet of commercial area, a 75 room resort inn, and approximately 52 acres of parks. Approximately 40 acres of the project site are located within the City limits and approximately 361 acres are located outside the city limits but within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). An annexation and a boundary adjustment will be coordinated through the Local Agency Formation Commission to extend the City limits to include portion of the project site currently within the SOI and to extend the City's water service area to provide water to the entire project site. The estimated total average annual water demand from this development is 613.5 acre-feet2. Implementation of this project would be subject to compliance with the water conservation requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). NBMC requires water efficiency design standards be incorporated into the landscape and irrigation plans as well as other indoor conservation measures including use of low water usage appliances and waterless urinals in public men's restrooms. 12007 American community Survey 2 Newport Banning Ranch Water Supply Assessment, City of Newport Beach (October 12, 2010) City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-3 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Service Area Population [1] 67,030 68,478 69,926 71,375 72,823 74,271 [ 1 ] Center for Demographic Research, California State University, Fullerton 2010 Other demographic factors that also play a role in influencing demands include recreation and tourism which is an important industry in the City. Tourism affects seasonal demands with higher demands in the summer especially at beach facilities as well as hotels and restaurants. Over 50 percent of the City's residents are employed in professional, managerial, and administrative occupations. The median age of City residents is 40 years, and the median household income is estimated at about $110,500 per year'. The average household is 2.8 persons per dwelling unit. 2.2.3. Land Use Land use within the City's service area is characterized as mostly suburban, and the City is almost built -out. The City may consider the approval of a 401 -acre Newport Banning Ranch development project located within the City's Coastal Zone. The development will comprise of approximately 252 acres of open space and development of up to 1,375 residential dwelling units, 75,000 square feet of commercial area, a 75 room resort inn, and approximately 52 acres of parks. Approximately 40 acres of the project site are located within the City limits and approximately 361 acres are located outside the city limits but within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). An annexation and a boundary adjustment will be coordinated through the Local Agency Formation Commission to extend the City limits to include portion of the project site currently within the SOI and to extend the City's water service area to provide water to the entire project site. The estimated total average annual water demand from this development is 613.5 acre-feet2. Implementation of this project would be subject to compliance with the water conservation requirements of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). NBMC requires water efficiency design standards be incorporated into the landscape and irrigation plans as well as other indoor conservation measures including use of low water usage appliances and waterless urinals in public men's restrooms. 12007 American community Survey 2 Newport Banning Ranch Water Supply Assessment, City of Newport Beach (October 12, 2010) City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-3 Section 2 Water Demand 2.3. Water Use by Customer Type The knowledge of an agency's water consumption by type of use or by customer class is key to developing that agency's water use profile which identifies when, where, how, and how much water is used, and by whom within the agency's service area. A comprehensive water use profile is critical to the assessment of impacts of prior conservation efforts as well as to the development of future conservation programs. This section provides an overview of the City's water consumption by customer type in 2005 and 2010, as well as projections for 2015 to 2035. The customer classes are categorizes as follows: single-family residential, multi -family residential, commercial/industrial/institutional (CII), dedicated landscape, and agriculture. Other water uses including sales to other agencies and non -revenue water are also discussed in this section. 2.3.1. Overview The City has maintained approximately 26,361 customer connections to its potable water distribution system since 2005. The City is expected to maintain the same numbers of connections through to at least 2015. After that the City is projecting a 5 percent increase by the year 2020 remaining through to 2035. All connections in the City's service area are metered. Approximately 60 percent of the City's water demand is residential. Commercial/industrial and dedicated landscape sectors each consume approximately 20 percent of the City potable water supply. A small portion of the City's demand is from government/institutional establishments such as municipal buildings and hospitals. The City does not provide any sales to agriculture, nor other agencies, saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use. A 4 percent increase in water demand between 2010 and 2035 is anticipated for the City's service area while population is projected to increase by 11 percent over the same period. Tables 2-3 and 2-4 provide a summary of past, current, and projected water use by customer class and the number of water service customers by sector in five-year increments from 2005 through to 2035. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-4 Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-3: Past, Current and Projected Service Accounts by Water Use Sector Fiscal Number of Accounts by Water Use Sector Year Ending Single Family Multi- Family Commercial /Industrial Institutional Total Landscape Accounts 2005 18,595 4,065 1,273 571 983 25,487 2010 19,230 4,198 1,319 596 1,018 26,361 2015 19,653 4,292 1,348 609 1,041 26,943 2020 20,068 4,382 1,377 622 1,063 27,512 2025 20,486 4,473 1,405 635 1,085 28,084 2030 20,900 4,564 1,434648 4,346 1,107 28,653 2035 21,316 4,655 1,462 661 1,129 29,223 Table 2-4: Past, Current and Projected Water Demand by Water Use Sector Fiscal Water Demand by Water Use Sectors (AFY) Year Ending Single Family Multi- Family Commercial /Industrial Institutional Landscape Total Demand 2005 7,482 2,597 3,300 734 3,719 17,831 2010 7,297 2,308 2,960 370 3,710 16,645 2015 7,258 2,300 2,947 378 4,140 17,023 2020 7,411 2,348 3,009 386 41268 17,422 2025 7,565 2,397 3,072 394 4,346 17,774 2030 7,718 2,446 3,134 402 4,424 18,124 2035 7,872 2,494 3,196 410 4,502 18,474 2.3.2. Residential Residential water use accounts for the majority of the City's water demands. The single family residential sector accounts for approximately 44 percent and multi -family residential accounts for 14 percent of the total water demand. The remaining demands are for the non-residential sector and system losses. Water consumption by the residential sector is projected to remain at about 58 percent through the 25 -year planning horizon. 2.3.3. Non -Residential The City has a mix of commercial uses (markets, restaurants, etc.), public entities (such as schools, fire stations and government offices), office complexes, light industrial, warehouses and facilities serving the public. In 2010 non-residential demand was approximately 42 percent of the overall demand and is expected to remain so through 2035. Commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) uses (excluding large landscape) represent a combined 20 percent of the City's total demand. Demands from large City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-5 Section 2 Water Demand landscapes such as parks and golf courses are expected to remain at around 22 percent of the City's total water demands for the next 25 years. 2.3.4. Other Water Uses 2.3.4.1. Sales to Other Agencies While the City does sell water outside of its service area, the City does not sell water to other agencies. 2.3.4.2. Non -Revenue Water Non -revenue water is defined by the International Water Association (IWA) as the difference between distribution systems input volume (i.e. production) and billed authorized consumption. Non -revenue water consists of three components: unbilled authorized consumption (e.g. hydrant flushing, fire fighting, and blow -off water from well start-ups), real losses (e.g. leakage in mains and service lines), and apparent losses (unauthorized consumption and metering inaccuracies). The City's non -revenue water accounts for about 6 percent of the City's total demand (Table 2-5). Table 2-5: Additional Water Uses and Losses (AFY) Water Use Fiscal Year Ending 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Saline Barriers Groundwater Recharge Conjunctive Use Raw Water Recycled Water Unaccounted-for System Losses 925 990 1,078 1,082 1,085 1,099 1,108 Total 925 990 1,078 1,082 1,085 1,099 1,108 2.4. SBx7-7 Requirements 2.4.1. Overview SBx7-7, which became effective on February 3, 2010, is the water conservation component to the Delta legislative package. It seeks to implement Governor Schwarzenegger's 2008 water use reduction goals to achieve a 20% statewide reduction in urban per capita water use by December 31, 2020. As discussed above, the bill requires each urban retail water supplier to develop urban water use targets to help meet the 20% goal by 2020 and an interim 10% goal by 2015. The bill establishes methods for urban retail water suppliers to determine targets to help achieve water reduction targets. The City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-6 Section 2 Water Demand retail water supplier must select one of the four compliance options. The retail agency may choose to comply to SBx7-7 as an individual or as a region in collaboration with other water suppliers. Under the regional compliance option, the retail water supplier still has to report the water use target for its individual service area. The bill also includes reporting requirements in the 2010, 2015, and 2020 UWMPs. An agency that does not comply with SBx7-7 requirement will not be eligible for a water grant or loan from the state on and after July 16, 2016. 2.4.2. SBx7-7 Compliance Options DWR has established four compliance options for urban retail water suppliers to choose from. Each supplier is required to adopt one of the four options to comply with SBx7-7 requirements. The four options include: • Option I requires a simple 20% reduction from the baseline by 2020 and 10 percent by 2015. • Option 2 employs a budget -based approach by requiring an agency to achieve a performance standard based on three metrics o Residential indoor water use of 55 GPCD o Landscape water use commiserate with Model Landscape Ordinance o 10 percent reduction in baseline CII water use • Option 3 is to achieve 95% of the applicable state hydrologic region target as set forth in the State's 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. • Option 4 requires the subtraction of Total Savings from the Base GPCD: o Total Savings includes indoor residential savings, meter savings, CII savings, and landscape and water loss savings. Newport Beach's Compliance Option Selection With MWDOC's assistance in the calculation of the City's base daily per capita use and water use targets, the City has selected to comply with Option 1. While each retail agency is required to choose a compliance option in 2010, DWR allows for the agency to change its compliance option in 2015. This will allow the City to determine its water use targets for Compliance Option 2 and 4 as it anticipates more data to be available for targets calculation in the future. 2.4.3. Regional Alliance Retail agencies can choose to meet the SBx7-7 targets on its own or several retail agencies may form a regional alliance and meet the water use targets as a region. The benefit for an agency that joins a regional alliance is that it has multiple means of meeting compliance. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-7 Section 2 Water Demand The City is a member of the Orange County 20x2020 Regional Alliance formed by MWDOC. This regional alliance consists of 29 retail agencies in Orange County as described in MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP. The Regional Alliance Weighted 2015 target is 174.1 GPCD and 2020 target is 156.5 GPCD. 2.4.4. Baseline Water Use The first step to calculating an agency's water use targets is to determine its base daily per capita water use (baseline water use). This baseline water use is essentially the agency's gross water use divided by its service area population, reported in gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The baseline water use is calculated as a continuous 10 -year average during a period which ends no earlier than December 31, 2004 and no later than December 31, 2010. Agencies that recycled water made up 10 percent or more of 2008 retail water delivery can use up to a 15 -year average for the calculation. Recycled water use represents less than 10% of the City's retail delivery in 2008; therefore, a 10 -year instead of a 15 -year rolling average was calculated. The City's baseline water use is 253.5 GPCD which was obtained from the 10 -year period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2005. Tables 2-6 and 2-7 provide the base period ranges used to calculate the baseline water use for the City as well as the service area population and annual water use data which the base daily per capita water use was derived. Data provided in Table 2-6 was used to calculate the continuous 10 -year average baseline GPCD. Moreover, regardless of the compliance method adopted by the City, it will need to meet the minimum water use target of 5% reduction from a five-year baseline as calculated in Table 2-7. Because the City is an OCWD agency, the City's gross water use includes deductions for indirect potable recycled water use from the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) and Water Factory 21 managed by OCWD. The calculations for the gross water use are described in MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-8 Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-6: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 10 -year range 10 Year Avg I July 1, 1995 1 June 30, 2005 Fiscal Year Service • 1996 Area ulation 60,709 Gross Water Use D. P .. • per day) 15,967,145 -Capita Use 263 1997 61,277 16,814,358 274 1998 61,896 15,921,266 257 1999 62,514 16,976,611 272 2000 64,923 16,865,461 260 2001 66,033 16,197,012 245 2002 66,495 16,062,298 242 2003 66,734 16,083,658 241 2004 65,500 15,985,387 244 2005 1 65,993 1 15,630,375 1 237 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 1 253.5 [1 ] The most recent year in base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2004, and no later than December 31, 2010. The base period cannot exceed 10 years unless at least 10 percent of 2008 retail deliveries were met with recycled water. Table 2-7: Base Daily per Capita Water Use — 5 -year range 5 Year Ava I Julv 1. 2003 June 30. 2008 Year 2004 WaterFiscal Service Area Population Gross - Daily Per..WaterEnding (gallons per day) 65,500 15,985,387 Use 244 2005 65,993 15,630,375 237 2006 65,962 15,616,451 237 2007 66,067 16,677,329 252 2008 66,451 16,038,474 241 Base Daily Per Capita Water Use: 242.3 [2] The base period must end no earlier than December 31, 2007, and no later than December 31, 2010. 2.4.5. SBx7-7 Water Use Targets Under Compliance Option 1, the simple 20 percent reduction from the baseline, the City's 2015 interim water use target is 228.1 GPCD and the 2020 final water use target is 202.8 GPCD as summarized in Table 2-8. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-9 Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-8: Preferred Compliance Option and Water Use Targets Option 1 - Simple 20% Reduction 1 253.5 228.1 1 202.8 1 2.5. Demand Projections 2.5.1. 25 -Year Projections One of the main objectives of this UWMP is to provide an insight into the City's future water demand outlook. Currently, the City's total water demand is 16,645 acre-feet comprising of 60% local groundwater, 37% imported water, and 3% recycled water. As illustrated in Table 2-9, the City's water demand is expected to increase by 11 % in the next 25 years to 18,474 acre-feet by 2035. Table 2-9: Current and Projected Water Demands (AFY) Water Supply Sources Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt MWDOC (Imported Treated Full Service (non -int.)) 6,161 6,298 6,430 6,564 6,697 6,830 BPP Groundwater 10,052 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 432 450 500 500 500 500 Total 16,645 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 The City's 25 -year demand projections for imported water shown in Table 2-10 are based on the projections provided by the City to MWDOC. As the regional wholesale supplier of Orange County, MWDOC works in collaboration with each of its member agencies as well as with Metropolitan, its wholesaler, to develop demand projections for imported water. Table 2-10: Newport Beach's Demand Projections Provided to Wholesale Suppliers (AFY) Wholesaler Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt MWDOC 6,298 6,430 6,564 6,697 6,830 2.5.2. Low Income Household Projections One significant change to the UWMP Act since 2005 is the requirement for retail water suppliers to include water use projections for single-family and multifamily residential housing needed for lower income and affordable households. This requirement is to assist the retail suppliers in complying with the requirement under Section 65589.7 of the Government Code that suppliers grant a priority for the provision of service to housing City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-10 Section 2 Water Demand units affordable to lower income households. A lower income household is defined as a household earning 80% of the County of Orange's median income or less. In order to identify the planned lower income housing projects within its service area, DWR3 recommends that retail suppliers may rely on Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) or Regional Housing Needs Plan information developed by the local council of governments, the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The RHNA is an assessment process performed periodically as part of Housing Element and General Plan updates at the local level. Regional Council of Governments in California are required by the State Housing Element Law enacted in 1980 to determine the existing and projected regional housing needs for persons at all income levels. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing by income group within each jurisdiction during specific planning periods. The RHNA is used in land use planning, to prioritize local resource allocation and to help decide how to address existing and future housing needs. The RHNA consists of two measurements: 1) existing need for housing, and 2) future need for housing. The current RHNA planning period is January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014 completed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in 2007. The next RHNA which will cover the planning period of January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2021 is not expected to be completed until fall of 2012; therefore, the 2007 RHNA will be used for the purpose of this 2010 UWMP. Based on the 2007 Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plano, the projected housing need for low and very low income households (hereafter referred to as low-income) in the City of Newport Beach are 18.0% and 22.0%, respectively or 40.0% combined. Therefore, from inference, it is estimated that approximately 40.0% of the projected water demands within the City's service area will be for housing needed for low income households. Table 2-11 provides a breakdown of the projected water needs for low income single family and multifamily units. The projected water demands shown here represent 40.0% of the projected water demand by customer type for single-family and multifamily categories provided in Table 2-4 above. For example, the total single family residential demand is projected to be 7,258 AFY in 2015 and 7,872 AFY in 2035. The projected water demands for housing needed for single family low income households are 2,903 and 3,149 AFY for 2015 and 2035, respectively. 3 California Department of Water Resources, Guidebook to Assist Urban Water Suppliers to Prepare a 2010 UWMP, Final (March 2011) 4 Southern California Association Governments, Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Plan for Jurisdictions within the Six County SCAG Region (July 2007) City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-11 Section 2 Water Demand Table 2-11: Projected Water Demands for Housing Needed for Low Income Households (AFY) Water Use Sector Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 5 2030 2035 -opt Total Retail Demand 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 Total Residential Demand 9,558 9,759 9,962 10,164 10,366 Total Low Income Households Demand 3,823 3,904 3,985 4,066 4,146 SF Residential Demand -Total 7,258 7,411 7,565 7,718 7,872 SF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 2,9031 2,964 3,026 3,087 3,149 MF Residential Demand -Total 2,300 2,348 2,397 2,446 2,494 MF Residential Demand - Low Income Households 920 939 959 978 998 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 2-12 3. Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.1. Overview The City's main source of water supply is groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC. Recycled water was recently added to the City's water supply portfolio. Today, the City relies on 60% groundwater, 37% imported, and 3% recycled water. It is projected that by 2035, the water supply mix will remain roughly the same. The City works together with three primary agencies — Metropolitan, MWDOC, and OCWD to insure a safe and high quality water supply, which will continue to serve the community in periods of drought and shortage. The sources of imported water supplies include the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP). Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full-service demands (non -interruptible agricultural and replenishment supplies) at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. The imported water supply numbers shown here represent only the amount of supplies projected to meet demands and not the full supply capacity. Local groundwater pumped from the City's wells is managed by OCWD. The Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated. In any given year, the amount of water which each City is allowed to pump out of the basin is based on the basin production percentage (BPP) established by OCWD. The OCWD sets the percentage of groundwater that an agency can pump based on their total potable water demand. The BPP fluctuates year by year but it is set uniformly for all Producers. Historically, BPP has ranged between approximately 60% to 80% depending on groundwater conditions, availability of recharge water supplies, and basin management objectives. For 2010/11, the BPP was set at 62 percent.5 As illustrated in Figure 3-1, the BPP is assumed to remain at the conservative 62% level for the next 25 years. The remaining demand is projected to be met through imported water from Metropolitan/MWDOC and through a small portion of recycled water. 5 The BPP was changed by OCWD in late April 2010 and effective July 2010 to 62 percent. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-1 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Figure 3-1: Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY) The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the City's three main water sources as well as projections to the City's future water supply portfolio for the next 25 years. Moreover, this compares projected supply and demand under various hydrological conditions to determine the City's supply reliability for the 25 year planning horizon. This section satisfies the requirements of § 10631 (b) and (c), and 10635 of the Water Code. 3.2. Imported Water The City currently relies on 6,161 AFY of imported water wholesaled by Metropolitan through MWDOC to supplement local groundwater. Imported water represents approximately 37% of the City's total water supply. Metropolitan's principal sources of water originate from two sources - the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct and the Lake Oroville watershed in Northern California through the State Water Project (SWP). This water is treated at the Robert B. Diemer Filtration Plant located north of Yorba Linda. Typically, the Diemer Filtration Plant receives a blend of Colorado River water from Lake Mathews through the Metropolitan Lower Feeder and SWP water through the Yorba Linda Feeder. The AGENCY currently maintains six connections to the Metropolitan system along the Orange County Feeder and the East Orange County Feeder No. 2. The total available capacity is 104 cfs. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-2 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.2.1. Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan Metropolitan's 2010 Regional Urban Water Management Plan (RUWMP) reports on its water reliability and identifies projected supplies to meet the long-term demand within its service area. It presents Metropolitan's supply capacities from 2015 through 2035 under the three hydrologic conditions specified in the Act: single dry -year, multiple dry -years, and average year. Colorado River Supplies Colorado River Aqueduct supplies include supplies that would result from existing and committed programs and from implementation of the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and related agreements to transfer water from agricultural agencies to urban uses. Colorado River transactions are potentially available to supply additional water up to the CRA capacity of 1.25 MAF on an as -needed basis. State Water Project Supplies Metropolitan's State Water Project (SWP) supplies have been impacted in recent years by restrictions on SAT operations in accordance with the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service issued on December 15, 2008 and June 4, 2009, respectively. In dry, below -normal conditions, Metropolitan has increased the supplies received from the California Aqueduct by developing flexible Central Valley/SWP storage and transfer programs. The goal of the storage/transfer programs is to develop additional dry -year supplies that can be conveyed through the available Banks pumping capacity to maximize deliveries through the California Aqueduct during dry hydrologic conditions and regulatory restrictions. In June 2007, Metropolitan's Board approved a Delta Action Plan that provides a framework for staff to pursue actions with other agencies and stakeholders to build a sustainable Delta and reduce conflicts between water supply conveyance and the environment. The Delta action plan aims to prioritize immediate short-term actions to stabilize the Delta while an ultimate solution is selected, and mid-term steps to maintain the Bay -Delta while the long-term solution is implemented. State and federal resource agencies and various environmental and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which is aimed at addressing the basic elements that include the Delta ecosystem restoration, water supply conveyance, and flood control protection and storage development. In evaluating the supply capabilities for the 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan assumed a new Delta conveyance is fully operational by 2022 that would return supply reliability similar to 2005 condition, prior to supply restrictions imposed due to the Biological Opinions. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-3 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Storage Storage is a major component of Metropolitan's dry year resource management strategy. Metropolitan's likelihood of having adequate supply capability to meet projected demands, without implementing its Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), is dependent on its storage resources. In developing the supply capabilities for the 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan assumed a simulated median storage level going into each of five-year increments based on the balances of supplies and demands. Supply Reliability Metropolitan evaluated supply reliability by projecting supply and demand conditions for the single- and multi-year drought cases based on conditions affecting the SWP (Metropolitan's largest and most variable supply). For this supply source, the single driest -year was 1977 and the three-year dry period was 1990-1992. Metropolitan's analyses are illustrated in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 which correspond to Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP's Tables 2-11, 2-9 and 2-10, respectively. These tables show that the region can provide reliable water supplies not only under normal conditions but also under both the single driest year and the multiple dry year hydrologies. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-4 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-1: Metropolitan Average Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 AverageYear Supply Capability] and Projected Demands Average of 1922-2004 Hydrologies [acre-feet per year] Forecasti Current Programs In -Region Storage and Programs California Aqueduct2 Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Supply3 Aqueduct Capacity Lim1t4 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 685,000 1,550,000 1,507,000 1,250, 000 1,250,000 931,000 1,629,000 1,529,000 1, 250, 000 1,250,000 1,076,000 1,763,000 1,472,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 964,000 1,733,000 1,432,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 830,000 1,734,000 1,429,000 1,250, 000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 3,485,000 3,810,000 4,089,000 3,947,000 3,814,000 Demands Firm Demands of Metropolitan IID-SDCWATransfers and Canal Linings 1,826,000 180,000 1,660,000 273,000 1,705,000 280,000 1,769,000 280,000 1,826,000 280,000 Total Demands on Metropolitans 2,006,000 1,933,000 1385,000 2,049,000 2,106,000 Surplus 1,479,000 1,877,000 2,104,000 1,898,000 1,708,000 Programs Under Development In -Region Storage and Programs California Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Supply3 Aqueduct Capacify Lrrmit4 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 206,000 382,000 187,000 0 0 306,000 383,000 187,000 0 0 336,000 715,000 187,000 0 0 336,000 715,000 182,000 0 a 336,000 715,000 182,000 6 0 Capability of Proposed Programs 588,000 689,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 1,051,000 Potential Surplus 2,067,000 2,566,000 3,155,000 2,949,000 2,759,000 1 Represents Supply Capability for resource programs underlisted year type. z California Aqueduct includes Cenfrd Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes water management programs, IID-SDMA transfers and canal linings conveyed by the aqueduct. 4MaximUm CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF including IID-SDMA transfers and canal linings. sFirm demands ore ❑dlusted to include IID-5DCINA transfers and canal linings. These supplies are calculated as local supply, but need to be shown for the purposes of CRA cal ly limit calculafions without double counting. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-5 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-2: Metropolitan Single -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 Single Dry -Year Supply Capability' and Projected Demands Repeat of 1977 Hydrology Ir7rr -f it r)er yFclo Forecast Year r 7 2025 Current Programs In -Region Storage and Programs California Aqueduct2 Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct 5upply3 Aqueduct Capacity Limff4 Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 685,000 599,000 1,416,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 931,001) 6{71.001 1.824.001 1,250,000 1.251001) 1,676,000 651,000 1,669,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 964,000 607 ,000 1,419,000 1,256,000 1.250.000 830,000 AIO,OGO 1.419.000 1,250.000 1.250.000 Capability of Current Programs 2,457,000 2,782,000 2,977,000 2,823,000 2,690,000 Demands Firm Demands of Metropolitan IIL]-SCCW.A Transfers and CaraI Linings I ,5'S I ,UOU 150,000 I ,88Y,UOL) 273,001) 1,1/2 I 'DUO 280,000 I ,y74,000 280,000 2rO3'),000 280,000 Total Demands on Metropolitans 2,171,000 2,162,000 2,201,000 2,254,000 2.319,000 Surplus 266,000 620,000 776,000 569,000 371,000 Programs Under Development In -Region Storage and'rograms Colifornia Aqueduct Colorcndo River Arlueriuct Colorado River Aqueduct Supply3 Aqueduct Capacity bmff4 Calurudu River Aqueducl Capabilily 206,000 556,000 187,000 0 ❑ 306,001) 556,001) 187,001) 9 0 336,000 700,000 187,000 0 0 336,000 700,000 182,000 0 0 336,000 700,000 182,000 0 0 Capability of Proposed Programs 762,000 862,000 1,036,000 1,036,000 1,036,000 Potential Surplus 1,D48,000 1,482,000 1,812,000 1.605.000 1.407,000 r Represents Supply Capability for resource programs underlisled yecr type. 2 California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage progrcm supplies conveyed by the cqueduct. U Colorado Kiver Aqueduct includes water management programs, IID-SL)L WA transters and canal linings conveyed by the aqueduct. 4 Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAF including IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings. 5 Firrn derrlarld5 are adjusted to include IID-SDCWA Transfers grid currul lini•rgs. TI ese supplies are calcululed as Iocui supply, but need to be shown for the purposes of CRA. capacity limit cc lculalionswi-hout double counting. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-fi Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-3: Metropolitan Multiple -Dry Year Projected Supply Capability and Demands for 2015 to 2035 Multiple Dry -Year Supply Capability' and Projected Demands Repeat of 1990.1992 Hydrology (acre-feet per year] Forecast Year r2035 Current Programs In -Region Storage and Programs California Aqueductz Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct 5upply3 Aqueduct Capacity LirniP Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 246,040 752,000 1,318,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 373,000 794,000 11600,000 1,250,0G0 1,250,000 435,000 835,000 1,417,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 398,000 811,000 1,416,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 353,000 812,000 1,416,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Capability of Current Programs 2,248,000 2,417,000 2,520,000 2,459,000 2,413,000 Demands Firm Demands of Metropolitan IID-SDCWA Transfers and Canal Linings 2,056,000 180,000 1,947,000 241,000 2,003,000 280,000 2,059,000 280,000 2,1 19,000 280,000 Total Demands on Metropolitans 2,236,000 2,188,000 2,283,000 2,339,000 2,399,000 Surplus 12,000 229,000 237,000 120,000 14,000 Programs Under Development In -Region Storage and Programs California Aclueauct Colorado River Aqueduct Colorado River Aqueduct Supply3 Aqueduct Capacity Lirnita Colorado River Aqueduct Capability 162,000 242,000 187,000 0 0 280,000 273,000 187,010 0 fl 314,000 419,000 187,000 0 0 3361000 419,000 182,000 0 0 336,000 419,000 182,000 0 0 Capability of Proposed Programs 404,000 553,000 733,000 755,000 7555,000 Potential Surplus 416,000 782,000 970,000 875,000 771,000 I Represents Supply Capability for resource programs under listed year type. 2 California Aqueduct includes Central Valley transfers and storage program supplies conveyed by the aqueduct. 3 Colorado River Aqueduct includes water management programs, IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings conveyed by the aqueduct. 4 Maximum CRA deliveries limited to 1.25 MAFincluding IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings. s Firm demands are adjusted 10 include IID-SDCWA transfers and canal linings. These supplies are calculated as local supply, but need to be shown for the purposes of CRA capacity limit calculations without double counting. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-7 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.2.2. Newport Beach's Imported Water Supply Projections Based on Metropolitan's supply projections that it will be able to meet full service demands under all three hydrologic scenarios, MWDOC, Orange county's wholesale supplier projects that it would also be able to meet the demands of its retail agencies under these conditions. California Water Code section 10631 (k) requires the wholesale agency to provide information to the urban retail water supplier for inclusion in its UWMP that identifies and quantifies the existing and planned sources of water available from the wholesale agency. Table 3-4 indicates the wholesaler's water availability projections by source for the next 25 years as provided to the City by MWDOC. The water supply projections shown in Table 3-4 represent the amount of supplies projected to meet demands. They do not represent the full supply capacity. Table 3-4: Wholesaler Identified & Quantified Existing and Planned Sources of Water (AFY) Wholesaler Sources Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt MWDOC 6,298 6,430 6,564 6,697 6,830 3.3. Groundwater Local groundwater has been the cheapest and most reliable source of supply for the City. The City relies on approximately 10,000 acre-feet of groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Orange County Basin) each year. This local source of supply meets approximately 60% of the City's total annual demand. In the effort to maximize local resources, Metropolitan has partnered with OCWD and MWDOC and its member agencies who are groundwater producers in various programs to encourage the development of local resources. Metropolitan's Groundwater Replenishment Program is a program where a groundwater producer may purchase imported water from Metropolitan at a reduced rate when "surplus" water is available in lieu of extracting groundwater. This program indirectly replenishes the basin by avoiding pumping. This section provides description of the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin and the management measures taken by OCWD the basin manager to optimize local supply and minimize overdraft. Moreover, this section provides information on historical groundwater production as well as a 25 -year projection of the City's groundwater supply. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-8 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability 3.3.1. Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin The Lower Santa Ana Groundwater Basin, also known as the Orange County Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies the north half of Orange County beneath broad lowlands. The Basin covers an area of approximately 350 square miles, bordered by the Coyote and Chino Hills to the north, the Santa Ana Mountains to the northeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and terminates at the Orange County line to the northwest, where its aquifer systems continue into the Central Basin of Los Angeles County. The aquifers comprising this Basin extend over 2,000 feet deep and form a complex series of interconnected sand and gravel deposits. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) was formed in 1933 by a special legislative act of the State of California Legislature to protect and manage the County's vast, natural, underground water supply with the best available technology and to defend its water rights to the Orange County Groundwater Basin. This legislation is found in the State of California Statutes, Water — Uncodified Acts, Act 5683, as amended .6 The Basin is managed by OCWD under the Act, which functions as a statutorily -imposed physical solution. Section 77 of the Act states that, `nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to affect or impair the vested right of any person, association or corporation to the use of water. The Basin is managed by OCWD for the benefit of municipal, agricultural and private groundwater producers. The Basin meets approximately 60 to 70 percent of the water supply demand within the boundaries of OCWD. There are 19 major producers including cities, water districts, and private water companies, extracting water from the Basin serving a population of approximately 2.55 million.8 Groundwater levels are managed within a safe basin operating range to protect the long- term sustainability of the basin and to protect against land subsidence. In 2007, OCWD established a new methodology for calculating accumulated overdraft and establishing new full -basin benchmarks.9 Based on OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan, the optimal accumulated overdraft is between 100,000 and 434,000 AF. At the top of the range, OCWD will be able to provide at least three years of drought supply. An accumulated overdraft condition minimizes the localized high groundwater levels and increases ability to recharge storm events from the Santa Ana River. At an accumulated overdraft of 200,000 AF, the Basin is considered 99.7 percent full. OCWD estimates that Orange County Water District Act, Section 77. 8 MWDOC and Center for Demographics Research (2008) 9 The Report on Evaluation of Orange County Groundwater Basin Storage and Operational Strategy, published in February 2007. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-9 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability the Basin can safely be operated on a short-term emergency basis with a maximum accumulated overdraft of approximately 500,000 AF. In an effort to eliminate long-term overdraft conditions, OCWD developed a comprehensive computer-based groundwater flow model to study and better understand the Basin's reaction to pumping and recharge. OCWD manages the Basin by establishing on an annual basis the appropriate level of groundwater production known as the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) as described below. 3.3.2. Basin Production Percentage No pumping right exists for the Orange County Basin. Total pumping from the basin is managed through a process that uses financial incentives to encourage groundwater producers to pump an aggregate amount of water that is sustainable without harming the Basin. The framework for the financial incentives is based on establishing the BPP which is the percentage of each Producer's total water supply that comes from groundwater pumped from the basin. Groundwater production at or below the BPP is assessed the Replenishment Assessment (RA). While there is no legal limit as to how much an agency could pump from the Basin, there is a financial disincentive to pumping above the BPP. Pumping above the BPP is also assessed a Basin Equity Assessment (BEA), which is calculated so that the cost of groundwater production is equal to MWDOC's melded rate. The BPP is set uniformly for all Producers by OCWD on an annual basis. The BPP for the 2008-2009 water year (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) was established at 69.0. The overall BPP achieved within OCWD for non -irrigation use in the 2008-09 water year was equal to 72.5 percent. The BPP has recently been set at 62 percent for the 2010-2011 water year. For the purpose of this UWMP, the BPP is assumed to be 62 percent for the entire 25 -year planning horizon (Table 3-5). Table 3-5: Current Basin Production Percentage Basin Name Basin Production Percentage Orange County Groundwater Basin 62% Total 62% The BPP is set based on groundwater conditions, availability of imported water supplies, and Basin management objectives. The BPP is also a major factor in determining the cost of groundwater production from the Basin for that year. When Metropolitan has an abundance of water, they may choose to activate their Groundwater Replenishment Program also known as In -Lieu Program, where imported water is purchased in -lieu of pumping groundwater. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-10 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability In some cases, OCWD encourages the pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to protect water quality. This is achieved by using a financial incentive called the BEA Exemption. A BEA Exemption is used to encourage pumping of groundwater that does not meet drinking water standards in order to clean up and contain the spread of poor quality water. OCWD uses a partial or total exemption of the BEA to compensate a qualified participating agency or Producer for the costs of treating poor -quality groundwater. When OCWD authorizes a BEA exemption for a project, it is obligated to provide the replenishment water for the production above the BPP and forgoes the BEA revenue that OCWD would otherwise receive from the producer. 3.3.3. Recharge Facilities Recharging water into the basin through natural and artificial means is essential to support pumping from the basin. Active recharge of groundwater began in 1949, in response to increasing drawdown of the basin and consequently the threat of seawater intrusion. In 1949, OCWD began purchasing imported Colorado River water from Metropolitan, which was delivered to Orange County via the Santa Ana River upstream of Prado Dam. The Basin's primary source of recharge is flow from the Santa Ana River. OCWD diverts river flows into recharge basins located in and adjacent to the Santa Ana River and its main Orange County tributary, Santiago Creek. Other sources of recharge water include natural infiltration and recycled water. Today OCWD owns and operates a network of recharge facilities that cover 1,067 acres. The recharge capacity has exceeded 10,000 AFY with the addition of the La Jolla Recharge Basin which came online in 2008. The La Jolla Recharge Basin is a 6 -acre recharge basin. One of OCWD's primary efforts has been the control of seawater intrusion into the Basin, especially via the Talbert and Alamitos seawater intrusion barriers. OCWD began addressing the Alamitos Gap intrusion by entering a partnership in 1965 with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to operate injection wells in the Alamitos Gap. Operation of the injection wells forms a hydraulic barrier to seawater intrusion. To address seawater intrusion in the Talbert Gap, OCWD constructed Water Factory 21, a plant that treated secondary -treated water from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to produce purified water for injection. Water Factory 21 operated for approximately 30 years until it was taken off line in 2004. It was replaced by an advanced water treatment system, the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS). The GWRS is a cooperative project between OCWD and OCSD that began operating in 2008. Secondary -treated wastewater from OCSD undergoes treatment consisting of microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation with ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide. It is the largest water purification project of its kind, Phase 1 of the GWRS began operating in 2008 with a capacity of purifying 72,000 AFY of water. The GWRS provides recharge water for the Talbert Injection Barrier as well as to recharge City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-11 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability basins in the City of Anaheim. The Expanded Talbert Injection Barrier included 8 new injection wells which operation began in 2008. The GWRS increased reliable, local water supplies available for barrier injection from 5 MGD to 30 MGD. 3.3.4. Metropolitan Groundwater Replenishment Program OCWD, MWDOC, and Metropolitan have developed a successful and efficient groundwater replenishment program to increase storage in the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The Groundwater Replenishment Program allows Metropolitan to sell groundwater replenishment water to OCWD and make direct deliveries to agency distribution systems in lieu of producing water from the groundwater basin when surplus water is available. This program indirectly replenishes the basin by avoiding pumping. In the in -lieu program, OCWD requests an agency to halt pumping from specified wells. The agency then takes replacement water through its import connections, which is purchased by OCWD from Metropolitan (through MWDOC). OCWD purchases the water at a reduced rate, and then bills the agency for the amount it would have had to pay for energy and the Replenishment Assessment (RA) if it had produced the water from its wells. The deferred local production results in water being left in local storage for future use. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD did not utilize replenishment water because such water was not available to purchase from Metropolitan. 3.3.5. Metropolitan Conjunctive Use Program Since 2004, OCWD, MWDOC, and participating producers have participated in Metropolitan's Conjunctive Use Program (known as the Metropolitan Long -Term Groundwater Storage Program). This program allows for the storage of Metropolitan water in the Orange County groundwater basin. The existing Metropolitan storage program provides for Metropolitan to store 66,000 AF of water in the basin in exchange for Metropolitan's contribution to improvements in basin management facilities. These improvements include eight new groundwater production wells, improvements to the seawater intrusion barrier, construction of the Diemer Bypass Pipeline. This water can be withdrawn over a three-year time period.. The preferred means to store water in the Metropolitan storage account has been through the in -lieu deliveries to participating groundwater producers. 3.3.6. Historical Groundwater Production Since its founding, OCWD has grown in size from 162,676 to 229,000 acres. Groundwater pumping from the basin has grown from approximately 150,000 AFY in the City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-12 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability mid-1950s to over 300,000 AFY. During the water year July 2008 to June 2009, total basin production for all agencies was approximately 324,147 acre-feet (AF). 10 The City obtains groundwater pumped from four wells owned and operated by the City and managed by OCWD. The City's wells are located in the City of Fountain Valley, approximately five miles north of the City. The only constraints affecting groundwater supply to the City are the pumping capacity of the wells and pumping limitations (BPP) established by OCWD to maintain the groundwater basin. Table 3-6 shows the City's recent groundwater production from the Basin in the past five years from 2005 to 2009. During certain seasons of 2005, 2006, and 2007, OCWD has operated the In -lieu Program with Metropolitan by purchasing water from Metropolitan to meet demands of member agencies rather than pumping water from the groundwater basin. In 2008 and 2009, OCWD did not utilize in -lieu water because such water was not available to purchase from Metropolitan. l i Table 3-6: Amount of Groundwater Pumped in the Past 5 Years (AFY) UBasin Name(s) Fiscal Year Ending IN 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BPP GW 4,984 3,546 3,605 14,338 11,309 Plus In -Lieu taken for OCWD 6,652 7,682 8,553 - - Subtotal OCWD Basin GW 11,636 11,228 12,158 14,338 11,309 of Total Water Supply 65% 63% 64% 78% 65% 3.3.7. Projections of Groundwater Production The mission of the OCWD is to provide local water retailers with a reliable, adequate, high quality water supply at the lowest reasonable cost in an environmentally responsible manner. Efforts have been made to develop and secure new supplies. Also in December 2008, OCWD secured the rights to divert and use up to 362,000 AFY of Santa Ana River water through a decision of the State Water Resources Control Board. Description to other recent OCWD projects can be found in OCWD's 2009 GWMP. Based on the annual MWDOC survey completed by each Producer in the spring of 2008, the estimated demand for groundwater in the OCWD boundary will increase from 519,000 AFY in 2015 to 558,000 AFY in 2035 representing a 7.5 percent increase over a 20 year period. OCWD's estimated total annual groundwater production for the water 10 2008-2009 Engineer's Report on Groundwater conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2010 11 2008-2009 Engineer's Report on Groundwater conditions, Water Supply and Basin Utilization in the Orange County Water District, February 2010 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-13 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability year 2010-2011 is 295,000 AF based on a BPP of 62 percent and includes 22,000 AF of production from water quality improvement projects. Table 3-7 shows the amount of groundwater projected to be pumped from the Basin in the next 25 years. The BPP is assumed to remain at 62 percent for the entire planning horizon. Table 3-7: Amount of Groundwater Projected to be Pumped (AFY) Basin Name(s) Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt BPP GW 10,052 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 of Total Water Supply 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62% 3.4. Recycled Water The City participates in a reclaimed/recycled water program and uses the water supplies available to water greenbelts, parkways, golf courses, and other landscape areas that may otherwise use valuable potable water for irrigation. This reclaimed/recycled water is wholesaled by OCWD through its Green Acres Project (GAP). In 2009/10, usage of recycled water within the City's Water Utility service area was about 400 acre feet. Recycled water usage meets approximately 3% of the City's water demand. The City's recycled water program is more fully described in Section 6. 3.5. Supply Reliability 3.5.1. Overview It is required that every urban water supplier assess the reliability to provide water service to its customers under normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. The City depends on a combination of imported and local supplies to meet its water demands and has taken numerous steps to insure it has adequate supplies. Development of groundwater, recycled water system, and desalination opportunities augments the reliability of the imported water system. There are various factors that may impact reliability of supplies such as legal, environmental, water quality and climatic which are discussed below. The water supplies are projected to meet full-service demands; Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan is able to meet with existing supplies, full-service demands of its member agencies starting 2015 through 2035 during normal years, single dry year, and multiple dry years. Metropolitan's 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan (IRP) update describes the core water resource strategy that will be used to meet full-service demands at the retail level under all foreseeable hydrologic conditions from 2015 through 2035. The foundation of City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-14 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Metropolitan's resource strategy for achieving regional water supply reliability has been to develop and implement water resources programs and activities through its IRP preferred resource mix. This preferred resource mix includes conservation, local resources such as water recycling and groundwater recovery, Colorado River supplies and transfers, SWP supplies and transfers, in -region surface reservoir storage, in -region groundwater storage, out -of -region banking, treatment, conveyance and infrastructure improvements. MWDOC is reliant on Metropolitan for all of its imported water. With the addition of planned supplies under development, Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP finds that Metropolitan will be able to meet full-service demands from 2015 through 2035, even under a repeat of the worst drought. Table 3-8 shows the reliability of the wholesaler's supply for single dry year and multiple dry year scenarios. Table 3-8: Wholesaler Supply Reliability - % of Normal AFY In addition to meeting full-service demands from 2015 through 2035, Metropolitan projects reserve and replenishment supplies to refill system storage. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP states that it will meet full-service demands to its customers from 2015 through 2035. Table 3-9 shows the basis of water year data used to predict drought supply availability. Table 3-9: Basis of Water Year Data Water Year Type Base Year Multiple Dry Water Years Base Year Single Average 1922-2004 Single -Dry Water Year 1977 Wholesaler Sources 1990 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Y MWDOC 100% 100% 100% 100% In addition to meeting full-service demands from 2015 through 2035, Metropolitan projects reserve and replenishment supplies to refill system storage. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP states that it will meet full-service demands to its customers from 2015 through 2035. Table 3-9 shows the basis of water year data used to predict drought supply availability. Table 3-9: Basis of Water Year Data Water Year Type Base Year Base Year Base Year Normal Water Year Average 1922-2004 Single -Dry Water Year 1977 Multiple -Dry Water Years 1990 1991 1992 3.5.2. Factors Impacting Reliability The Act requires a description of the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage. The City relies on import supplies provided by Metropolitan through MWDOC. The following are some of the factors identified by Metropolitan that may have an impact on the reliability of Metropolitan supplies. Environment — Endangered species protection needs in the Sacramento -San Joaquin River Delta have resulted in operational constraints to the SWP system. The Bay -Delta's declining ecosystem caused by agricultural runoff, operation of water pumps and other factors has led to historical restrictions in SWP supply deliveries. SWP delivery City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-15 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability restrictions due to the biological opinions resulted in the loss of about one-third of the available SWP supplies in 2008. Legal — Listings of additional species under the Endangered Species Act and new regulatory requirements could impact SWP operations by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. Additionally, the Quantification Settlement Agreement has been challenged in courts and may have impacts on the Imperial Irrigation District and San Diego County Water Authority transfer. If there are negative impacts, San Diego could become more dependent on the Metropolitan supplies. Water Quality —Water imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) contains high level of salts. The operational constraint is that this water needs to be blended with SWP supplies to meet the target salinity of 500 mg/L of total dissolved solids (TDS). Another water quality concern is related to quagga mussel. Controlling the spread and impacts of quagga mussels within the Colorado River Aqueduct require extensive maintenance and results in reduced operational flexibility. Climate Change — Changing climate patterns are expected to shift precipitation patterns and affect water supply. Unpredictable weather patterns will make water supply planning even more challenging. The areas of concern for California include the reduction in Sierra Nevada snowpack, increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea levels causing increased risk of levee failure. Legal, environmental, and water quality issues may have impacts on Metropolitan supplies. It is felt however climatic factors would have more of an impact than the others. Climatic conditions have been projected based on historical patterns; however severe pattern changes may occur in the future. Table 3-10 shows the factors resulting in inconsistency of supply. Table 3-10: Factors Resulting in Inconsistency of Supply Name of Supply Legal Environmental Water Quality Climatic State Water Project X X Colorado River X X These and other factors are addressed in greater detail in Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP. 3.5.2.1. Water Quality Imported Water - Metropolitan is responsible for providing water of a high quality throughout its service area. The water that Metropolitan delivers is tested both for City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-16 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability currently regulated contaminants and for additional contaminants of concern as over 300,000 water quality tests are conducted each year to regulate the safety of its waters. Metropolitan's supplies originate primarily from the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) and from the State Water Project (SWP). A blend of these two sources, proportional to each year's availability of the source, is then delivered throughout Metropolitan's service area. Metropolitan's primary sources face individual water quality issues of concern. The CRA water source contains a higher level of total dissolved solids (TDS) and a lower level of organic material while the SWP contains a lower TDS level while its level or organic materials is much higher, lending to the formation of disinfection byproducts. To remediate the CRA's high level of salinity and the SWP's high level of organic materials, Metropolitan has been blending CRA water with SWP supplies as well as implementing updated treatment processes to decrease the disinfection byproducts. In addition, Metropolitan has been engaged in efforts to protect its Colorado River supplies from threats of uranium, perchlorate, and chromium VI while also investigating the potential water quality impact of emerging contaminants, N-nitrosodimethylamine (MDMA) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). Metropolitan has assured its ability to overcome the above mentioned water quality concerns through its protection of source waters, implementation of renovated treatment processes, and blending of its two sources. While unforeseeable water quality issues could alter reliability, Metropolitan's current strategies ensure the deliverability of high quality water. Groundwater - The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is responsible for managing the Orange County Groundwater Basin. To maintain groundwater quality, OCWD conducts an extensive monitoring program that serves to manage the basin's groundwater production, control groundwater contamination, and comply with all necessary laws and regulations. 12 A network of nearly 700 wells provides OCWD a source for samples, which are tested for a variety of purposes. The District collects 600 to 1,700 samples each month to monitor the quality of the basin's water. These samples are collected and tested according to approved federal and state procedures as well as industry -recognized quality assurance and control protocols. OCWD recognizes the importance of maintaining the basin's high water quality. OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan Update includes a section labeled, "Water Quality Management," which discusses the water quality concerns as well as management programs that OCWD is currently involved with. 12 The information in this section is referenced from the Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update "Groundwater Monitoring" section (pages 3-1 through 3-20) and "Water Quality Management" section (pages 5-1 through 5-30). City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-17 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-11 shows the amount in acre-feet per year that water quality would have on supply. Table 3-11: Water Quality — Current and Projected Water Supply Impacts (AFY) Water Source Fiscal Year Ending 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Imported 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5.3. Normal -Year Reliability Comparison The City has entitlements and/or written contracts to receive imported water from Metropolitan via the regional distribution system. Although pipeline capacity rights do not guarantee the availability of water, per se, they do guarantee the ability to convey water when it is available to the Metropolitan distribution system. All imported water supplies assumed in this section are available to the City from existing water transmission facilities. Table 3-12 shows supply and demand under normal year conditions. Water supplies are projected to be available from Metropolitan; however, it is not included here since projected supplies meet projected demands. Table 3-12: Projected Normal Water Supply and Demand (AFY) 7T131313 Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 FImported 6,298 6,430 6,564 6,697 6,830 __��Total Supply 17,023 17,422 17,774 18,124 18,474 3.5.4. Single Dry -year Reliability Comparison The City has documented that it is 100% reliable for single dry year demands from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 4.6% using FY 2006-07 as the single dry year. Table 3-13 compiles supply and demand projections for a single dry water year. The available imported supply is greater than shown; however, it is not included because all demands are met. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-18 Section 3 Water Sources and Supply Reliability Table 3-13: Projected Single -Dry Year Water Supply and Demand (AFY) 3.5.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City is capable of providing their customers all their demands with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 4.6% using FY 2006-07 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin. Table 3-14 shows supply and demand projections under multiple dry year conditions. Table 3-14: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY) Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 _MO2030 2025 2030 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 3.5.5. Multiple Dry -Year Reliability Comparison The City is capable of providing their customers all their demands with significant reserves in multiple dry years from 2015 through 2035 with a demand increase of 4.6% using FY 2006-07 as the multiple dry years. This is true even if the demand projections were to be increased by a large margin. Table 3-14 shows supply and demand projections under multiple dry year conditions. Table 3-14: Projected Multiple Dry Year Period Supply and Demand (AFY) City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-19 Fiscal Year Ending 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 First Year Supply Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Second Year Supply Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 Total Demand 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 BPP GW 10,275 10,492 10,710 10,927 11,144 Third Year Supply Recycled Water 450 500 500 500 500 Imported 7,081 7,232 7,382 7,531 7,680 Total Supply 17,806 18,223 18,592 18,958 19,324 City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 3-19 4. Demand Management Measures 4.1. Overview Water conservation, often called demand-side management, can be defined as practices, techniques, and technologies that improve the efficiency of water use. Such practices are referred to as demand management measures (DMM). Increased efficiency expands the use of the water resource, freeing up water supplies for other uses, such as population growth, new industry, and environmental conservation. The increasing efforts in water conservation are spurred by a number of factors: growing competition for limited supplies, increasing costs and difficulties in developing new supplies, optimization of existing facilities, delay of capital investments in capacity expansion, and growing public support for the conservation of limited natural resources and adequate water supplies to preserve environmental integrity. The City recognizes the importance of water conservation and has made water use efficiency an integral part of water use planning. The City has been a signatory to the California Urban Water Conservation Council's (CUWCC) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) since August 2005. The City completed and submitted its first BMP Activity Report in fiscal year 2006 showing implementation status of each BMP. This section of the UWMP describes the DMMs currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation by the City to satisfy the requirements of § 10631 (f) & 0). Demand Management Measures as defined by the Act corresponds to the CUWCC's BMPs. The Act allows the urban water supplier who is signatory to the CUWCC MOU to submit to DWR copies of its annual reports and other relevant documents to assist DWR in determining whether the urban water supplier is implementing or scheduling the implementation of water demand management activities. 4.2. Water Use Efficiency Programs As Signatory to the Urban MOU, the City has committed to use good -faith efforts to implement the 14 cost-effective BMPs. The City has implemented and is actively participating in many water conservation activities. A Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 2009 in the City's municipal code as Chapter 14.16 Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-1 Section 4 Demand Management Measures Moreover, as a member agency of MWDOC, the City actively participates in various Metropolitan residential and CII rebate programs, as well as school and public education and outreach programs, and other programs administered by MWDOC. MWDOC implements many of the urban water conservation BMPs on behalf of its member agencies. MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP should be referred to for a detailed discussion of each regional BMP program. The City works cooperatively with MWDOC for technical and financial support needed to facilitate meeting the terms of the MOU. MWDOC's current Water Use Efficiency Program, detailed in their 2010 RUWMP, implemented on behalf of its member agencies following three basic focuses: 1. Regional Program Development — MWDOC develops, obtains funding for, and implements regional BMP programs on behalf of all retail water agencies in Orange County. 2. Local Program Assistance - MWDOC assists retail agencies to develop and implement local programs within their individual service areas. 3. Research and Evaluation — MWDOC conducts research programs which allow an agency to measure the water savings benefits of a specific program and then compare those benefits to the costs of implementing the program in order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the program. Table 4-1 provides an overview of City's DMM program status. Table 4-1: Urban Supplier's Demand Management Measures Overview Demand Management Measure (DMM) DMM Status Past Current Future Residential Water Surveys Residential Plumbing Retrofits System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair Metering with Commodity Rates Large Landscape Conservation Programs High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebates Public Information Programs School Education Programs Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Programs Wholesale Agency Assistance Conservation Pricing Conservation Coordinator Water Waste Prohibition Residential ULFT Replacement Programs City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-2 Section 4 Demand Management Measures 4.2.1. DMM 1: Water Survey Programs for Single -Family Residential and Multi -Family Residential Customers As part of this DMM, an agency targets single- and multi -family homes and sends out a qualified surveyor who checks water using devices within the house and evaluates landscapes and irrigation systems. MWDOC had a formal program that ended in FY 2001/02. Currently, the City has a program to monitor high water users through the billing system. City staff goes out to the high use customer's home to evaluate their indoor use and identify problems and fixes (e.g. leaky toilets). The City also participates in a regional landscape programs through MWDOC as explained below. In FY 2004/05, the City, along with MWDOC, participated in a regional program called the SmarTimer Rebate Program. Under this program, residential and small commercial properties are eligible for a rebate when they purchase and install a new, state-of-the-art, weather -based irrigation controller which can save 41 gallons per day per residence and can reduce runoff and pollution by 49 percent. The City is eligible to receive 1,192 valves over the life of the program. To date, 278 rebates have been given out to residential customers and 249 rebates to small commercial customers which translate to a water savings of approximately 636 acre-feet. The City will continue to provide on-site meetings, literature and incentives related to this program. As part of the MWDOC Grant for the SmarTimers a site audit and inspection is required and provided by contract through MWDOC. In FY 2007/08 the City with the assistance of a Cal Fed grant installed 640 weather -based irrigation controllers with pre and post installation inspections. This program found that the first 100 homes retrofit with smart controllers saved 458,000 gallons in the first comparison billing period. One homeowners association (HOA), who first retrofit with smart controllers and them retrofit for irrigation system uniformity, saved 1.3 million gallons in the first comparison billing period. Moreover, the City is in the process of contracting for a professional/consultant that can assist the City in developing a residential and commercial site auditing program. Presently the City pays a contractor for audits as needed. Once the City has developed a program it is the desire of the City to hire a full or part-time professional staff person to do audits for residential and commercial properties as well as site measurements for public properties. 4.2.2. DMM 2: Residential Plumbing Retrofit Between 1994 and 2009, the City, in conjunction with MWDOC, distributed a total of 7,219 ultra low flush toilets (ULFT) to single-family and multi -family homes. In addition, through Metropolitan's mass showerhead distribution, the City installed 4,453 low -flow showerheads between 1991 and 1998, and over 75 percent of the City's single - and multi -family homes constructed prior to 1992 are fitted with low -flow showerheads. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-3 Section 4 Demand Management Measures MWDOC estimated that today low flow showerhead saturation is at nearly 100% for single-family homes and at 94% for multi -family homes. Both the low -flow shower head program and ULFT rebate program have sunset. The City has met the requirement for this DMM. 4.2.3. DMM 3: System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair The City records daily production and demand data and reads all meters on a bi-monthly basis. All metered sales and other verifiable uses such as backwash, flushwater, and operation and maintenance, are recorded. The unaccounted water loss varies year to year but is approximately five percent of the total water in the system. The City is meeting the requirement for this DMM. 4.2.4. DMM 4: Metering with Commodity Rates All of the City's water connections are metered and billed based on commodity rates. 4.2.5. DMM 5: Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives The City supports large landscape conservation through MWDOC's regional programs including the Landscape Performance Certification Program and the Smart Timer Rebate Program. The City encourages commercial properties such as golf courses and HOAs to take advantage of these programs. The City continued participation in MWDOC's landscape rebate programs resulted in the installation of 9,428 sq. ft. of synthetic turf (4.3 acre-feet), 5,520 rotating nozzles (51 acre-feet savings), and 278 smart timers for residential customers and 249 smart timers for commercial customers (636 acre-feet). Details of each landscape program are provided below. MWDOC Landscape Performance Certification Program MWDOC has a program titled "Landscape Performance Certification Program", which provides a water-based budget for dedicated meters. This program involves developing water budgets based off of agency -provided consumption data, site -provided area measurement, local weather data, and contact information for the site owner, the responsible landscape company, and a property manager. On a monthly basis, the site's water budget is developed by water meter and provided back to the three involved entities in an e-mail report card format. Also included is a website where all involved can view their site for budget numbers, which illustrate whether a meter is over, under, or exactly at their budget. Included is a calculation based on individual water rates showing dollars lost. This program does not include a formal landscape survey component. Financial incentives are offered to improve landscape water use efficiency, and regional funding is available from Metropolitan. The City has participated in the Landscape Performance Certification Program since its initiation in FY 2004-05. The number of participated landscape meters has increased City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-4 Section 4 Demand Management Measures from 32 in FY 2004-05 to 171 in FY 2010-11. Through the SmarTimer Grant the City is requiring all Commercial applicants to participate in this program as a condition of funding by the City. Smart Timer Rebate Program As described under DMM 1, the Smart Timer Rebate Program offers residential and small commercial properties a rebate when they purchase and install a new, state-of-the- art, weather -based irrigation controller which can save 41 gallons per day per residence and can reduce runoff and pollution by 49 percent. The City is eligible to receive 1,192 valves over the life of the program. In FY 2004/05, three residential and seventeen small commercial customers participated. As of FY 2010-11 the total program participation has increased to 278 residential and 249 commercial customers. 4.2.6. DMM 6: High -Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Programs Orange County residents are eligible to receive an $85 rebate when they purchase of a new High Efficiency Clothes Washer (HECW). This program began in 2001 and is sponsored by MWDOC, Metropolitan, and local retail water agencies. Rebates are available on a first-come, first-served basis, while funds last. Participants must be willing to allow an inspection of the installed machine for verification of program compliance. Machines must have a water factor of 4.0 or less. Depending on use, these machines can save 10,000 gallons of water per year Participants are encouraged to contact their local gas and/or electric utility as additional rebates may be available. Over the past 9 years, 1,918 residences have installed HECWs through this program representing a water savings of approximately 240 acre-feet. The City continues to provide information to residences about these rebate programs. 4.2.7. DMM 7: Public Information Programs The City has an active program to promote and educate its customers about water conservation and other water -related topics. The City participates annually in the Children's Water Education Festival sponsored by OCWD, The Disneyland Resort and various cities and agencies throughout Orange County. Moreover, when requested, the Water Conservation Coordinator goes into the classrooms, interest groups, and homeowner associations to discuss various aspects of conservation. The City has also updated its website to include conservation related materials and information. The City has taken the lead to educating its residents on the importance of using water wisely and caring for their watershed. The City currently provides customers with various tools, programs and incentives that are promoted through outreach marketing campaigns to reach as diverse an audience as possible. The City's Water Conservation Marketing Campaigns comprises of many programs as described below. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-5 Section 4 Demand Management Measures July: Smart Irrigation Month — June 2008, City Council adopted a resolution declaring July as "Smart Irrigation Month" to promote a reminder for residents to repair faulty irrigation systems and install ETo controllers using Metropolitan's region -wide TV, radio and print advertising campaign. WaterSmartNewport.org — This website is the City's water conservation campaign with the goal to create a recognizable brand specific to the City. Interest Group and Public Events — The City uses public events and relationships with nonprofit groups to promote public awareness. City staff presents at clubs and HOA such Kiwanis and Rotary and participate in environmental related events alongside interest groups and nonprofits. Media Outreach: Public Service Announcements (PSAs), NBTV and Magazine Print Articles — The City reaches a broad age demographic through TV and magazine articles. In 2010, PSAs are featured on NBTV, City website, cable TV, pre -movie display in all City movie theaters, and through other media outlets. 4.2.8. DMM 8: School Education Programs Since 1975, MWDOC has offered water education programs to Orange County public and private schools for all grade levels from kindergarten through high school. The City participates in this program, and during FY 2009/10, MWDOC and the City's Water Conservation coordinator made 6 presentations to 1,687 students. 4.2.9. DMM 9: Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Accounts Save Water, Save a Buck This program began in 2002 and offers rebates to assist commercial, industrial, and institutional customers in replacing high-flow plumbing fixtures with low -flow fixtures. Facilities where low -flow devices are installed must be located in Orange County. Rebates are available only on those devices listed in Table 4-2 below and must replace higher water use devices. Installation of devices is the responsibility of each participant. Participants may purchase and install as many of the water saving devices as is applicable to their site. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-6 Section 4 Demand Management Measures Table 4-2: Retrofit Devices and Rebate Amounts Available Under Save Water Save a Buck Program Retrofit Device I Rebate Amount High Efficiency Toilet $50 Ultra -Low -Water or Zero Water Urinal $200 Connectionless Food Steamers $485 per compartment Air -Cooled Ice Machines (Tier III) $300 Cooling Tower Conductivity Controller $625 pH / Conductivity Controller $1,750 Dry Vacuum Pumps $125 per HP Water Pressurized Broom $110 As of FY 2010/11 the City's commercial, industrial, and institutional customers have installed a total 1,231 water -saving fixtures since the program inception in FY 2001/02. This represents a water savings of 540 acre-feet. The City will continue to educate this account category to meet the DMM requirements. The City is also working with the Orange County Sanitation District to target CII customers in the City who could benefit from the reduction or recycling are large water using devices that Metropolitan will help fund to upgrade. Water Smart Hotel Program In 2008 and 2009, MWDOC received grants from the CA Department of Water Resources and the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to conduct the Water Smart Hotel Program, a program designed to provide Orange County hotels and motels with commercial and landscape water saving surveys, incentives for retrofits and customer follow-up and support. The goal of the program is to implement water use efficiency changes in hotels to achieve an anticipated water savings of 7,078 acre feet over 10 years. The Program is offered to hotels in MWDOC's service area as identified by retail water agencies. It is anticipated that detailed survey of the indoor and outdoor water using aspects of up to 105 participating hotels will be performed. Participating hotels will receive survey reports that recommend indoor and outdoor retrofits, upgrades, and other changes that should, based on the survey, result in significant water savings. Quantities of each device and associated fixture and installation costs, water savings and payback information (based on rebate amount Incentives offered through the Save Water Save A Buck Rebate Program will be augmented using DWR and USBR Water Use Efficiency City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-7 Section 4 Demand Management Measures grant funds to bridge the gap between existing incentives and the actual costs of Hotel Water Survey recommendations. To date, over 24 surveys have been performed county- wide, and over 9,500 water -saving devices have been installed through the program. These devices are saving 351 acre feet per year or 3,510 acre feet over the ten year device life 4.2.10. DMM 10: Wholesale Agency Programs The City is not a wholesale agency, so this DMM does not apply. 4.2.11. DMM 11: Conservation Pricing The City currently has uniform pricing for all water. The City is currently investigating the various tiered rate pricing schemes so it can report to the Council on the efficiency and staffing requirements to convert the current billing system to one that includes tiered pricing. 4.2.12. DMM 12: Water Conservation Coordinator The City has a designated water conservation coordinator, Shane Burckle, and thus meets this DMM. 4.2.13. DMM 13: Water Waste Prohibition Most recently, the City Council has approved NBMC 14.16 Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations which establishes permanent water conservation requirements intended to alter behavior related to water use efficiency for non -shortage conditions and further establishes four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage. Details of this water ordinance are provided in Section 5 of this UWMP. 4.2.14. DMM 14: Residential Ultra -Low -Flush Toilet Replacement Programs Over the past 19 years, MWDOC has continuously implemented a regional ULF Toilet Rebate and/or Distribution Program targeting single- and multi -family homes in Orange County. Since the end of distribution program in 2004, MWDOC's program has focused solely on providing rebate incentives for retrofitting non -efficient devices with either ULFTs or High Efficiency Toilets (HETS) — toilets using 1.28 gallons per flush or less. The ULFT portion of this program concluded in June 2009, and over 360,000 ULFTs were replaced in single family and multi -family homes, with an overall program to date savings of approximately 138,457 acre feet of water. The HET rebate program, which concluded in 2010, has incentivized over 26,000 devices, with an overall program to date savings of approximately 3,419. The City has participated in this program from the beginning. To date 7,219 ULFTs and 254 HETs have been installed representing a combined water savings of 2,719 acre-feet. The City meets the coverage requirements for this DMM. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-8 Section 4 Demand Management Measures City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 4-9 5. Water Supplies Contingency Plan Recent water supply challenges throughout the American Southwest and the State of California have resulted in the development of a number of policy actions that water agencies would implement in the event of a water shortage. In southern California, the development of such policies has occurred at both the wholesale and retail level. This section describes how new and existing policies that Metropolitan, MWDOC and the City have in place to respond to water supply shortages, including a catastrophic interruption and up to a 50 percent reduction in water supply. 5.1. Shortage Actions Metropolitan As an importer of water from multiple sources, including both the Colorado River and Sierra Nevada, a number of water supply challenges have impacted the reliability of Metropolitan's imported supplies. In response to these challenges, Metropolitan has implemented existing policies as well as developed new ones. The first action that Metropolitan implements in the event of a water shortage is the suspension and/or reduction of its interruptible supplies, which are supplies sold at a discount in return for the buyers agreeing to be the first to be cutback in the event of a shortage. Metropolitan currently has two interruptible programs for agricultural users and groundwater replenishment, under which supplies were either suspended or reduced in 2007. In addition, in preparation for the possibility of being unable to the meet "firm demands" (non -interruptible supplies) of its member agencies, in February 2008, the Metropolitan's Board of Directors (Board) adopted the Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP), which was subsequently updated in June 2009. Metropolitan's plan includes the specific formula for calculating member agency supply allocations and the key implementation elements needed for administering an allocation. Metropolitan's WSAP is the foundation for the urban water shortage contingency analysis required under Water Code Section 10632 and is part of Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP. Metropolitan's WSAP was developed in consideration of the principles and guidelines described in Metropolitan's 1999 Water Surplus and Drought Management Plan (WSDM), with the objective of creating an equitable needs -based allocation. The plan's City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-1 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan formula seeks to balance the impacts of a shortage at the retail level while maintaining equity on the wholesale level for shortages of Metropolitan supplies of up to 50 percent. The formula takes into account: impact on retail customers and the economy; growth and population; changes in supply conditions; investments in local resources; demand hardening aspects of non -potable recycled water use; implementation of conservation savings program; participation in Metropolitan's interruptible programs; and investments in facilities. The formula is calculated in three steps: based period calculations, allocation year calculations, and supply allocation calculations. The first two steps involve standard computations, while the third section contains specific methodology developed for the WSAP. Step 1: Base Period Calculations — The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the three most recent non -shortage years, 2004-2006. Step 2: Allocation Year Calculations — The next step in calculating the water supply allocation is estimating water needs in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates of retail demand for population or economic growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Supply Allocation Calculations — The final step is calculating the water supply allocation for each member agency based on the allocation year water needs identified in Step 2. Each element and its application in the allocation formula are discussed in detail in Metropolitan's WSAP. In order to implement the WSAP, the Metropolitan Board makes a determination on the level of the regional shortage, based on specific criteria, in April each year. If it is determined allocations are necessary, they go into effect in July for that year and remain for a 12 -month period, although the schedule is at the discretion of Metropolitan's Board. Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP forecasts that Metropolitan will be able to meet projected firm demands throughout the forecast period from 2015 to 2035. However, these projections do not mean that Metropolitan would not implement its WSAP during this period. MWDOC To prepare for the potential allocation of imported water supplies from Metropolitan, MWDOC worked collaboratively with its 28 member agencies to develop its own Water City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-2 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Supply Allocation Plan (MWDOC WSAP), adopted January 2009, to allocate imported water supplies at the retail level. The MWDOC WSAP lays out the essential components of how MWDOC will determine and implement each member agency's allocation during a time of shortage. The MWDOC WSAP uses a similar method and approach, when reasonable, as that of the Metropolitan's WSAP. However, MWDOC's plan remains flexible to use an alternative approach when Metropolitan's method produces a significant unintended result for the member agencies. The MWDOC WSAP model follows five (5) basic steps to determine a retail agency's imported supply allocation. Step 1: Determine Baseline Information — The first step in calculating a water supply allocation is to estimate water supply and demand using a historical based period with established water supply and delivery data. The base period for each of the different categories of demand and supply is calculated using data from the last three non -shortage years — calendar years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Step 2: Establish Allocation Year Information — In this step, the model adjusts for each member agency's water need in the allocation year. This is done by adjusting the base period estimates for increased retail water demand based on growth and changes in local supplies. Step 3: Calculate Initial Minimum Allocation Based on Metropolitan's Declared Shortage Level — This step sets the initial water supply allocation for each member agency. After a regional shortage level is established, MWDOC will calculate the initial allocation as a percentage of adjusted Base Period Imported water needs within the model for each member agency. Step 4: Apply Allocation Adjustments and Credits in the Areas of Retail Impacts, Conservation, and the Interim Agriculture Water Program — In this step, the model assigns additional water to address disparate impacts at the retail level caused by an across-the-board cut of imported supplies. It also applies a conservation credit given to those agencies that have achieved additional water savings at the retail level as a result of successful implementation of water conservation devices, programs and rate structures. Step 5: Sum Total Allocations and Determine Retail Reliability — This is the final step in calculating a retail agency's total allocation for imported supplies. The model sums an agency's total imported allocation with all of the adjustments and credits and then calculates each agency's retail reliability compared to its Allocation Year Retail Demand. The MWDOC WSAP includes additional measures for plan implementation, including the following: City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-3 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan • Appeal Process — An appeals process to provide member agencies the opportunity to request a change to their allocation based on new or corrected information. MWDOC anticipates that under most circumstances, a member agency's appeal will be the basis for an appeal to Metropolitan by MWDOC. • Melded Penalty Rate Structure — At the end of the allocation year, MWDOC would only charge a penalty to each member agency that exceeded their allocation if MWDOC exceeds its total allocation and is required to pay a penalty to Metropolitan. Metropolitan enforces allocations to member agencies through a tiered penalty rate structure: penalty rates to a member agency that exceeds its total annual allocation at the end of the twelve-month allocation period, according to a specified rate structure. MWDOC's penalty would be assessed according to the member agency's prorated share (acre-feet over usage) of MWDOC penalty amount with Metropolitan. Penalty funds collected by Metropolitan will be invested in water conservation and local resource development. • Tracking and Reporting Water Usage — MWDOC will provide each member agency with water use monthly reports that will compare each member agency's current cumulative retail usage to their allocation baseline. MWDOC will also provide quarterly reports on it cumulative retail usage versus its allocation baseline. • Timeline and Option to Revisit the Plan — The allocation period will cover 12 consecutive months and the Regional Shortage Level will be set for the entire allocation period. MWDOC only anticipates calling for allocation when Metropolitan declares a shortage; and no later than 30 days from Metropolitan's declaration will MWDOC announce allocation to its member agencies. Due to the complexity of calculating allocations and the potential for unforeseen circumstances that may occur during an allocation year, after one year of implementation, MWDOC staff and member agencies have the opportunity to make recommendations to the MWDOC Board that will improve the method, calculation, and approach of the MWDOC WSAP. City of Newport Beach In 1992, the City adopted its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) in response to California Assembly Bill Number 11. The WSCP is intended to conservatively manage the City's water resources to provide water to its customers on an equitable and business - sound basis, in the event of a curtailment of deliveries of up to 50 percent. The City adopted Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations Ordinance No. 2010-16 on September 14, 2010, which establishes a comprehensive staged water conservation program that will encourage reduced water consumption within the City through conservation, enable effective water supply planning, assure reasonable and City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-4 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan beneficial use of water, prevent waste of water, and maximize the efficient use of water within the City. Along with permanent water conservation requirements, the City's Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations consists of the following four stages found in Table 5-1 to respond to a reduction in potable water available to the City for distribution to its customers with permanent conservation requirements in effect at all times unless a mandatory conservation stage has been implemented by the City. Table 5-1: Water Supply Shortage Stages and Conditions — Rationing Stages Stage No. Water Supply o /Shortage Conditions Level 1 Mandatory Conservation The City Council Requirements determines that a water supply shortage or Level 2 Mandatory Conservation Requirements threatened shortage exists, due to drought or To be Level 3 Mandatory Conservation Requirements other water supply conditions, and it is determined by the City necessary to impose the Council. Level 4 Mandatory Conservation mandatory conservation Requirements requirements applicable to the particular level of water supply shortage. 5.2. Three -Year Minimum Water Supply Metropolitan does not provide annual estimates of the minimum supplies available to its member agencies. As such, Metropolitan member agencies must develop their own estimates for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the Act. Section 135 of the Metropolitan Water District Act declares that a member agency has the right to invoke its "preferential right" to water, which grants each member agency a preferential right to purchase a percentage of Metropolitan's available supplies based on specified, cumulative financial contributions to Metropolitan. Each year, Metropolitan calculates and distributes each member agency's percentage of preferential rights. However, since Metropolitan's creation in 1927, no member agency has ever invoked these rights as a means of acquiring limited supplies from Metropolitan. As an alternative to preferential rights, Metropolitan adopted the Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) in February 2008. Under the WSAP, member agencies are allowed to purchase a specified level of supplies without the imposition of penalty rates. The WSAP uses a combination of estimated total retail demands and historical local supply production within the member agency service area to estimate the firm demands on Metropolitan from each member agency in a given year. Based on a number of City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-5 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan factors, including storage and supply conditions, Metropolitan then determines whether it has the ability to meet these firm demands or will need to allocate its limited supplies among its member agencies. Thus, implicit in Metropolitan's decision not to implement an allocation of its supplies is that at a minimum Metropolitan will be able to meet the firm demands identified for each of the member agencies. In order to estimate the minimum available supplies from Metropolitan for the period 2011-2013, an analysis was performed to assess the likelihood that Metropolitan would re -implement mandatory water use restrictions in the event of a 1990-92 hydrologic conditions over this period. Specific water management actions during times of water shortage are governed by Metropolitan's Water Shortage and Drought Management Plan (WSDM Plan). Adopted by the Metropolitan Board in 1999, the WSDM Plan provides a general framework for potential storage actions during shortages, but recognizes that storage withdrawals are not isolated actions but part of a set of resource management actions along with water transfers and conservation. As such, there is no specific criterion for which water management actions are to be taken at specific levels of storage. The implementation of mandatory restrictions is solely at the discretion of the Metropolitan Board and there are no set criteria that require the Board to implement restrictions. Given these conditions, the analysis relies upon a review of recent water operations and transactions that Metropolitan has implemented during recent drought. The first step in the analysis was a review of projected SWP allocations to Metropolitan, based on historical hydrologies. As with the recent drought, potential impacts to SWP supplies from further drought and the recently implemented biological opinions are anticipated to be the biggest challenges facing Metropolitan in the coming three years. A review of projected SWP allocations from the DWR's State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2009 (2009 SWP Reliability Report) was made to estimate a range of conservative supply assumptions regarding the availability of SWP supplies. The 2009 SWP Reliability Report provides estimates of the current (2009) and future (2029) SWP delivery reliability and incorporates regulatory requirements for SWP and CVP operations in accordance with USFWS and NMFS biological opinions. Estimates of future reliability also reflect potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The analysis assumes a maximum SWP allocation available to Metropolitan of 2,011,500 AF and a Metropolitan storage level of 1,700,000 AF at 2010 year-end. The analysis also assumes a stable water supply from the Colorado River in the amount of 1,150,000 AF through 2015. Although the Colorado River watershed has also experienced drought in recent years, Metropolitan has implemented a number of supply programs that should ensure that supplies from this source are relatively steady for the next three years. Based on estimated "firm" demands on Metropolitan of 2.12 MAF, the annual surplus or deficit was calculated for each year of the three-year period. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-6 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan A review of recent Metropolitan water management actions under shortage conditions was then undertaken to estimate the level of storage withdrawals and water transfers that Metropolitan may exercise under the 1990-92 hydrologic conditions were identified. For this analysis, it was assumed that, if Metropolitan storage levels were greater than 2 MAF at the beginning of any year, Metropolitan would be willing to take up to 600 TAF out of storage in that year. Where Metropolitan storage supplies were between 1.2 MAF and 2 MAF at the beginning of the year, it was assumed that Metropolitan would be willing to take up to 400 TAF in that year. At storage levels below 1.2 MAF, it was assumed that Metropolitan would take up to 200 TAF in a given year. It was also assumed that Metropolitan would be willing to purchase up to 300 TAF of water transfer in any given year. For years where demands still exceeded supplies after accounting for storage withdrawals, transfer purchases were estimated and compared against the 300 TAF limit. Table 5-2: Metropolitan Shortage Conditions Study Year Actual Year SWP Allocation (%) SWP (AF) CRA (AF) Total (AF) Demand (AF) Surplus/ Shortage (AF) Stora at YE (AF) Transfers (AF) 2011 1990 30% 603,450 1,108,000 1,711,450 2,124,000 (400,000) 1,300,000 (12,550) 2012 1991 27% 542,820 1,108,000 1,650,820 2,123,000 (200,000) 1,100,000 (272,180) 2013 1992 26% 522,990 1,108,000 1,630,990 2,123,000 (200,000) 900,000 (292,010) Based on the analysis above, Metropolitan would be able to meet firm demands under the driest three-year hydrologic scenario using the recent water management actions described above without re -implementing mandatory water use restrictions on its member agencies. Given the assumed absence of mandatory restrictions, the estimated minimum imported water supplies available to MWDOC from Metropolitan is assumed to be equal to Metropolitan's estimate of demand for firm supplies for MWDOC, which Metropolitan uses when considering whether to impose mandatory restrictions. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to MWDOC is 261,577 AF13. MWDOC also has also adopted a shortage allocation plan and accompanying allocation model that estimates firm demands on MWDOC. Assuming MWDOC would not be imposing mandatory restrictions if Metropolitan is not, the estimate of firms demands in MWDOC's latest allocation model has been used to estimate the minimum imported supplies available to each of MWDOC's customer agencies for 2011-13. Thus, the estimate of the minimum imported supplies available to the City is 7,891 AF 14 13 Metropolitan 2010/11 Water Shortage Allocation Plan model (March 2011) 14 MWDOC Water Shortage Allocation model (August 20 10) City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-7 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan As captured in its 2010 RUWMP, Metropolitan believes that the water supply and demand management actions it is undertaking will increase its reliability throughout the 25 -year period addressed in its plan. Thus for purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that Metropolitan and MWDOC will be able to maintain the identified supply amounts throughout the three-year period. Metropolitan projects reliability for full service demands through the year 2035. Additionally, through a variety of groundwater reliability programs conducted by OCWD and participated in by the City, local supplies are projected to be maintained at demand levels. Based on the MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan, the City is expected to fully meet demands for the next three years assuming Metropolitan and MWDOC are not in shortage, a Basin Production Percentage of 62% for Local Supplies and zero allocations are imposed for Imported Supplies. Normal year supplies are based on the Base Period supply in the MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan, which is the average of the last three non -shortage calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006. The Three Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply is listed in Table 5-3. Table 5-3: Three -Year Estimated Minimum Water Supply (AFY) Source Normal Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Base Year 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 Local Supplies 4,778 10,267 10,267 10,267 Imported Supply 13,126 7,891 7,891 7,891 Total 17,904 18,158 18,158 18,158 5.3. Catastrophic Supply Interruption Given the great distances that imported supplies travel to reach Orange County, the region is vulnerable to interruptions along hundreds of miles aqueducts, pipelines and other facilities associated with delivering the supplies to the region. Additionally, this water is distributed to customers through an intricate network of pipes and water mains that are susceptible to damage from earthquakes and other disasters. Metropolitan Metropolitan has comprehensive plans for stages of actions it would undertake to address a catastrophic interruption in water supplies through its WSDM and WSAP Plans. Metropolitan also developed an Emergency Storage Requirement to mitigate against potential interruption in water supplies resulting from catastrophic occurrences within the southern California region, including seismic events along the San Andreas Fault. In addition, Metropolitan is working with the State to implement a comprehensive City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-8 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan improvement plan to address catastrophic occurrences that could occur outside of the Southern California region, such as a maximum probable seismic event in the Delta that would cause levee failure and disruption of SWP deliveries. For greater detail on Metropolitan's planned responses to catastrophic interruption, please refer to Metropolitan's RUWMP. Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County In 1983, the Orange County water community identified a need to develop a plan on how agencies would respond effectively to disasters impacting the regional water distribution system. The collective efforts of these agencies resulted in the formation of the Water Emergency Response Organization of Orange County (WEROC) to coordinate emergency response on behalf of all Orange County water and wastewater agencies, develop an emergency plan to respond to disasters, and conduct disaster training exercises for the Orange County water community. WEROC was established with the creation of an indemnification agreement between its member agencies to protect each other against civil liabilities and to facilitate the exchange of resources. WEROC is unique in its ability to provide a single point of contact for representation of all water and wastewater utilities in Orange County during a disaster. This representation is to the county, state, and federal disaster coordination agencies. Within the Orange County Operational Area, WEROC is the recognized contact for emergency response for the water community. City of Newport Beach The City developed its Emergency Preparedness Plan in 1998 to meet emergencies within its service area and has updated the plan as necessary. The plan provides information on City operations, assigns responsibilities, and establishes general policies and procedures associated with operations during natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense emergencies. Table 5-4 summaries various possible catastrophes and a summary of the actions that would be taken in response. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-9 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-4: Preparation Actions for Catastrophe Possible Catastrophe Preparation Actions Request information from SCE to determine how long outage will be. Pump Stations will automatically utilize back-up power through an auto -transfer Regional Power Outage switch. Utilize Metropolitan connections and emergency supply in Big Canyon Reservoir. Notify customers, media, state and local authorities if service is disrupted or significant demand management is necessary. The City would activate its EOC and each Department would activate their respective DOC's. All City departments are assigned specific functions as Earthquake described in the Functional Responsibility Matrix. Each department will respond to, manage, and request mutual aid resources/personnel to respond to their assigned responsibilities. Issue boil alert of "do not drink" orders as needed. Request information from Metropolitan on length of shutdown. If insignificant, utilize emergency water Diemer Plant Shutdown storage or pump groundwater from wells to supply demand for all customers. Also, potentially implement water use prohibitions, depending on length and severity. Notify Newport Beach Police Department and Department of Health Services. Attempt to isolate affected areas, in known, Supply Contamination preventing spreading to other areas. Issue a "do not drink" or boil order as necessary. Provide alternate water supply to areas affected. Activation of EOC would depend on severity. Request information from other City departments on the severity and location of the flooding, to Flooding determine the potential damage to facilities. Activation of DOC and potentially EOC, based on severity. Utilize portable pumps and generators at locations most affected. Emergency evacuation. Subsequently, possible activation of DOC and Tsunami EOC based on severity. Have not fully addressed this event. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-10 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan 5.4. Prohibitions, Penalties and Consumption Reduction Methods Prohibitions The Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations Ordinance No. 2010-16 lists water conservation requirements which shall take effect upon implementation by the City Council. These prohibitions shall promote the efficient use of water, reduce or eliminate water waste, complement the City's Water Quality regulations and urban runoff reduction efforts, and enable implementation of the City's Water Shortage Contingency Measures. Prohibitions include, but are not limited to, restrictions on outdoor watering, washing of vehicles, food preparation establishments, repairing of leaks and other malfunctions, swimming pools, decorative water features, construction activities, and water service provisions which can be found in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Mandatory Prohibitions Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory The use of potable water to irrigate any lawn and/or ornamental landscape area using a landscape irrigation system or watering device that is not continuously attended is prohibited unless such irrigation is limited to no more than fifteen Year Round (15) minutes per day per station. Systems that lawfully use recycled water or use very low flow drip type irrigation systems, weather based controllers, or stream rotor sprinklers are exempt. Watering of any vegetated area in a manner that causes excessive water flow or runoff onto an Year Round adjoining sidewalk, street, driveway, alley, gutter, or ditch is prohibited. Washing down sidewalks, walkways, drive ways, parking areas, or other paved surfaces is prohibited except as required to alleviate safety or Year Round sanitary hazards by use of a handheld container or hose equipped with an automatic shutoff device. Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired Year Round within seven (7) days notice by the City, unless other arrangements have been made with the City. The use of potable water for landscape irrigation Year Round during a rainfall event is prohibited. By July 1, 2012, all landscape irrigation systems connected to dedicated landscape meters shall Year Round include rain sensors that automatically shut off City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-11 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory such systems during periods of rain or include evapotranspiration systems that schedule irrigation based on climatic conditions. Water fountains and other decorative water Year Round features must use a re -circulating water system The use of water to clean a vehicle is prohibited except by use of a handheld container, hose Year Round equipped with an automatic shut off device, or at a commercial car washing facility. All new commercial conveyor car wash systems in commercial car washing facilities shall be Year Round operational re -circulating water systems. By January 1, 2013, all commercial conveyor car wash systems in commercial car washing facilities shall be operational re -circulating water systems, Year Round or the customer must have secured an exemption from this requirement. No public place where food is sold, served, or offered for sale shall serve drinking water to Year Round customers unless requested. Commercial lodging establishments must provide customers the option of not having towels and Year Round linen laundered daily. No installation of a single pass cooling system. Year Round All new washing machines installed in commercial and/or coin-operated laundries shall be ENERGY STAR" and CEE Tier III qualified. By January 1, Year Round 2014, all washing machines installed in commercial and/or coin-operated laundries shall be ENERGY STAR' and CEE Tier III qualified. No customer shall use water from any fire hydrant for any purpose other than fire suppression or emergency aid without first: (1) requesting and Year Round posting the appropriate fees at the City, and (2) obtaining a hydrant meter to record all water consumption for a specified project. No person shall use potable water for soil compaction or dust control in a construction site where there is an appropriate source of non - potable water approved by the Department of Year Round Public Health. No person shall operate a hose within a construction site that is not equipped with an automatic shutoff device, provided such devices are available for the size and type of hose in use. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-12 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory New or remodeled commercial kitchens shall be equipped with water conserving kitchen spray Year Round valves and best -available water -conserving technology. Defrosting of food with running water is Year Round prohibited. Scoop sinks shall be set at minimum water flow at Year Round all times and shut off during non -working hours. Hoses used for commercial kitchen areas must be Year Round equipped with an automatic shut off device. Watering or irrigation of vegetated areas is limited to four (4) days per week from April — October and two (2) days per week from November — March except by use of a hand held device, hose Level 1 equipped with an automatic shutoff device, low flow irrigation systems, irrigation of food crops, for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system, or with approved recycled water. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level One water supply shortage, whose Level 1 percentage shall be in the range from one hundred (100) percent and ninety (90) percent of the base amount. Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired Level 1 within three (3) days notice by the City, unless other arrangements have been made with the City. Filling or refilling ornamental lakes and ponds more than once a week is prohibited. Ornamental lakes and ponds that sustain aquatic life of Level 1 significant value and were actively managed prior to the storage declaration are exempt. The use of potable water to fill or refill by more than one foot a residential swimming pool or Level 1 outdoor spa more than once a week is prohibited. Watering or irrigation of vegetated areas is limited to the hours between 5 pm and 9:00 am three (3) days per week from April — October and one (1) day per week from November — March except by Level 2 use of a hand held device, hose equipped with an automatic shutoff device, low flow irrigation systems, irrigation of food crops, for the express City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-13 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system, or with approved recycled water. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level Two water supply shortage, which Level 2 percentage shall be in the range from ninety (90) percent to seventy-five (75) percent of the base amount. Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired Level 2 within two (2) days notice by the City, unless other arrangements have been made with the City. Filling or refilling ornamental lakes and ponds more than once every other week is prohibited. Ornamental lakes and ponds that sustain aquatic Level 2 life of significant value and were actively managed prior to the storage declaration are exempt. The use of potable water to fill or refill by more than one foot a residential swimming pool or Level 2 outdoor spa more than once a week is prohibited. Watering or irrigation of vegetated areas is limited to the hours between 5 pm and 9:00 am two (2) days per week from April — October and one (1) day per week from November — March except by use of a hand held device, hose equipped with an Level 3 automatic shutoff device, low flow irrigation systems, irrigation of food crops, for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system, or with approved recycled water. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level 3 Level Three water shortage, whose percentage shall be in the range from seventy-five (75) percent and sixty (60) percent of the base amount. Leaks, breaks, and malfunctions in the water user's plumbing or distribution system must be repaired Level 3 within one (1) day notice by the City, unless other arrangements have been made with the City. Filling or refilling ornamental lakes and ponds is prohibited. Ornamental lakes and ponds that Level 3 sustain aquatic life of significant value and were actively managed prior to the storage declaration City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-14 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Examples of Prohibitions Stage When Prohibition Becomes Mandatory are exempt. The use of potable water to fill or refill a residential Level 3 swimming pool or outdoor spa is prohibited. Irrigation of any vegetated area with potable water is prohibited except by use of a hand held container or hose equipped with an automatic shut off device. Maintenance of landscape to the extent necessary for fire and/or erosion protection is exempt. Maintenance of plant materials identified to be rare or essential to the well being of rare animals is exempt. Maintenance of landscape Level 4 within active public parks and playing fields, day care centers, school grounds, cemeteries, and golf course greens is exempt provided that such irrigation does not exceed two times per week. Public work projects and actively irrigated environmental projects are exempt. Food crops, provided that such irrigation does not exceed two times per week, are exempt. No new potable water service, meters, or will - serve letters will be provided except under one or more of the following: a. Projects necessary to protect public health, safety, and/or well being. b. Projects with a valid unexpired building Level 4 permit. c. Projects with applicants who can provide substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands will be offset prior to the provision of new water meters to the satisfaction of the City. No customer shall use more water during any billing period than the percentage of the base amount established in the resolution declaring the Level 4 Level Four water shortage, which percentage shall be less than sixty (60) percent of the base amount. Consumption Reduction Methods Reductions in water consumption by the City during water shortages will reduce MWDOC's overall demands on Metropolitan. Under the ordinance, the City has the City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-15 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan authority of allocating available supplies as deemed necessary under the water conservation phases. Consumption Reduction Methods are listed in Table 5-6. Table 5-6: Consumption Reduction Methods Penalties for Excessive Use Any customer who violates provisions of the Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations by either excess use of water or by specific violation of one or more of the applicable water use restrictions for a particular mandatory conservation stage may be cited by the City and may be subject to written notices, surcharges, fines, flow restrictions, service disconnection, and/or service termination which are detailed in Table 5-7. Table 5-7: Penalties and Charges Stage When Penalties or Charges Projected Consumption Reduction Methods Method Takes Second and Subsequent Installation of Water Flow Restrictor Reduction (%) Effect Year Round Conservation Measures Termination of Service To be determined Level 1 Conservation Measures 1 Level 2 Conservation Measures 2 by the City Level 3 Conservation Measures 3 Council. Level 4 Conservation Measures 4 Penalties for Excessive Use Any customer who violates provisions of the Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations by either excess use of water or by specific violation of one or more of the applicable water use restrictions for a particular mandatory conservation stage may be cited by the City and may be subject to written notices, surcharges, fines, flow restrictions, service disconnection, and/or service termination which are detailed in Table 5-7. Table 5-7: Penalties and Charges 5.5. Impacts to Revenue The actions described above to address a range of water shortage conditions have the potential to impact the City's revenues and expenditures. To assess these impacts, the City calculated the revenue impacts resulting from a 10%, 20% and 50% reduction in sales as compared to a base year that was based on an estimate of normal year baseline. Other factors incorporated into the analysis included water losses, pricing structure and avoided costs. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table 5-8. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-16 Stage When Penalty Penalties or Charges Takes Effect Written Notice First Violation Second and Subsequent Installation of Water Flow Restrictor Violations Willful violations of Termination of Service mandatory restrictions 5.5. Impacts to Revenue The actions described above to address a range of water shortage conditions have the potential to impact the City's revenues and expenditures. To assess these impacts, the City calculated the revenue impacts resulting from a 10%, 20% and 50% reduction in sales as compared to a base year that was based on an estimate of normal year baseline. Other factors incorporated into the analysis included water losses, pricing structure and avoided costs. The results of this analysis are shown below in Table 5-8. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-16 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-8: Revenue Impacts Analysis Demand Baseline 10% 20% 50% Water Sales (HCF) 6,514,518 5,863,066 5,211,614 3,257,259 Revenue Tier 1 Revenue $16,025,714 $14,423,143 $12,820,571 $11,218,000 Fixed Monthly/Bimonthly Charge Revenue $4,884,770 $4,884,770 $4,884,770 $4,884,770 Total Rate Revenue $20,910,484 $19,307,913 $17,705,341 $12,897,627 Revenue Lost $1,602,571 $3,205,143 $8,012,857 Variable Costs Water Produced/Purchased $ $8,017,810 $7,216,029 $6,414,248 $4,008,905 Avoided Costs $801,781 $1,603,562 $4,008,905 Net Revenue Chane $800,790 $1,601,581 $4,003,952 Anticipated shortfalls in projected revenue due to water supply shortages would need to be covered through increased water rates and/or an advance from funds set aside by the City. The existing rate structure could be adjusted to recapture a portion of the lost revenue, which would affect all water users within the City's service area. The City has a Water Rate Stabilization Fund to be used in times of drought and emergencies to offset the loss of revenue. The City could also advance funds from its General Fund for the loss of essential revenue. 5.6. Reduction Measuring Mechanism In order to quantify actual reductions in water use, several measuring mechanisms must be utilized. Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms ranging from water meter auditing, daily production monitoring, distribution records, and monitoring employees are listed in Table 5-9. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-17 Section 5 Water Supplies Contingency Plan Table 5-9: Water Use Monitoring Mechanisms Mechanisms for Determining Actual Type of Data Expected Reductions Water meter auditing Actual reduction of water used for meters over one -inch Daily production and distribution records would be monitored. The data is Monitor daily production/distribution recorded by zone, which would enable records City staff to determine which zone was using more water than expected. Customers would be alerted to actual water use (increase/decrease). City Code Enforcement Staff employee would monitor all unnecessary domestic Monitoring Employee irrigation use and serve on the "dawn" patrol to verify that residences and irrigation customers are not over - watering in the early hours of the day. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 5-18 6. Recycled Water 6.1. Agency Coordination Recycled water is defined as domestic wastewater purified through primary, secondary and tertiary treatment. Recycled water is acceptable for most non -potable water purposes such as irrigation, commercial, and industrial processes. The City maintains an agreement with OCWD to supply Green Acres Project (GAP) water to customers where available. The addition of this supplemental water will reduce the demand on the City's water supply, thereby providing additional reserves for firefighting capacity, preserving potable water for drinking, and ensuring landscape irrigation during period of drought. Use of recycled water is expected to continue an upward trend in the City; throughout the County of Orange and all throughout the state of California. The City continues to support regional efforts to increase the use of recycled water. Because the City produces a majority of its water supply from the Basin, the City benefits from the actions of OCWD using recycled water to protect the Basin through seawater intrusion barriers and groundwater recharge basins. The City, therefore, indirectly benefits from this regional use of recycled water. Table 6-1: Participating Agencies Participating Agencies Participated Water Agencies Newport Beach Wastewater Agencies OCSD Groundwater Agencies OCWD Planning Agencies 6.2. Wastewater Description and Disposal Within its service area, the City is responsible for wastewater collection and conveyance to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) sewer treatment plant, located in Huntington Beach. OCSD also treats wastewater from several other municipalities. OCSD discharges treated water into the ocean through a 120 -inch diameter ocean outfall pipe that extends five miles offshore to the discharge point. A standby 78 -inch diameter outfall pipeline stretches one mile from shore. The treatment levels meet all current State and Federal requirements. OCSD also sends up to 10 mgd of treated wastewater every City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-1 Section 6 Recycled Water day to the Orange County Water District for further processing for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. Within the City's service area, discharge of treated wastewater is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). In general, the majority of the wastewater generated and treated during the summer months is used for alternative beneficial uses such as wetland habitat and restoration and irrigation for golf courses. The use of the recycled water helps supply part of the water demand during the peak summer months. Table 6-2 summarizes the past, current, and projected wastewater volumes collected and treated, and the quantity of wastewater treated to recycled water standards for treatment plants within OCSD's service area. Table 6-3 summarizes the disposal method, and treatment level of discharge volumes. Table 6-2: Wastewater Collection and Treatment (AFY) Type of Wastewater Fiscal Year Ending Awilm 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Wastewater Secondary 197,400 207,704 216,104 224,392 228,536 Collected & Treated 273,017 232,348 302,400 312,704 321,104 329,392 333,536 in Service Area Volume that Meets Recycled Water 12,156 75,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 Standards Table 6-3: Disposal of Wastewater (Non -Recycled) (AFY) 6.3. Current Recycled Water Uses The City has approximately 10 miles of recycled water distribution pipeline, which currently supplies eight recycled use sites. Recycled water is supplied to the City from the Orange County Water District (OCWD) from Fountain Valley as part of OCWD's Green Acres Project. OCWD produces approximately 7.5 MGD of tertiary treated, disinfected recycled water. Some of the sites served by recycled water include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-2 Fiscal Year Ending Method of Disposal Treatment 2035 Level 5 2020 2025 2030 00 #157,348 Ocean Outfall Secondary 197,400 207,704 216,104 224,392 228,536 6.3. Current Recycled Water Uses The City has approximately 10 miles of recycled water distribution pipeline, which currently supplies eight recycled use sites. Recycled water is supplied to the City from the Orange County Water District (OCWD) from Fountain Valley as part of OCWD's Green Acres Project. OCWD produces approximately 7.5 MGD of tertiary treated, disinfected recycled water. Some of the sites served by recycled water include the Newport Beach County Club, the Big Canyon City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-2 Section 6 Recycled Water Country Club, median strips, and a City owned park. In FY 2009-10, approximately 400 AF of recycled water was used in the City's service area for landscape irrigation, about 3% of the City's annual water demand. Table 6-4 below illustrates the current uses for recycled water in the City. The usage is limited to landscape irrigation with a tertiary treatment level. Table 6-4: Current Recycled Water Uses (AFY) User Type Treatment Level Fiscal Year Ending 2010 Agriculture 2035 -opt Projected Use of Landscape Tertiary 432 Wildlife Habitat 432 Wetlands 500 500 Industrial 500 Recycled Water Groundwater Recharge Total 432 6.4. Potential Recycled Water Uses Potential recycled water users are locations where recycled water could replace potable water use. These potential users are typically landscape or agricultural irrigation systems, or possibly water users. However, due to the limited access to the project mains and some financial impact on end users, it is not feasible to distribute all of the potential recycled water, and the City does not predict that there will be many other end users in the near future. Tables 6-5 and 6-6 represent projected recycled water use within the City's service area through 2035. Recycled water use will remain constant through the 25 -year period, with landscape irrigation as its sole use. Table 6-5: Projected Future Use of Recycled Water in Service Area (AFY) Fiscal Year Ending User Type 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Projected Use of 432 450 500 500 500 500 Recycled Water City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-3 Section 6 Recycled Water Table 6-6: Projected Recycled Water Uses (AFY) User Type Treatment Level Fiscal Year Ending Agriculture 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 -opt Agriculture Wetlands Industrial Landscape Tertiary 450 500 500 500 500 Wildlife Habitat Wetlands Industrial Groundwater Recharge Total 450 500 500 500 500 Table 6-7 compares the recycled water use projections from the City's 2005 UWMP with actual 2010 recycled water use. Table 6-7: Recycled Water Uses — 2005 Projections compared with 2010 Actual (AFY) User Type 2005 Projection for 2010 2010 Actual Use Agriculture Landscape 444 432 Wildlife Habitat Wetlands Industrial Groundwater Recharge Total 444 432 6.4.1. Direct Non -Potable Reuse The City currently uses recycled water from OCWD's Green Acres Project for direct non -potable reuse such as landscape irrigation. 6.4.2. Indirect Potable Reuse The City benefits indirectly from the replenishment of the Orange County groundwater basin using GWRS water that meets state and federal drinking water standards for potable reuse. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-4 Section 6 Recycled Water 6.5. Optimization Plan To promote the use of recycled water, the City provides financial incentives by offering a 20 percent discount off potable water rates. The current rate for recycled users is $1.66 per unit (one unit equals 748 gallons). In Orange County, the majority of recycled water is used for irrigating golf courses, parks, schools, business and communal landscaping. However, future recycled water use can increase by requiring dual piping in new developments, retrofitting existing landscaped areas and constructing recycled water pumping stations and transmission mains to reach areas far from the treatment plants. Gains in implementing some of these projects have been made throughout the county; however, the additional costs, large energy requirements, and facilities make such projects very expensive to pursue. The City will conduct future cost/benefit analyses for recycled water projects, and seek creative solutions and a balance to recycled water use, in coordination with MWDOC, OCWD, Metropolitan and other cooperative agencies. These include solutions for funding, regulatory requirements, institutional arrangements and public acceptance. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 6-5 7. Future Water Supply Projects and Programs 7.1. Water Management Tools Resource optimization such as desalination to minimize the needs for imported water is led by the regional agencies in collaboration with local agencies. With the eventual replacement of older wells with new more efficient wells, increasing the capacity of existing booster stations, and continued efforts in reducing water waste, the City can meet projected demands with existing facilities and distribution system. 7.2. Transfer or Exchange Opportunities MWDOC will continue to help its member agencies in developing Transfer or Exchange opportunities and ensuring their success. In fulfilling this role, MWDOC will look to help its member agencies navigate the operational and administrative issues of wheeling water through the Metropolitan water distribution system. The City relies on the efforts of Metropolitan as well as MWDOC to pursue transfer or exchange opportunities. At this time, the City is not currently involved in any transfer or exchange opportunities. 7.3. Planned Water Supply Projects and Programs At this time, the City does not have any planned water supply projects or programs. 7.4. Desalination Opportunities Desalination is viewed as a way to develop a local, reliable source of water that assists agencies reduce their demand on imported water, reduce groundwater overdraft, and in some cases make unusable groundwater available for municipal uses. Currently, there are no identified projects within the City for desalination of seawater or impaired groundwater. However, from a regional perspective, desalination projects within the region indirectly benefit the City. In Orange County, there are three proposed ocean desalination projects that could serve MWDOC, including one specifically that may benefit the City. These are the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project, the South Orange Coastal Desalination Project, and the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 7-1 Section 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs Table 7-1: Opportunities for Desalinated Water Sources of Water Check if Yes Ocean Water X Brackish Ocean Water X Brackish Groundwater 7.4.1. Groundwater There are currently no brackish groundwater opportunities within the City's service area. 7.4.2. Ocean Water Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project — Poseidon Resources LLC (Poseidon), a private company, has proposed development of the Huntington Beach Seawater Desalination Project to be located adjacent to the AES Generation Power Plant in the City of Huntington Beach along Pacific Coast Highway and Newland Street. The proposed project would produce up to 50 MGD (56,000 AFY) of drinking water and will distribute water to coastal and south Orange County to provide approximately 8% of Orange County's water supply needs. The project supplies would be distributed to participating agencies through a combination of (1) direct deliveries through facilities including the East Orange County Feeder #2 (EOCF #2), the City of Huntington Beach's distribution system, and the West Orange County Water Board Feeder #2 (WOCWBF #2), and (2) water supply exchanges with agencies with no direct connection to facilities associated with the Project. Poseidon had received non-binding Letters of Intent (LOI) from the Municipal Water District of Orange County and 17 retail water agencies to purchase a total of approximately 72 MGD (88,000 AFY) of Project supplies. On January 20, 2010, the City signed a non-binding LOI for 7.1 MGD (8,000 AFY) of Project supplies. The Project has received specific approvals from the Huntington Beach City Council, including the Coastal Development Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and Conditional Use Permit, which collectively provided for the long-term operation of the desalination facility. In addition to final agreements with the participating agencies, the Project still needs approvals from the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission before Poseidon can commence construction of the desalination facility in Huntington Beach. A public hearing on the Project before the State Lands Commission is expected as early as this October. If project receives all required permits by 2011, it could be producing drinking water for Orange County by as soon as 2013. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 7-2 Section 7 Future Water Supply Projects and Programs South Orange Coastal Desalination Project — MWDOC is proposing a desalination project in joint with Laguna Beach County Water District, Moulton Niguel Water District, City of San Clemente, City of San Juan Capistrano, South Coast Water District, and Metropolitan. The project is to be located adjacent to the San Juan Creek in Dana Point just east of the transition road from PCH to the I-5. The project will provide 15 MGD (16,000 AFY) of drinking water and will provide up to 30% of its potable water supply to the participating agencies. Phase 1 consists of drilling 4 test borings and installing monitoring wells. Phase 2 consists of drilling, constructing and pumping a test slant well. Phase 3 consists of constructing a Pilot Test Facility to collect and assess water quality. Phases 1 and 2 have been completed and Phase 3 commenced in June 2010 and will last 18 months. If pumping results are favorable after testing, a full-scale project description and EIR will be developed. If EIR is adopted and necessary permits are approved, project could be operational by 2016. Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project — San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) is proposing a desalination project in joint with Metropolitan to be located at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base adjacent to the Santa Margarita River. The initial project would be a 50 or 100 MGD plant with expansions in 50 MGD increments up to a max of 150 MGD making this the largest proposed desalination plant in the US. The project is currently in the study feasibility stage and is conducting geological surveys to study the effect on ocean life and examining routes to bring desalination to SDCWA's delivery system. MWDOC and south Orange County agencies are maintaining a potential interest in the project, but at this time is only doing some limited fact finding and monitoring of the project. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 7-3 8. UWMP Adoption Process 8.1. Overview Recognizing that close coordination among other relevant public agencies is the key to the success of its UWMP, the City worked closely with other entities such as MWDOC to develop and update this planning document. The City also encouraged public involvement through the holding of a public hearing to learn and ask questions about their water supply. This section provides the information required in Article 3 of the Water Code related to adoption and implementation of the UWMP. Table 8-1 summarizes external coordination and outreach activities carried out by the City and their corresponding dates. The UWMP checklist to confirm compliance with the Water Code is provided in Appendix A. Table 8-1: External Coordination and Outreach External Coordination and Outreach Date Reference Encouraged public involvement (Public Hearing) May 28, 2011 & Appendix F June 4, 2011 Notified city or county within supplier's service area that water supplier is preparing an updated March 22, 2011 Appendix E UWMP (at least 60 days prior to public hearing) Held public hearing June 14, 2011 Appendix F Adopted UWMP Appendix G Submitted UWMP to DWR (no later than 30 days after adoption) Submitted UWMP to the California State Library and city or county within the supplier's service area (no later than 30 days after adoption) Made UWMP available for public review (no later than 30 days after filing with DWR) This UWMP was adopted by the City Council on MONTH DAY, YEAR. A copy of the adopted resolution is provided in Appendix G. A change from the 2004 legislative session to the 2009 legislative session required the City to notify any city or county within its service area at least 60 days prior to the public City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 8-1 Section 8 UWMP Adoption Process hearing. The City sent a Letter of Notification to the County of Orange on March 22, 2011 that it is in the process of preparing an updated UWMP (Appendix E). 8.2. Public Participation The City encouraged community and public interest involvement in the plan update through public hearings and inspection of the draft document. Public hearing notifications were published in local newspapers. A copy of the published Notice of Public Hearing is included in Appendix E. The hearing provided an opportunity for all residents and employees in the service area to learn and ask questions about their water supply in addition to the City's plans for providing a reliable, safe, high-quality water supply. Copies of the draft plan were made available for public inspection at the City Clerk's and Utilities Department offices. 8.3. Agency Coordination All of the City's water supply planning relates to the policies, rules, and regulations of its regional and local water providers. The City is dependent on imported water from Metropolitan through MWDOC, its regional wholesaler. The City is also dependent on groundwater from OCWD, the agency which manages the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin as well as provides recycled water in partnership with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). As such, the City involved these water providers in the development of its 2010 UWMP at various levels of contribution as summarized in Table 8-2. Table 8-2: Coordination with Appropriate Agencies As a member agency of MWDOC, MWDOC provided assistance to the City's 2010 UWMP development by providing much of the data and analysis such as, population projections from the California State University at Fullerton, Center of Demographic City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 8-2 Sent Sent Participated in Attended Contacted Not Commented Copy of Notice of Plan Public for Involved/No on Draft Draft Intention Development Meetings Assistance Information Plan to Adopt MWDOC X X Metropolitan X OCWD X County of X Orange As a member agency of MWDOC, MWDOC provided assistance to the City's 2010 UWMP development by providing much of the data and analysis such as, population projections from the California State University at Fullerton, Center of Demographic City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 8-2 Section 8 UWMP Adoption Process Research (CDR) and SBx7-7 modeling. MWDOC provided information that quantifies water availability to meet their projected demands for the next 25 years, in five-year increments. Based on the projections of retail demand and local supplies completed by the City, and the imported supply availability described in Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP, MWDOC prepared an informational package with data specific to the City, that incorporated additional calculations for the required planning efforts. The City's UWMP was developed in collaboration with MWDOC's 2010 RUWMP to ensure consistency between the two documents as well as Metropolitan's 2010 RUWMP and 2010 Integrated Water Resources Plan. As a groundwater producer who relies on supplies from the OCWD-managed Orange County Groundwater Basin, the City coordinated the preparation of this 2010 UWMP with OCWD. OCWD provided projections of the amount of groundwater, the City is allowed to extract in the 25 -year planning horizon. In addition, information from OCWD's 2009 Groundwater Management Plan and 2008-2009 Engineer's Report were incorporated in this document where relevant. 8.4. UWMP Submittal 8.4.1. Review of Implementation of 2005 UWMP As required by California Water Code, the City summarizes the implementation of the Water Conservation and Water Recycling Programs to date, and compares the implementation to those as planned in its 2005 UWMP. Comparison of 2005 Planned Water Conservation Programs with 2010 Actual Programs As a signatory to the MOU regarding urban water use efficiency, the City's commitment to implement BMP -based water use efficiency program continues today. For the City's specific achievements in the area of conservation, please see Section 4 of this Plan. Comparison of 2005 Projected Recycled Water Use with 2010 Actual Use Current recycled water projections for the City in 2010 are about 3% less than previously forecasted for 2010 in the 2005 UWMP, as illustrated in Table 6-7. 8.4.2. Filing of 2010 UWMP The City Council reviewed the Final Draft Plan on DATE. The seven -member City Council approved the 2010 UWMP on DATE. See Appendix G for the resolution approving the Plan. By August 1, 2011, the City's Adopted 2010 UWMP was filed with DWR, California State Library, County of Orange, and cities within the City's service area. City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan 8-3 No ■ ❑ Initial Study and General Plan Program EIR Addendum No. 2 Technical Appendix F Assessment of Sewer Capacity Availability Relative to Increase Allocation of Residential Development RBF Consulting May 10, 2012 NNCPC Development Plan Amendment and Related Actions June 2012 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach FBF CONS ULTING A Z_ =Company NORTH NEWPORT CENTER ASSESSMENT OF SEWER CAPACITY AVAILABILITY RELATIVE TO INCREASED ALLOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (May 10, 2012) Introduction: An application has been filed to incorporate 94 additional residential units to the North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) within the San Joaquin Plaza area adjacent to the corner of San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Drive. The subject site is currently occupied by low-rise office buildings. However, the current request to incorporate 94 additional residential units to the previous allocation of 430 residential units established on this site has been anticipated to result in increased demand on the local sewer system when compared to the existing office uses. This assessment has been prepared to assess whether there is adequate capacity within the existing infrastructure within the vicinity to serve the proposed expanded number of residential units proposed to be allocated to the San Joaquin Plaza site. Existing Conditions: The subject site is contained within an area of existing development bounded by San Joaquin Hills Road, Santa Cruz Drive, San Clemente Drive and Santa Barbara Drive. While sewer lines exist within each of these roadways, the primary means of serving the existing office buildings on the site utilizes 8 inch VCP sewer lines extending from the subject site to San Clemente, which connects into the 8 inch VCP in Santa Barbara that connects to the facilities in Jamboree. Examination of the plans for the sewer lines in San Clemente and Santa Barbara indicated that a short segment (approximately 64 feet long) between Manhole 3 and Manhole 4 generally westerly of the art museum had a significantly flatter slope than all other potentially affected segments and, therefore, would be the location within the lowest potential capacity. (See attached excepts from record plans for San Clemente Drive). Capacity Assessment: The previously identified point of lowest capacity along the system serving the project site has been constructed with a slope slightly over one percent, but for purposes of this assessment the calculations utilize a one percent slope to be conservative. On that basis and reflecting standard conditions regarding the peak flows, the capacity for an 8 inch VCP flowing half full was calculated to be 390,100 gallons per day. This capacity is consistent with industry standard criteria and would be the basis of design for installation of a new sewer line. Furthermore, it should be noted that this facility is calculated to have a capacity of 711,900 gallons per day when % full. (See attached worksheets). Page 1 of 2 Demand Assessment: It should be noted that the subject segment of the sewer system currently serves only the art museum and the San Joaquin Plaza office buildings. Therefore, as currently configured, should residential units replace the office uses in San Joaquin Plaza, the only other demand for the capacity in the previously discussed pipe segment would be from the Art Museum. That being said, should the entire San Joaquin Plaza site continue to utilize the subject pipe segment, the demand associated with implementing the residential units would make up virtually all the demand for this segment of the sewer system. The demand associated with the 94 additional units requested for allocation to the subject site was calculated based on an estimate of 200 gallons per day per unit with an assumed peaking factor of 3.0 and resulted in a projected demand of 56,400 gallons per day. When compared to the previously identified capacity range, it can be seen that the projected demand would represent approximately 15 percent of the design capacity at the most capacity constrained segment in the proximate sewer system. Although the application currently under review by the City is specifically limited to the allocation of 94 additional units, the projected demand associated with the combined total of 524 residential units has also been calculated. The projected demand associated with all 524 units, based on the previously stated assumptions would be 314,000 gallons per day. When compared to the previously calculated capacity, the demand would utilize approximately 80 percent of the design capacity. When including an estimated demand of 18,000 gallons per day for the Art Museum, the combined peak flow would with all 524 residential units be estimated to be 334,400 gallons per day. This combined total peak demand would then equate to being 86 percent of the capacity for the pipe flowing half full. Conclusion: The projected demand associated with the 94 additional residential units requested for the San Joaquin Plaza site equates to approximately 15 percent of the most constrained pipe segment capacity within the existing sewer system proximate to the project. Since the subject segment of the sewer system serves only the subject site and the Art Museum, it can be concluded that there is adequate capacity within the most capacity constrained portion of the existing sewer system in the vicinity of the project (above Manhole 3) to serve the proposed allocation of additional units. H:\pdata\10108123\Correspondences\N Newport Center Assess Sewer Capacity Availability_05.10.2012.docx Page 2 of 2 I NEWPORT BEACH NO E'- PARMG GARAGE, ° — SEE SHEET 6 FOR SEVER/V/ATER BY OTHERS r ART Iu1USEUM coNs ftucnoN RA Fc CONTROL (iLbsoTOO 910000 9g- O 1650ToP 6v 14o,49G oP. bs 559 TOP AS' 1481 T U3 21 ..y v O �� - _ ` '� 1 �' Iaes—oP, a v \ v.. �ry — armabsru lays V, 1116PITE&L S' I.VE \ \ \\ \ - f % .0 �� A 8181 Bfi B2 110693U'c 1 ;MH 13 ,52 25621 _ tiyv\$EE PROFILE; _ - \ „ \ - _ _ _ V A `EYGI s - - — w:' ee bD Ir. �_ ON\SHEET 5� -A VPAU R EHr .16, .1 ROP TO, � ` lase rGP as 1 c A A i "" _ �.snnn Eas non as 1 XP'\ TO REavlr cullAD 1 ez �y�� G \, V A i �l I ✓'. �j t, e& PV 1.22 FL b9 -'T ID IB - '29 A9 XA AH bl n n LF - — u� `ms Co,Yx Is GJ z 1, B2_L 2261 - 550 N e9 �R Y-;54 0 8 ei 154 Go j 0020G 1 + PRNAIF YJBUO V -- 7511 ,4s 2G lnv \ \ ,\ � �l I ��I GRADING AND PAVING CONSTRUCTION NOTES rP�� O .AUPRY 6A-111A/RFGC„PO50 REPLACFr1. CAPER CITY OF \ \ \"� ". '.... ` rf 880 SAFI \�/ �L�N��(l� iIII VT `�— D�� II s F N a siU os L -n \ ` _ - ✓ ;f '� 1026 FC P3 SLURRY SEA 6 RFS H1PE ID LfA1I S SHGIM Oa\\! 9 SONWER CONS. EXTRA STRENSIAIDARD II—LE ENOT A III'osv .� R CITY TY IT 1, s=EnF/CAIJI1S -.Q� \ \�' � b� 6 COOS ITS 6 PVC (_ ) i N6, SUD-406-L O \ \ ' J - -r o F,..F.=153.00 ro, es CONSTRUCT CIT. SUS T (SUR 35 56/£P .AIF U, PER CITY Gh CONSTRUCT H V C P. EPNINAL CLEAN^F K B S J 406 - Bl f,GISiFUL 5 R CLEANOUT PER CITY G ' - - -- - � - JPL EG e CAST IRGN CLEANOUT ASSE.'AdIY PER CITY OF N. P 5/G<O6-L - PPOPO 0 BEES - 8> JOIf! LL PVC G II V C.P. S VUR RE BbI. PER CITY CT N 9 510 40U L \ bi efi If Sr/1L TI l8' CAP FOR FUTURE BLIL011�C CGAAE^i/CN � ,X \ \ I ( ✓ I 9d — ftEA.GVE AM1J Uf5'USE OF EXfSi/AG b' / C.P. SGN£R lli lf! AFTER Co'IS RULII U; 1, INSPE[T19N `, � \. `I \ \ I - - _ __ - 1� )/f— _ E OF EIV MITI,, 050- REOAO/ELAIDADISPOSE SOF EXISTRC SEI"P kA HDL V. O \ \ \\\ p -- _' — ll 90 Ra110VE AID DISPOSE OF EXISTfITT SFV'ER L EAAOUT _ ® \ O ._ \ 9, nc.AO/E AID DISPOSE OF EXISJLC 6 V..P SF/ER L1 iERAL s GRAPHIC SCALEoR r ® ®® v / � PR,- L LRIX -1 - _ RE THAWING NOTES TO CONTRACTOR 1. DRY UTILITIES ARE SCHEMATIC AND SHOVlN FOR REFERENCE ONLY SEE UTILITY COMPANY PLANS FOR FINAL DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS. mmuilliffillwo� JOB NAME CONSULTING, JOB NO. PLANNING N DESIGN 9 CONSTRUCTION BOO.479.3aOS - -.RBF.... SHEET NO OF s rev ear,.7-) DESIGNED BY DATE A' CHECKED BY - 'r s DATE v -r0 oo-srvc- ev -- Pwao, L 0�nlcc- tolLtIoatv-s � t � FNvv-04LI� 41 10 C> V00 QA -J XJ< VA C7> C), 0c) ifN pi 0151 FBF JOB NAME ■ ■ CONSULTING JOB NO. PLANNING ® DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 800.479.3SOB •-.RSF.com +� SHEET NO. OF DESIGNED BY DATE CHECKED BY � �� �, �Ls DATE f U� a p) 4-, �- q , v /6�?,4 a1 0� e- pi 0151 ; J �� k5 Rg 93t a' Friction Method Solve For Worksheet for 8" Pipe - @ dlD ® 50% Manning Formula Discharge !n llt.. �'� � t "� r� n ,aa a M .: ,r ;. � _. ,.. ��� :.. s'?" -1..-„ -.. ,:,, ..���'^sw,, �.?^". ...� -,��n. „».'�.r `�"ar ... ,�•"�--'"�' .>. x�-� ?`� t. ,z$" ,;�s,. ,,,�>s�_.s., Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.00998 ft/ft Normal Depth 4.00 in Diameter 8.00 in Results s Discharge 390096.82 gal/day Flow Area 0.17 ft2 Wetted Perimeter 1.05 ft Hydraulic Radius 2.00 in Top Width 0.67 ft Critical Depth 0.37 ft Percent Full 50.0 % Critical Slope 0.00736 ft/ft Velocity 3.46 ft/s Velocity Head 0.19 ft Specific Energy 0.52 ft Froude Number 1.19 Maximum Discharge 1.30 ft3/s Discharge Full 1.21 ft3/s Slope Full 0.00250 ft/ft Flow Type SuperCritical r Downstream Depth 0.00 in Length 0.00 ft Number Of Steps 0 GVF Output Qat .._� WIN 1�.. ...�--,1'... `.-i."c Upstream Depth 0.00 in Profile Description Profile Headloss 0.00 ft Average End Depth Over Rise 0.00 % Normal Depth Over Rise 50.00 % Downstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [08.11.00.03] 5110/2012 11:07:44 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Worksheet for 8" Pipe - @ d/D = 50% GVF Output Data Upstream Velocity Infinity ft/s Normal Depth 4.00 in Critical Depth 0.37 ft Channel Slope 0.00998 ft/ft Critical Slope 0.00736 ft/ft Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Bentley FlowMaster [08.11.00.03] 5/10/2012 11:07:44 AM 27 Siemons Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 �£WRT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard z P.O. Box 1768 \ Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 9Fp,N (949) 644-3200 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: From: ❑x Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Division P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 0 County Clerk, County of Orange Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name: North Newport Center Planned Applicant: Dan Miller, Irvine Company Community Amendment and 550 Newport Center Drive Related Actions Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)720-2000 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Contact Person Area Code/Telephone/Extension 200601119 Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner 949 / 644-3209 Project Location City of Newport Beach, Orange County, CA. The project site is located in the City of Newport (include county): Beach Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center Statistical), which is commonly known as Newport Center/Fashion Island. This area is a mixed use area bounded on the southwest by East Coast Highway, on the southeast by MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeast by San Joaquin Hills Road, and on the northwest by Jamboree Road. Specifically, the project involves a transfer of development intensity concerning property designated as North Newport Center Block 500, Block 600, San Joaquin Plaza, and a property located immediately west of Fashion Island operated as the Newport Beach Marriott Hotel (Block 900). Block 500 is located at the southeast corner of Santa Rosa Drive at Newport Center Drive. Block 600 is located at the northwestern corner of Newport Center Drive East and Santa Rosa Drive. San Joaquin Plaza is located at the northwest corner of San Clemente Drive and Santa Cruz Drive. Project location map attached. Project Description: The project consists of an amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community (NNCPC) Development Plan to increase the unbuilt multi -family residential development allocation from 430 to 524 units. The increase of 94 units would be allocated to the San Joaquin Plaza portion of the NNCPC. Specifically, the proposed Project involves the following actions: (1) convert un -built non-residential development intensity (79 hotel rooms from Block 900) to multi -family residential development intensity (79 multi -family units) and transfer the converted development intensity into the NNCPC; (2) assign 15 residential units currently allowed by the General Plan within the MU -H3 portions of Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza; (3) amend the NNCPC Development Plan to increase the allowable residential development intensity by a total of 94 units and allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza; (4) amend the Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations; (5) approve a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and (6) amend the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). Recorded in official Records, orange county Tom Daly, County Recorder 11 1II II 11111 11�11 1 1111111111111 11 1 50.00 *$ R 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 2 4 2$ 20128500072312:32 pm 07/25/12 POSTED JUL 2 5 2012 TOM DALY, CLERK -RECORDER JUL 2 5 2012 TOM DALY, CLERK -RECORDER Q„ nGcnry This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on July 24, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) 1. The City is the [ IN Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency] for the project. 2. The project [ ❑ will ® will not] result in new or more severe significant impacts on the environment than previously disclosed in the Final Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119) previously prepared and certified by the City of Newport Beach for the General Plan 2006 Update. 3. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.\ 4. ® A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR [ ❑ was ® was not] required and an Addendum to a previously -certified EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. New or revised mitigation measures [ ❑ were ® were not] made a condition of the approval of the project. 6. A mitigation monitoring program was adopted for the previously approved project. A revised mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [was ® was not] adopted for this project. 7. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was previously adopted for the Final Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119). A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ❑ was © was not] adopted for this project because no new significant impacts were identified. 8. Findings were previously adopted for the Final Program EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200601119). Findings [ ❑ were ® were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA for this project because no new significant impacts or alternatives were identified. The EIR Addendum and record of project approval is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Division located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200. July 25, 2012 ,Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Date JUL 2 5 2012 TOM DALY, CLERK -RE C RDER DEPUTY FILED JUL 25 2012 TOM DALY, CLERK -RECO ER By. DEPUTY :m Block 900 Anomaly 43 (Marriott Hotel) Plaza Exhibit "E" Addendum No. 3 (Newport Airport Village — ER2020-002) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-codes-and-regulations/general- plan/general-plan-environmental-impact-repor 10-27 May 2020 Addendum No. 3 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update EIR, April 2006 (SCH No. 2006011119) and Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR, May 2014 (SCH No. 2013101064) Newport Airport Village City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: James W. Campbell, Deputy Director Community Development Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3210 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield, Principal 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com ED PLACEWORKS NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE..................................................................................................1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES................................................................................... 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM............................................................. 4 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING......................................................................................................... 7 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING....................................................................................................................... 7 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................................17 5.8 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................................17 5.9 3.2 PROPOSED LAND USE..................................................................................................................................21 5.10 3.3 PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS......................................................................................................................27 5.11 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.................................................................................................. 39 4.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................39 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...........................................................41 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY).........................................41 4.4 COMPARING CHANGES AND/OR NEW INFORMATION TO PREVIOUS EIRs ................... 42 5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................................................................................... 45 5.1 AESTHETICS...................................................................................................................................................... 49 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES................................................................................... 61 5.3 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................................................... 65 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................................................... 77 5.5 CULTURAL, RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 88 5.6 ENERGY...............................................................................................................................................................94 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................................100 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.............................................................................................................110 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.......................................................................................116 5.10 HYDROLOGY..................................................................................................................................................132 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING....................................................................................................................140 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................155 5.13 NOISE..................................................................................................................................................................158 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING................................................................................................................171 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES..........................................................................................................................................176 5.16 RECREATION..................................................................................................................................................184 5.17 TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................................................188 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................201 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................................... 206 5.20 WILDFIRE..........................................................................................................................................................221 6. SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................225 7. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................227 APPENDICES Appendix A Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan Appendix B Newport Village Trip Making Assessment May 2020 Page i NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents List of Figures Figure1 Regional Location................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure2 Local Vicinity.......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph, Project Site........................................................................................................13 Figure 4 Aerial Photograph, Airport Area......................................................................................................15 Figure5 LU22 Airport Area.............................................................................................................................19 Figure 6 Airport Area Proposed Changes, 2014 LUE Amendment..........................................................23 Figure7 Concept Plan....................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure8 PC District Boundary......................................................................................................................... 33 Figure9 Planning Areas 1 & 2.......................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10 Conceptual Architecture....................................................................................................................37 Figure 11 Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations, Part 77............................................................ 53 Figure 12 Airport Area Safety Zones................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 13 2006 General Plan Biological Resources......................................................................................... 79 Figure 14 Environmental Study Areas(ESAs)................................................................................................. 81 Figure 15 FAA Part 77 Height Restrictions — 2014 LUE Amendment Airport Area ChangeAreas.....................................................................................................................................121 Figure 16 2008 AELUP JWA Noise Exposure at the Project Site.............................................................165 Page ii PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1 Proposed Area 4A Land Use Changes, LUE Amendment (2014) ............................................. 21 Table 2 Permitted Uses By Planning Area.................................................................................................... 28 Table 3 Allowable Land Use Comparison: Proposed Project, 2006 General Plan and Uses(dBA CNEL)............................................................................................................................160 2014 LUE Amendment for the Project Site...................................................................................47 Projected Jobs -Housing Ratio........................................................................................................172 Table 4 Land Use Compatibility: John Wayne Airport Safety Zones ....................................................... 57 Table 5 Existing Maximum Permitted Building Heights..........................................................................119 Project Trip Generation — LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas ............................189 Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites.................................................................................................126 2006 General Plan Update Traffic Analysis — Land Use Comparison to Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis...................................................................142 Table 8 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses(dBA CNEL)............................................................................................................................160 Table 9 Projected Jobs -Housing Ratio........................................................................................................172 Table 10 Projected Student Population in SAUSD.....................................................................................181 Table 11 Project Trip Generation — LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas ............................189 Table 12 2006 General Plan Update Traffic Analysis — Land Use Comparison to ProposedProject...............................................................................................................................191 Table 13 Project Site Trip Generation — 2006 GPA vs Proposed Project...............................................192 Table 14 Intersection Level of Service — 2006 GPU vs Proposed Project..............................................193 Table 15 2014 LUE Amendment Traffic Analysis — Land Use Comparison to Proposed Project.................................................................................................................................................194 Table 16 Project Site Trip Generation — 2014 LUE Amendment vs Proposed Project ........................194 Table 17 Intersection Level of Service — 2014 LUE Amendment vs Proposed Project .......................195 Table 18 Net Increase in Wastewater Generation.......................................................................................212 Table 19 Net Increase in Water Demand......................................................................................................214 Table 20 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation.......................................................................................216 Table 21 Annual Net Increase in Electricity Use — Project Site................................................................218 Table 22 Annual Net Increase in Natural Gas Use......................................................................................219 May 2020 Page iii NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page iv PlaceWorks 1. Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE This document is an Addendum to the following previously certified City of Newport Beach Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs): ■ General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2006 (State Clearinghouse No. 2006011119), as amended by two subsequent GPEIR Addendums: • Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2007. • Addendum No. 2 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, June 12, 2015. ■ General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, March 2014 (State Clearinghouse No. 201310164). The comprehensive 2006 General Plan Update EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a citywide comprehensive update to the land use plan, and goals and policies for 10 general plan elements. The Supplemental DEIR in 2014 focused on a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment proposing reduced or increased development capacities in various areas of the City. Both EIRs encompass proposed land uses for the Airport Area community and include the project site that is the subject of this Addendum. The subject property is an approximately 16.46 -acre site located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 north of Dove Street. The site currently allows 358,498 square feet of commercial uses and is developed with a mix of office, retail, restaurant, and car rental facilities. The 2006 GPU EIR and 2014 LUE Amendment Supplemental EIR (SEIR) designated the site for the following uses: ■ 2006 GPU EIR: Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO). The designation would allow up to 358,498 square feet of commercial uses based on the allowable 0.5 floor area ratio (FAR). The AO land use designation is intended to allows uses that support or benefit from operations of the adjoining John Wayne Airport. These may include professional offices; aviation; retail; automobile rental, sales, and service; hotels and ancillary retail, restaurant, and service uses. This designation specifies an FAR of 0.5, except for warehousing, which may be developed at an FAR of 0.75. ■ 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR: Mixed Use -Horizontal 2 (MU -142). The SEIR assesses the potential development of an additional 238,077 additional square feet of office space and 329 new dwelling units (plus 115 density bonus units) for the site identified as "Saunders Properties." In the 2014 LUE May 2020 Page 1 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Amendment SEIR, the Saunders Properties site encompassed approximately 26.24 acres. (The proposed project occupies 16.46 acres of that area.) The MU -H2 designation applies to properties located in the Airport Area. It provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use building, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. A maximum of 2,200 residential units are allowed within this designation (exclusive of density bonus units) as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses, at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill. The proposed conceptual plan and Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP)—referred to as the proposed project in this Addendum—is based on the development of 329 residential units, additional density bonus units, and a mix of 297,572 square feet of commercial uses. Consistent with chapter 20.32 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), a density bonus will be permitted if the project includes affordable housing units. The NBMC would allow a maximum density bonus of 35 percent of residential units (115 additional units), resulting in up to 444 dwelling units for the project. The actual number of density bonus units will be determined at the time that a development project is proposed. At this time, only a conceptual development plan has been prepared as part of the modified project (the PCDP). This Addendum, therefore, addresses the potential environmental impacts of a maximum impact scenario assuming 444 dwelling units and a mix of 297,572 square feet of commercial. The incremental impacts of the project are evaluated relative to the two certified EIRs described above. This Addendum substantiates that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required pursuant to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines for the entitlements proposed (zone change, general plan amendment, planned community development plan, and development agreement). In comparison to the 2006 and 2014 EIRs, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Further, since the 2006 and 2014 EIRs were certified, there has been no substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that would require major revisions to the EIRs. Any future discretionary entitlements required to develop the project site (for example, a tentative tract map and site development review) would be subject to further environmental review under CEQA. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES 1.2.1 CEQA Requirements According to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met: 1. Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Page 2 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 2. Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified or the negative declaration was adopted shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration. b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR. c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Preparation of an Addendum to an EIR is appropriate when none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 (above) are present and some minor technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary. After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency, has determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. The City, therefore, has determined that the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 apply to the proposed project, and an Addendum to the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs is appropriate. This Addendum compares the proposed project to the designated land uses for the project site as approved in the 2006 General Plan Update (GPU) and the associated environmental impacts assessed in the GPU EIR. It further details impacts of the project compared to impacts identified for the site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. This Addendum includes analysis of new topical sections that were not included in the previous EIRs; specifically, it includes a new energy section and a new wildfire section (see discussion in Section 1.2.3, CEQA Checklist Update). These additional analyses are appropriate for inclusion in the Addendum, but none result in new or increased significant impacts that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. 1.2.2 Scope of Subsequent Analysis The discretionary approvals subject to CEQA for the proposed project include the following: May 2020 Page 3 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction ■ Zone Change from OA (Office Airport) to PC (Newport Airport Village Planned Community) ■ General Plan Amendment from AO (Airport Office and Supporting uses) to MU -H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal) ■ Adoption of Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan ■ Approval of Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach As lead agency under CEQA for this action, the City of Newport Beach is required to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with these discretionary approvals. The scope of the review for project - related impacts for this Addendum is limited to changes between the land uses as evaluated in the 2006 and 2014 EIRs in comparison to the currently proposed project. The approved, designated land uses in the 2006 General Plan and the GPU policies identified in the 2006 GPU EIR that mitigate potential environmental impacts for the site serve as the baseline for the environmental impact analysis of the proposed project. Relative impacts to the site land use as evaluated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR are also evaluated to substantiate that new impacts associated with the proposed project would not be significant. Note that neither the 2006 GPU EIR nor the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR included mitigation measures. Both relied on detailed General Plan policies adopted in the 2006 General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, in addition to 2006 General Plan policies, this Addendum documents required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that reduce potential environmental impacts. As described further below, existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented. A CEQA Mitigation Monitoring Program, therefore, is not required. This document is intended to provide sufficient information to allow the City of Newport Beach and any other permitting agencies to evaluate the potential impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project. 1.2.3 CEQA Checklist Update On December 28, 2018, the Office of Administrative Law approved updated CEQA Guidelines that were implemented on January 1, 2019. The updated guidelines include an update to the Appendix G Checklist, which is used as the basis for topical environmental review by the City of Newport Beach. This Addendum has been prepared to fully address the requirements of the updated guidelines.. The updated Appendix G checklist includes some impact areas that were not included in the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs. However, as discussed in this Addendum, the proposed project would not have any significant impacts or require mitigation in those impact areas. The addition of impact areas added to the Appendix G Checklist do not necessitate a new EIR. 1.3 CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS ADDENDUM The following components comprise the EIR Addendum in its totality: 1. The Introduction (Section 1), the Environmental Setting (Section 2) and Project Description (Section 3) Page 4 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction 2. The completed Environmental Checklist Form and its associated analyses (Sections 4 and 5), which conclude that the proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of environmental impacts beyond the level disclosed in the 2006 General Plan Update EIR as Addended with Addendums 1 and 2. This Addendum relies on the most current CEQA environmental checklist (Appendix G, 2019 CEQA Guidelines), which addresses environmental issues section by section. The completed checklist and conclusions in the checklist are included and substantiated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, which includes the following subheadings for each environmental topic: ■ Summary of Impacts Identified in the 2006 and 2014 Certified EIRs ■ Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project ■ Adopted Mitigation Measures/General Plan Policies Applicable to the Proposed Project ■ Level of Significance After Mitigation/Policies Implementation Where applicable, specific regulatory requirements identified in the 2006 and 2014 certified EIRs to reduce environmental impacts are reproduced in this Addendum as applicable for the proposed project. 3. The following Appendices to this Addendum: ■ Appendix A: Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) ■ Appendix B: Newport Village Trip Making Assessment 4. The 2006 General Plan Update EIR, accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to the GPU EIR, Findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2006-75, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov. 5. Addendum No. 1 to the General Plan Update EIR, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 6. Addendum No. 2 to the General Plan Update EIR, which is herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and is available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. 7. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR, March 2014 (SCH No. 201310164) accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), Technical Appendices to the GPU EIR, findings and Statement of Facts, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and City Council Resolution No. 2014-65, which are all herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 and online at www.newportbeachca.gov May 2020 Page 5 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 6 PlaceWorks 2. Environmental Settin 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The 16.46 -acre project site is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the Airport Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Airport Area includes approximately 360 acres in the northernmost portion of Newport Beach, bounded by Campus Drive to the west and north, Jamboree Road to the east, and Bristol Street to the south. The City of Irvine is located north and east of the Airport Area. The Airport Area is proximate to Interstate 405 and State Routes 55 and 73, and is within a commercial area of Newport Beach that is gradually redeveloping into a mixed-use community integrating residential development with commercial office, retail, and other uses. The Regional Location and Local Vicinity for the project site are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. An aerial photograph of the project site, which is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street, is provided as Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Project Site. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2.2.1 Existing Land Use The 2013 traffic study prepared for the LUE Amendment SEIR identified traffic area zones (TAZs). TAZs 1378 and 1379 include the project site and some adjacent properties (they encompass the area bounded by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street, Dove Street, and Campus Drive). The traffic study identified existing uses in TAZs 1378 and 1379 as 171,191 square feet of commercial uses and 352,300 square feet of office uses. These uses, as shown on Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, Project Site, are accommodated within several buildings fronting Campus Avenue and Birch Street, and include miscellaneous commercial uses, including retail, office, a bank, service uses, medical offices, a restaurant, and car rental facilities. 2.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses, including office, hotels, auto rental facilities and retail uses, are depicted on Figure 4, Aerial Photograph, Airport Area. The John Wayne Airport abuts Campus Drive to the north. The 7- to 10 -story Radisson Hotel and Benihana Restaurant are located across Birch Street to the south of the project site. South of the hotel and restaurant, the site of the existing MacArthur Square shopping center, bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, and Dove Street, was recently approved (2018) for development of a 5 -story, 350 -unit residential project (Newport Crossings). Office and hotel uses are located across MacArthur Boulevard to the east. May 2020 Page 7 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 PlaceWorks Pacific Oce n NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 10 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 2 - Local Vicinity Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white. 0 2,000 — — — — Project Boundary Source: ESRI, 2019 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks S�- A a shasa v Dr Fx;tg Ma; n Gillettegve ca Q�e c Stu r eon Dr eo St u a Pier ant Dr c otel Manistee Dr ay m Mores N PaularinoAve �� �aaor'tB 4a A/ U) LU Sat Baker St �m caps a o. gas 9fl Rand Iph v a w aae st Mohc et a a F� a nOr O rq va P spm Costa esa = John Wayne Tate o kaimus 1 Airport a� v ar;n oa Or Lir Ave a as cP �a � des ThE . L waY a St p� m 3m sx`i � � o Haus aSt� °. Sq uyac e a St �`a� � Baa t N R, PI ce Of a �9e IrvineAve�a `� gow rit F� 0 as M�aO _ Irvine a 5 yti a a�y4n 5 0� as `?X%eW m ya / Newport Beach aq Way erg University Or m ZZ Upper Newport Bay S @ m m baa v 170 a vis �ckB v rnnovatkOn e m o Ornada g YOr m Ote` o7a o d� a atn nd ri Ova a y c Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white. 0 2,000 — — — — Project Boundary Source: ESRI, 2019 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 12 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 3 - Aerial Photograph, Project Site rnthfan � ' Y ted, �G k Office — — — Project Boundary Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1377 and 1378 0 350 Source: ESRI, 2019 Scale (Feet) k. PLaceWl'orks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 14 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Environmental Setting Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 16 PlaceWorks I Proiect Description 3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3.1.1 2006 General Plan Since Newport Beach is almost fully developed, the 2006 General Plan (existing General Plan) focused on "new development that would result as re -use of economically underperforming properties and obsolete development, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., office and industrial to residential) and more intense use of land in defined areas" (DEIR, General Plan 2006 Update). The General Plan identified several subareas as special study areas, including the John Wayne Airport Area. The plan for the Airport Area is shown in Figure 5, LU22Air�iortArea, and allows for the maintenance and/or limited expansions of currently developed mix of uses, including office, airport -supporting commercial, hotel, and public uses. The 2006 General Plan also introduced the opportunity to develop new residential neighborhoods as replacements for existing and allowed future uses, and in some cases, for underutilized surface parking lots. Policies establish criteria for the development of cohesive residential neighborhoods oriented around neighborhood parks and local -serving convenience commercial facilities and interconnected by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets. Buildout of the Airport Area in accordance with the approved General Plan would allow up to 2,200 residential units (1,650 replacement and 550 additional units), although the addition of 4,300 residential units was studied in the 2006 GPU EIR. As shown in Figure 5, the project site is designated for Airport and Office Supporting (AO) businesses. Residential uses per the 2006 General Plan are not a permitted use within the 16.46 -acre project site, but were identified as allowable uses in the Mixed -Use -Horizontal (MU -H2) areas throughout much of the Airport Area. 3.1.1.1 ADDENDUMS TO THE 2006 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Subsequent to approval of the General Plan Update approval and certification of the GPU EIR in 2006, two GPU EIR Addendums were approved. Both Addendums were limited to changes in the Newport Center Statistical Area (General Plan Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center/Fashion Island) of the City and did not change land uses or environmental findings related to the Airport Area or to the Airport Village project site. No mitigation measures were required for the changes approved as addressed in these Addendums. Following is a brief summary of actions covered: ■ Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, November 2007. The approval established a "Planned Community District" and adopted the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC) Text. The action incorporated Fashion Island, Block 600 and Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza owned by The Irvine Company (applicant) into a single Planned Community District. Respective areas and PC Text within the San Joaquin Planned Community District were removed. May 2020 Page 17 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description The PC District is intended to provide the classification and development of land use parcels as a coordinated, comprehensive project to take advantage of large-scale community planning. The North Newport Center PC Text was developed to be consistent with the 2006 adopted General Plan and reflects the uses and land designations permitted under the plan. As detailed in Addendum No. 1, Table 1, "Development Area Summary," land uses would not allow for any increase beyond the development intensities allowed in the General Plan for those subareas. ■ Addendum No. 2 to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Final Environmental Impact Report, June 12, 2015. This Addendum addressed proposed transfers of unbuilt development intensity within the Newport North Center PC (NNCPC). Specifically, the Addendum analyzed: • Conversion of unbuilt, nonresidential development intensity (79 hotel rooms) to multifamily residential development intensity and transfer into the NNCPC. • Assignment of 15 residential units within the MU -H3 portions of Newport Center to San Joaquin Plaza. • Amendment of NNCPC Development Plan to increase allowable residential development by a total of 94 units and to allocate the 94 units plus the 430 residential units currently allocated to the MU -H3 portions of the NNCPC solely to San Joaquin Plaza. • Amendment of the Public Benefit Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company concerning North Newport Center to vest the revised development intensities and allocations. • Approval of a traffic study for 94 units pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Amendment to the Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP). Based on the facts and analysis in Addendum No. 2, the City's Planning Commission found that the project, when compared to the 2006 GPU EIR, would not result in any new or more severe adverse environmental impacts. The Planning Commission also specifically concluded that, based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic analysis prepared for Addendum No 2, the project would not have any new or more significant adverse traffic or circulation impacts. The General Plan Update EIR and both Addendum Nos. 1 and 2 are incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660. None of the approvals addressed in the GPU EIR Addendums affect the Airport Area or proposed Airport Village project site. Therefore, they are not addressed further in this Addendum. Page 18 PlaceWorks YY� AO j� CO -G A /\ C cPy B / MU -H2 v AO s 5 w PF CO -G / MU- A MU -H2 CO- 0 �I � AD- m ® \\ MU -H2 Co -G U -H2 \ j' opv, NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 5 - LU22 Airport Area Q Sub -Area Conceptual Development Plan Area Land Use Delineator Line ^i Highway 65 CNEL Noise Contour •Refer to anomaly table 1with nderlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail, esidential Village: Housing and Mixed -Ise Guidelines for Design and Development) aAirport -Supporting Businesses 19 Commercial and Office 0 1,200 Scale (Feet) Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006, General Plan Update, fig. LU22 Placeti forks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 20 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description 3.1.2 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment In 2014, an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element was prepared to reflect changes in the economy and market, recent legislation, and emerging best practices. The LUE Amendment included increases/decreases in development capacity in specific areas of the city. Some areas within the Airport Area were proposed for increases in density, as shown in Figure 6, Airport Area Proposed Changer, 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed land use modifications included redesignating the subject property (and adjacent properties collectively called the "Saunders Properties") as Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -142) and increasing the allowable capacity by 238,077 square feet of office space, 329 units, and 115 density bonus units. Those 444 units and 238,077 square feet were in addition to nonresidential development pursuant to the site's allowed 0.5 FAR. These changes are compared to existing uses (as of 2014) and uses allowed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan in Table 1, Proposed Area 4A Land Use Changes, LUE Amendment (2014). On July 22, 2014, the LUE Amendment was approved by the City Council, and the Supplemental EIR was certified. The City also posted a Notice of Determination (NOD) on July 23, 2014, with the County Clerk as well as the State Clearinghouse for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The project approval, however, was subject to City Charter Section 423, which requires that voters approve major amendments (known as the Greenlight Initiative). A "major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount of traffic that allowed uses could generate or significantly increases allowed density or intensity. The voters declined to approve the LUE Amendment in the November 2014 election. The certification of the Supplemental EIR, however, was not subject to Charter Section 423; therefore, the SEIR remains valid and certified. Table 1 Proposed Area 4A Land Use Changes, LUE Amendment (2014) Map Planning 2006 General Plan Proposed Changes 2014 LUE Amendment Resulting Capacity Reference Location Sub -Area Desi nation Allowable Designation Increased Capacity w/Amendment 4A Saunders Airport Airport 571,507 SF Mixed -Use 238,077 SF 809,584 SF (TAZs Properties Area Office and Office and Auto Horizontal 329 DU 444 DU (329 DU plus 1377 & 26.24* Supporting Rental Facilities (MU -H2) 115 density bonus 1378) acres Uses (AO) I units)** * The Airport Village project site is 16.46 acres within this total 26.24 acre area. **The traffic study for the proposed LUE Amendment evaluated 804,366 SF and 444 DU. 3.2 PROPOSED LAND USE The project applicant (Saunders Property Company) proposes redesignation of the approximately 16.46 -acre project site to allow a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units, and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities. The potential configuration of the land uses is shown in Figure 7, Concept Plan. The proposed project site encompasses 16.46 acres of the 26.24 acres studied in the 2014 LUE Amendment. 3.2.1 Residential The base 329 units would be developed at a maximum density of 50 units per acre (du/acre) in the residentially designated portion of the PCDP and in accordance with Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.7. The applicant May 2020 Page 21 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description has requested a waiver of the Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.7 minimum density requirement (30 dwelling unit per acre) as allowed by California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1). The MU -H2 land use designation allows a variety of residential development configurations, including single - unit dwellings -attached, single -unit dwelling -detached, multiunit dwellings, two -unit dwellings, and/or live -work units. However, the proposed PCDP assumes multiunit development. The project would be entitled to a density bonus that corresponds with its affordable units, pursuant to state density bonus law and consistent with Chapter 20.32 of the NBMC. The percentage of the project's base 329 residential units will be set aside for affordable housing as follows: ■ At least 5 percent for very low income households, OR ■ At least 10 percent for low income households, OR ■ At least 10 percent for moderate income households. The proposed Newport Airport Village PCDP details the potential entitlement for density bonus units based on the provision of affordable units. The project could be eligible for up to 35 percent of the base units (an additional 115 dwelling units), depending on the affordable housing set-aside. The proposed project is adjacent to John Wayne Airport, and residential uses would be prohibited within the 65 DBA CNEL contour of the airport and within John Wayne Airport Safety Zone 3 (see Figures 12 and 16, respectively, for Safety Compatibility Zone and CNEL boundaries) to ensure consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and Newport Beach General Plan Policy N 3.2. 3.2.2 Nonresidential The project proposes a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, commercial, and auto -rental facilities. The current land use designation of AO allows up to 358,498 square feet of commercial use based on the allowable 0.5 FAR. With a few exceptions, uses permitted or conditionally permitted within the OA zoning district, as listed in Chapter 20.20 of the Municipal Code, would remain permitted or conditionally permitted pursuant to the PCDP. Per the code, the OA zoning district is intended to provide for uses that support or benefit from airport operations. These may include corporate and professional offices; automobiles sales, rental and service; aviation sales and service; hotels; and accessory retail, restaurant, and service uses. Uses determined by the Community Development Director to be accessory or ancillary to permitted uses would also be allowed. Page 22 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 6 -Airport Area Proposed Changes, 2014 LUE Amendment a,P ,.. -11-11 City Boundary 4A -Saunders Properties ��' m U+arHu � , Retail: +238,077 SF = F 4C - Lyon Companies Q Areas of Change Residential: +329 DUs i oQ Retail: +85,000 SF Residential Neighborhoods Residential: +850 Replacement DUs Hotel: +150 Rooms RS -D - Single -Unit Residential Detached RS -A - Single -Unit Residential Attached RT -Two -Unit Residential �. RM - Multiple Unit Residential i 46- The Hanpars RM -D -Multiple -Unit Residential Detached Commercial Districts and Corridors Retail: +11,800 SF ♦� doe a o OO � CN - Neighborhood Commercial 5° O – ♦ CC -Corridor Commercial z � a CG - General Commercial � z CV -Visitor Serving Commercial O CM -Recreational and Marine Commercial i ♦ � CR - Regional Commercial o Commercial Office Districts CO -G - General Commercial Office 3 a ♦ a O ♦� CO -M - Medical Commercial Office ♦�� CO -R- Regional Commercial Office Industrial Districts ♦' o M1111 IG -Industrial c � 4D - UAP Companies Airport Supporting Districts 4699 Jamboree Road, 5190 Campus Drive AO Airport Office and Supporting Uses q Revise Anomaly #6 to allow '�o�s Qat ♦ 2.0 FAR if trip neutral congregate care Mixed -Use Districts r MU -V -Mixed Use Vertical MU -H- Mixed Use Horizontal o g � MU -W -Mixed Use Water Related i Public, Semi -Public and Institutional PI -Private Institutions PF -Public Facilities e5 cr �a PR - Parks and Recreation mP OS - Open Space Source: City of Newport Beach, March 2014, Supplemental EIR, fig. 3.4 0 1,200 1 FF Scale (Feet) Placeti forks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 24 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 7 - Concept Plan 16 Existing Office/Retail Land Use Summary %.�, m Retail/Commercial- O��-- Story Office m 2 & 3 � 4 Story Residential over Parking ©(Existing) Enterprise Office/Facility— (Future) Retail/Commercial, ��� ��7 Out ParcelEl ��<'� ���` \• /�� ,� aa�,r —--------- { 0 300 1 FF Scale (Feet) Source: Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan, May 2020 Placeti forks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 26 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description 3.3 PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS The following entitlements/discretionary approvals from the City are required for the proposed project: ■ Zone Change from OA (Office Airport) to PC (Newport Airport Village Planned Community) ■ General Plan Amendment from AO (Airport Office and Supporting Uses) to MU -H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal) ■ Adoption of the Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) ■ Approval of Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach Approvals of these entitlements would provide the land use authorization for development of the site with a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units, and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities. This Addendum analyzes the potential impacts associated with the requested entitlements. Future development of the project site in accordance with these approvals, however, would require site development review and supporting applications/information, including refined site plan(s), infrastructure detail, and focused technical studies. The subsequent review would also be subject to applicable environmental review under CEQA. 3.3.1 Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan Upon approval, the Newport Airport Village PCDP would become the zoning for the project area and would provide development standards and guidelines for buildout of property. The proposed PCDP is provided as Appendix A to this Addendum. The PCDP includes: ■ Introduction and Purpose ■ The PC District Boundary, Parcel Numbers, and Addresses ■ Land Use and Development Regulations ■ Site Development Standards ■ Architectural Design Considerations ■ Plan Administration Information 3.3.1.1 LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Land Uses The proposed PCDP district boundary encompasses 16.46 acres and is shown in Figure 8, PC District Boundary. The project area is delineated into two planning areas, as depicted in Figure 9, PC Land Use — Planning Areas 1 and 2. Planning Area 1 comprises 7.14 acres and is designated as Mixed -Use Residential. Planning Area 2 is designated Commercial and encompasses 9.32 acres. The boundary of Planning Area 1 coincides with the 65 dBA CNEL contour from the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (OCALUC 2008). Per the PCDP, a maximum of 329 residential units plus density units would be allowed within the residential -designated area, May 2020 Page 27 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description outside of the 65 dB CNEL noise contour. The AELUP categorizes safety zones from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most restrictive (prohibits all new structures and residential uses). Zone 3 limits residential uses to very low residential densities and recommends avoidance of moderate to higher usage intensities. Planning Area 1 is within Safety Zone 6, which does not restrict any residential uses. The future residential project would comply with Chapter 19.52 of the City's municipal code requiring dedication of parks and/or payment of in -lieu fees. The major land use categories for each planning area are listed in Table 2, Permitted Uses by Planning Area. The PCDP notes that the Community Development Director may determine other uses not specifically listed may be allowed or allowed pursuant to a Minor Use Permit (MUP) of Conditional Use Permit (CUP), provided the use is consistent with the purposed of the planning area, compatible with surrounding uses, and not listed as a prohibited use. Table 2 Permitted Uses By Planning Area Uses I Planning Area 1 I Planning Area 2 I Notes Residential Multi -unit dwellings P Live/work units P Mixed-use development P Accessory dwelling units P Per NBMC 20.48.200 Home Occupations P Per NBMC 20.48.110 Residential accessory uses and amenities P P Food, Alcohol, Entertainment Alcohol sales (off-site) MUP MUP Alcohol Sales (on-site) CUP CUP Bars, lounge, nightclub CUP Food service, no late hours MUP MUP Food service, late hours CUP CUP Office, Retail, Service Financial Institutions P P Offices, business & professional P P Offices, medical and dental P P Personal services, general P P Personal services, restricted MUP- MUP Retail sales (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) P P Retail sales (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) P Other Uses Uses not listed herein, but allowed in the OA zone _ A P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit MUP = Minor Use Permit A = Allowed subject to permit requirements provided in Table 2-4 of NBMC Section 20.20.020(C) = Not Permitted Page 28 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Development Standards PCDP site development standards include: height limitations; minimum building area square footage; floor area ratios; setbacks; parking standards by use; landscaping, lighting, and sign standards; energy requirements, walls/hedges height limitations; and screening/buffering standards (for storage, mechanical equipment, and waste, etc.). The proposed PCDP development standards specify residential density, open space requirements, affordability requirements, noise standards and notification requirements, and park dedication/fees requirements (please see PCDP in Appendix A for complete list of standards). Planning Area 1 Development Standards (Mixed -Use Residential) ■ Maximum height of residential or mixed-use structure: 85 feet, including any architectural features of mechanical equipment. Maximum height of non-residential structure: 37 feet including any architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which case the maximum shall be 55 feet. ■ Minimum setbacks: Buildings, or portion thereof, that are under 20 feet in height shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line. • Buildings, or portion thereof, that are 20 feet or greater in height shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from any street and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line. Residential Density: Densities shall be a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre, not including density bonus units. Floor Area Limit: Floor area for nonresidential uses shall not exceed 94,583 square feet. This floor area limit is based on the conversion commercial development allowed by the general plan to residential dwelling units pursuant to General Plan Policy LU6.15.5. ■ Affordability Requirements: Residential development shall include affordable housing as follows: a minimum of 17 units for very -low income households (5 percent of 329 units), or a minimum of 33 units for low-income households (10 percent of 329 units), or a minimum 33 units for moderate -income households within a common -interest development. Planning Area 2 Development Standards Permitted Height of Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 37 feet, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which the review authority may allow buildings or structures to exceed 37 feet to a maximum of 55 feet. May 2020 Page 29 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description ■ Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be 15 feet from any street property line and 5 feet from any internal property line. ■ Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, except for warehouse uses, which are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. ■ Lot Size and Dimensions: Newly created shall meet the minimum standards for lots provided in NBMC Section 20.20.030 for the OA (Office—Airport) Zoning District. Additional Development Standards In addition to the planning area specific development standards, the proposed PCDP includes standards applicable to all development within the Newport Airport Village Planned Community that address: ■ Maximum intensity ■ Parking and Circulation ■ Landscaping ■ Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection ■ Lighting ■ Utilities ■ Air Conditioning Units ■ Signs ■ Fences, Hedges, and Walls ■ Buffering and Screening ■ Ground -Mounted Mechanical Equipment ■ Outdoor Storage ■ Solid Waste Storage Areas ■ Native American Monitoring 3.3.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The PCDP includes general principles for architectural design and additional principles by land use: mixed use, residential, and office/commercial. Pursuant to the PCDP, development will be designed to convey a unified and high-quality character with use -consistent architectural design, materials, and color palette. Abundant use of landscape within interior courtyards, open spaces, and parking areas is encouraged. Figure 10, Conceptual Architecture, shows images by land use type as included in the PCDP to guide development with respect to architectural massing, detail, building material variety, and pedestrian -orientation integration. These images are not intended to portray precise design of future development. 3.3.1.3 PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION The Plan Administration section summarizes the ongoing procedures to implement the PCDP. The Site Development Review process, including an application with all materials to determine consistency with the Page 30 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description PCDP and applicable requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, would be required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. No parcel or tract map shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Site Development Review for the entire project or significance phase, and until responsibility for the performance of and payment for maintenance are clear. CC&Rs shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Applications for PCDP amendment shall follow the process identified in the NBMC (Section 20.56.050(E), and administrative responsibilities and authority shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.60. Compliance with the CDP and the Zoning Code shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.68. May 2020 Page 31 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 32 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 8 - PC District Boundary ,•,� i JOHN WAYNE J AIRPORT 0. o` J� Unincorporated Orange County � � v Cs Newport Beach 07 OoGeS Co�infha� Project Boundary — • • — City Boundary Source: Newport Airport Village PCDP, May 2019 0 300 Scale (Feet) ru Placeti forks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 34 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 9 - PC Land Use - Planning Areas 1 and 2 � Q John WayneAirport M 4676 Q_ 2 ) �I Q4 4f J5 �T ♦ g 64 I Planning Area 1 �J�j • a`� 6 i '°° ► • Planning Area 2,1 I 63 �p0 D4° ► ��A43 g� ► of °° z ► o°Fz6°� SafetyZono iimn II, ---------�-`�'z -_ 5� w �'O ► w 4� r �cs3 r qhs `► c�RiNrHrgN � m AY Project Boundary Planning Area 1 Mixed -Use Residential (7.14 acres) Planning Area 2 Commercial (9.32 acres) 0 250 Source: Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan, 2020 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 36 PlaceWorks .ilk 1�Ell� F - a1 11 rP.I E — fir- I ,� � T i :as f i �"� ` _ _• b✓� ��._ �� „, y . r - � � �` c N. ,__��+ __ ���� iii®��r�■i���:� ��� I� .11}�jd ' _— � rs1 pl big y�l F,It dd r T w s r R / r � �► 6; Km h m r r Wig r I1�mR 8 .— ]oil r s=ue + rl i y 5 , §:ail fE 191191 :.fid f 7tr! i R v _.J _• ._. - .�.. _ – _ NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Project Description Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 38 PlaceWorks 4. Environmental Checklist 4.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Newport Airport Village 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James W. Campbell, Deputy Director Community Development 949-644-3210 4. Project Location: The 16.46 -acre project site is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the approximate 360 -acre Airport Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The site is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Saunders Property Company c/o Starpointe Ventures 19700 Fairchild, Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92612 6. General Plan Designation: Airport Office and Supporting Uses (AO) 7. Zoning: Office -Airport (OA) 8. Description of Project: Proposed redesignation of the approximately 16.46 -acre project site to allow mixed uses, including a maximum of 329 residential dwelling units, additional density bonus units (up to 115 units), and a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The John Wayne Airport abuts Campus Drive to the north. The 7- to 10 -story Radisson Hotel and Benihana Restaurant are located across Birch Street to the south of the project site. South of the hotel and restaurant, the site of the existing MacArthur Square shopping center, bounded by Scott Drive, Corinthian Way, and Dove Street, was recently approved (2018) for development of a 5 -story, 350 -unit residential project (Newport Crossings). Office and hotel uses are located across MacArthur Boulevard to the east. May 2020 Page 39 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval or Consideration Is Required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ■ Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC): John Wayne Airport ■ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Agency ■ South Coast Air Quality Management District Page 40 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDOM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED This Addendum evaluates the potential incremental impacts of the proposed project in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 LUE Amendment Supplemental EIR to determine if there are potentially new project - related significant impacts , an increase in the severity of previously determined significant impacts, or changes in circumstances that could result in new significant impacts. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forest Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning 0 Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Wildfire ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 4.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. F] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could, as originally proposed, have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures or conditions or approval that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required prior to consideration and adoption of this modified IS/Checklist and Addendum. ._ Printed Name -V"t+ .Ow+� 2,78 "ZO Date tYlay 2020 Page 41 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist 4.4 COMPARING CHANGES AND/OR NEW INFORMATION TO PREVIOUS EIRs The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any "changes" or "new information" that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-15164. A "no" answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no substantial change in the project or circumstances surrounding the project that would result in new significant adverse environmental impacts from those identified in the previously adopted negative declaration. 4.4.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories Where Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents This analysis provides a crosswalk to the pages of the other environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. Are Substantial Changes Proposed to the Project Which Require Major Revisions to the Prior EIR or Negative Declaration Involving New Significant Impacts or a Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether any changes to the project would require major revisions to the prior EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant adverse environmental effects. If a "yes" answer is given, additional mitigation measures, or revised measures, will be specified in the discussion section including a statement of impact after mitigation. Any Substantial Change in Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantial Increase in the Severity of Previously Identified Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes to the project site or the vicinity (environmental setting) that have occurred after certification of the EIR or adoption of the prior negative declaration and which would result in the project having new significant impacts that were not considered or mitigated by the prior environmental document. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring Additional Analysis? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A)-(D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column asks whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR or negative declaration, shows any of the following criteria listed above (A) -(D). Prior Environmental Document Mitigation Measures Adopted to Address Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether other environmental documents provide mitigations to address effects in the related impact category. If NA is indicated, a previous Page 42 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist environmental document and this initial study conclude that the impact does not occur with this project, and therefore no mitigation is needed. 4.4.2 Discussion and Mitigation Sections 4.4.2.1 DISCUSSION A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. 4.4.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURES Applicable Mitigation Measures are listed under each environmental category and may be revised to reflect the project revisions. If changes to the project, changes in circumstances, or new information involves new impacts, revised mitigation measures address those impacts and ensure no new significant impacts would result. May 2020 Page 43 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4. Environmental Checklist Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 44 PlaceWorks 5. Environmental Analvsis This section provides evidence to substantiate the conclusions in the environmental checklist. The section will briefly summarize the conclusions of both the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Supplemental EIR, then discuss whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the findings contained in the respective EIR. Applicable 2006 General Plan policies are reproduced for each topical area, and upon approval, the project would be required to comply with these policies. The 2006 GPU EIR did not include any mitigation measures. As described under Section 3.12, General Plan Land Use Amendment, of this Addendum, after City Council approval of the LUE Amendment and the statute of limitations ran on the certified EIR, the voters declined to approve the project in the November 2014 election. The EIR as certified was not challenged and remains valid for environmental analysis, but since project approval was rescinded, any revised or supplemental General Plan policies in the General Plan LUE Supplement EIR are not applicable. Various topical analyses throughout this Addendum will refer to Table 3, below. This table provides a summary of proposed project site land uses in comparison to the maximum allowed uses for the project site under the approved 2006 General Plan and the 2014 General Plan Land Use Amendment (LUE Amendment). The table also quantifies the net difference (increase or decrease in allowable residential units and nonresidential building square footages) of the project in comparison to the 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment. May 2020 Page 45 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 46 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 3 Allowable Land Use Comparison: Proposed Project, 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment for the Project Site Permitted/Proposed Land Use May 2020 Page 47 SF Conversion to Remaining Density Land Use Allowable Replacement SF Replacement Bonus Project/Plan Designation* SF Description Units Pro'ect Site Units Units New Units Total Units Explanation Airport Village - MU -H2=16.46 358,498 Land use re -designation 60,926 SF 297,572 329 115 0 444 — 60,926 SF commercial area within Airport Village Proposed acres SF to mixed use horizontal SF converted to replacement units. Project — 329 units are part of 2,200 replacement units allocated under GP. 115 density bonus units (up to 35% base units) are based on maximum bonus for affordable units. 2006 GP AO =16.46 358,498 Includes professional 0 358,498 0 0 0 0 AO applies under 2006 GP to entire project site. acres SF offices, aviation, retail, SF automobile rental, sales, and service, hotels, and ancillary retail, restaurant and service uses Net Change Between Proposed Project and 2006 GP —60,926 329 115 0 444 In comparison to the GP, Airport Village adds units to the project site but does NOT result in a net increase in units for the Airport Area, where 2,200 residential units (1,650 replacement and 550 additional units) are allowed under the 2006 GP. 2014 LUE MU -1-12 = 16.46 507,772 include professional 0 507,772 0 0 444 444 — Non-residential SF 358,498 SF allowable per 2006 GP Amend acres SF offices, aviation, retail, SF The 2014 LUE Amend would have added 288,077 SF to automobile rental, sales, the 26.25 -acre Campus Tract and 62.7% of this amount, and service, hotels, and 149.274 SF, would have been allocated to the 16.46 - ancillary retail, acre site. restaurant and service Residential includes 329 additional DU (not replacement uses units), plus up to 35% density bonus for 444 new DU. May 2020 Page 47 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 3 Allowable Land Use Comparison: Proposed Project, 2006 General Plan and 2014 LUE Amendment for the Project Site Permitted/Proposed Land Use A0= Airport Office MU -H2 = Mixed Use/Horizontal Page 48 PlaceVorks SF Conversion to Remaining Density Land Use Allowable Replacement SF Replacement Bonus Project/Plan Designation* SF Description Units Project Site Units Units New Units Total Units Explanation Net Change Between Proposed Project and LUE Amendment —210,200 329 115 444 0 In comparison to the LUE Amendment, the proposed project would result in a reduction of 210,200 SF (507,772-297,572) commercial floor area. The LU amendment also added 444 DU above the 2006 GP. The proposed project adds DU to the site, but those DUs are in the approved 2006 GP A0= Airport Office MU -H2 = Mixed Use/Horizontal Page 48 PlaceVorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.1 AESTHETICS 5.1.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.1.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR After implementation of 2006 General Plan policies, impacts related to aesthetics and scenic vistas were deemed less than significant and no mitigation measures were required. The GPU EIR acknowledged that new uses, including the introduction of mixed-use development and higher density residential development in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area, and West Newport Mesa would change the visual character of these areas of the City. The GPU EIR noted that both City-wide and area -specific policies would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views, and enhance the City's existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected growth. The GPU EIR also stipulated that new development would undergo a subsequent environmental review consisting of a case-by-case analysis of visual impacts, and that these developments would be required to conform to general plan update standards, the City's municipal code, and as applicable, the local coastal plan. Visual impacts were concluded to be less than significant. 5.1.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR There are no designated public viewpoints or coastal view roads within or in proximity of the Airport Area. The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR -73, approximately 0.7 mile southwest. Due to the distance and highly urbanized nature of the Airport Area, the 2014 LUE SEIR determined that public views along this coastal view road would not be impacted by the 2014 LUE Amendment. The General Plan LUE Amendment proposed the following changes to parcels within the Airport Area, all of which would increase development capacity relative to the 2006 General Plan: ■ #4A, Saunders Property:' +238,077 SF retail; +329 DU ■ #4B, The Hangars: +11,800 SF retail ■ #4C: +85,000 SF retail; +850 replacement DU; +150 hotel rooms ■ #4D, UAP Companies: +148,000 SF congregate care (increase FAR to 2.0 if trip neutral) The 2014 LUE SEIR concluded that future development and/or redevelopment in accordance with the LUE Amendment would change the visual character and appearance of the Airport Area. New development intensity would require an increase in building massing and/or heights. Additionally, the introduction of residential and congregate care uses would change the general character of the Airport Area. The 2014 LUE SEIR noted that all of the airport area properties are subject to height restrictions governed by the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. ' The proposed project is located on the Saunders Property. May 2020 Page 49 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The 2014 LUE SEIR noted that development within the Airport Area would be subject to case-by-case review, including site-specific environmental review with respect to aesthetic impacts. Projects within the Airport Area also must comply with specific policies identified in the 2006 General Plan as applicable to this area (as shown in Section 5.1.4). Among other categories, these policies include detailed urban form and structure, regulatory plans, and design and development standards. Design and development standards detail neighborhood park, streets and pedestrian ways, and building massing requirements. Implementation of the LUE Amendment was therefore found not to degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Airport Area. 5.1.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project NX'ould the proposed project: Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally located at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage Page 50 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial ImpactslNo Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a X state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible X vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or X nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally located at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage Page 50 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, a large open space area, the ocean, or other water bodies. The Airport Area does not have public viewpoints or coastal view roads. The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR -73. Since the coastal view portion of Jamboree road is 0.7 mile from the Airport Area, the project would not impact public views along this coastal road. Therefore, there are no impacts to scenic vistas and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The 2014 LUE SEIR stated that there were no designated public viewpoints or coastal view roads within or in proximity of the Airport Area. The closest designated coastal view road is Jamboree Road south of SR -73, approximately 0.7 mile southwest. The project site would be too far from the coastal view portion of Jamboree Road to cause any impacts. Therefore, there are no impacts to scenic vistas and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR State Route 1, also known as Pacific Coast Highway, is identified as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but the City of Newport Beach would need to adopt a scenic corridor protection program and apply for scenic approval from Caltrans to officially designate the highway. Therefore, there are currently no officially designated state scenic highways in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As mentioned above, the City of Newport Beach has no officially designated state scenic highways. Therefore, no impacts to scenic highways would arise. c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR May 2020 Page 51 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would result in a change in land use designation and development capacity for the project site, as shown in Table 3. The proposed land use changes would allow residential development and alter the visual character of the site in comparison to the office, retail, and service uses permitted under the 2006 General Plan EIR. The City's zoning code (Title 20 of the municipal code) identifies land use categories, development standards, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the City's General Plan and proposed development projects. Property development standards, including height limits and floor area ratio (FAR), are established in Chapter 20.20.030 for the Commercial Zoning Districts. For the project site, the height limit for nonresidential and mixed-use structures with flat roofs is 300 feet (pursuant to the High Rise and Shoreline Height Limit Areas Map (Map H-1) of the NBMC). The FAR is 0.5 for office uses and 0.75 for warehouse uses. Upon approval, the Newport Airport Village PCDP would become the zoning for the project area and would provide development standards and guidelines for buildout of property. As described in Section 3.3.1.1, Land Uses, Development Regulations and Development Standards, different development standards would apply to the respective planning areas (see Figure 9, PC Land Use Planning Areas 1 and 2). The boundaries for the Planning Areas are comparable with the FAA height restriction zones shown in Figure 11. The AELUP also designates safety zones for the airport area, as depicted in Figure 12, AirportArea Safety Zones, and summarized in Table 4. The PCDP height and land use limitations correspond with FAA height limits and compatible land uses defined for the airport safety zones. In comparison to the maximum 300 -foot height limit under existing site zoning, PCDP Planning Area 1 would allow a maximum height of 85 feet for residential and mixed use structures, including architectural features, and mechanical equipment. Non-residential structures within Planning Area 1 would be limited to a maximum of 55 feet (with Site Development Review). Up to six -story buildings (consistent with the 85 -foot -high maximum PCDP standard) are proposed within the residential portion of the project site. The increase in allowable maximum building heights for Planning Area 1 (up to 85 feet) in comparison to the maximum building height currently allowed by the site's zoning (55 feet) would alter the future character of the project site. This increased height, however, is consistent with several surrounding area buildings in the Airport Area within Newport Beach and surrounding City of Irvine. Across Birch Street, there are several multistory buildings that range from 3 to 14 stories (office, hotel and retail/restaurant uses). Across MacArthur Boulevard is a nine -story office building. Page 52 PlaceWorks Newport Beach Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008 Ail - Irvine eet AMS NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 11 - Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations Part 77 Project Boundary City Boundary Elevation Contours in feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Airport Surfaces 0 Horizontal Surface - Elevation 206 Feet AMSL 0 Departure Surface - Slope 50:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Transitional Surface - Slope 7:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Conical Surface - Slope 20:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Runway - Elevation 54 Feet AMSL 0 2,400 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 54 PlaceWorks Costa Mesa • 5 5 X41 2 4 6 4JF �♦ O _ ��% r Newport Beach S - s Irvine NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 12 - Safety Zones Airport Area 0 1,300 Scale (Feet) Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008 T PlaceForks — — — — Project Boundary —-- City Boundary Long Runway Safety Zones Q1 - Runway Protection Zone Q2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone Q3 - Inner Turning Zone 4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone 5 - Sideline Zone 6 - Traffic Pattern Zone Short Runway Safety Zones 1 - Runway Protection Zone Q2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone Q3 - Inner Turning Zone 4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone 5 - Sideline Zone Q6 - Traffic Pattern Zone 0 1,300 Scale (Feet) Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008 T PlaceForks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 56 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The maximum building height in Planning Area 2 would be 37 feet unless a Site Development Review is approved in which the review authority may allow buildings to a maximum of 55 feet. The 55 -foot height limit would be the same as for the site's existing zoning for commercial uses. The proposed project's nonresidential buildings would be within Airport Safety Zone 3, in which buildings with more than three habitable floors are generally unacceptable. Three-story buildings, therefore, are proposed in the nonresidential portion of the proposed project. Figure 10, Conceptual Architecture, shows concepts consistent with the PCDP's height limitations. Table 4 Land Use Compatibility: John Wayne Airport Safety Zones Safety Zone Land Use Compatibility 1 . Airport ownership of property encouraged Prohibit all new structures • Prohibit residential land uses • Avoid nonresidential uses except if very low intensity in character and confined to the sides and outer end of the area 2 . Prohibit residential uses except on large, agricultural parcels Limit nonresidential uses to activities which attract few people (uses such as shopping centers, most eating establishments, theaters, meeting halls, multi -story office buildings, and labor-intensive manufacturing plants unacceptable) • Prohibit children's schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes Prohibit hazardous uses (e.g. aboveground bulk fuel storage) 3 . Limit residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise) • Avoid nonresidential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g., major shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than three aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable) Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 4 . In undeveloped areas, limit residential uses to very low densities (if not deemed unacceptable because of noise); if alter- native uses are impractical, allow higher densities as infill in urban areas • Limit nonresidential uses as in Zone 3 Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 5 . Avoid residential uses unless airport related (noise usually also a factor) Allow all common aviation -related activities provided that height -limit criteria are met • Limit other nonresidential uses similarly to Zone 3, but with slightly higher usage intensities • Prohibit children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes 6 . Allow residential uses • Allow most nonresidential uses; prohibit outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities Avoid children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes Source: OCALUC 2008. The FARs specified in the PCDP are 0.5 for office uses, 0.75 for warehouse uses, and no restrictions for residential or mixed uses. The PCDP would allow for the same massing for nonresidential land uses when compared to the 2006 GPU. The PCDP also includes general principles for architectural design and additional principles by land use: mixed use, residential, and nonresidential. Development would be designed to convey a unified character with abundant use of landscape. Figure 10, ConceptualArchitecture, shows PCDP renderings by land use type to guide development with respect to architectural massing, detail, building material variety, and pedestrian -orientation integration. The project's conceptual architecture is typical for multifamily and mixed - May 2020 Page 57 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis use projects in the city and nearby jurisdictions and would not unusually impact the design character or quality of the area. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce the maximum allowed nonresidential use by 210,200 square feet and permit the same number of residential dwelling units (maximum 444 units with density bonus) (see Table 3). The proposed PCDP land use designation (MU -H2) would be the same as proposed under the 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed project, therefore, would reduce site development intensity compared to the 2014 proposed land use. In addition, the project would improve the visual quality of the site through implementation of the PCDP principles for architectural design. Overall, development of the proposed project would be similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE proposal and would have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The Airport Area is nearly built out, and a significant amount of ambient light already exists due to urban uses. General Plan policies and regulatory requirements per the City's municipal code Title 20, Chapter 20.60, Section 20.30.070 "Outdoor Lighting," includes general outdoor lighting standards, parking lot lighting standards, and outdoor lighting (spotlighting and floodlighting). The PCDP provides standards beyond existing regulatory requirements. The PCDP would require that the lighting system be designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare outside of the boundary of the PC District. Walkways accessing buildings and parking areas would be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 foot-candle average on the driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one hour thereafter. The project site is in a highly urban area with existing sources of light and glare. The replacement of existing uses with new sources of light and glare would not substantially alter the amount of lighting or glare on the site. Municipal code and PCDP requirements would ensure that lighting impacts associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant. Thus, the proposed project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with General Plan policies and regulatory requirements. Light and glare impacts for the proposed project would be Page 58 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis similar to the development intensity contemplated in the LUE Amendment and would therefore be less than significant. 5.1.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.1.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that relate specifically to potential aesthetics and visual character impacts of the proposed Airport Village project. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.1 - Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. LU 6.15.7 - Overall Density and Housing Types: Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote diversity of building masses and scales. ■ LU 6.15.8 - First Phase Development Density: Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. ■ LU 6.15.9 - Subsequent Phase Development Location and Density: Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum density of residential development (including residential mixed-use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. May 2020 Page 59 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ LU 6.15.22 - Building Massing: Require that high-rise structures be surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. Page 60 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 5.2.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.2.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 General Plan Initial Study (IS) indicated that the City of Newport Beach does not contain any significant agricultural resources as the city is almost entirely built out. The IS concluded that there would be no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources and did not discuss the topic in the EIR. 5.2.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment IS referenced the California Resource Agency's Department of Conservation "Orange County Important Farmland 2010" map, substantiating that the city does not have any significant agricultural resources. Therefore, the IS concluded that no impacts to farmland were found due to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, and the topic was not discussed in the EIR. 5.2.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: May 2020 Page 61 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping X and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, with a designated Agricultural Opportunity Area, or with a Williamson Act X contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources X Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? X May 2020 Page 61 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance because it is not on a site that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Since the City does not have any significant agricultural resources, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, with a designated Agricultural Opportunity Area, or with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for agricultural use, used for agriculture, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impacts to agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Page 62 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Comments: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance because it is not on a site that is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Since the City does not have any significant agricultural resources, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, with a designated Agricultural Opportunity Area, or with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for agricultural use, used for agriculture, or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impacts to agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Page 62 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The conclusions regarding agricultural zoning, opportunity areas and/or a Williamson Act contract in the 2014 LUE Amendment were consistent with the 2006 GPU EIR, and no impacts would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Thus, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impacts, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Since the City of Newport Beach does not have any land designated or zoned for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, the proposed project, similar to all development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impacts. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR See response to Section 5.2.2(c), above. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR See response to Section 5.2.2(c), above. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR See responses to Sections 5.2.2(a), (b), and (c), above. May 2020 Page 63 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR See responses to Sections 5.2.2(a), (b), and (c), above. 5.2.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures specified in the 2006 GPU EIR and the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, and no mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. 5.2.4 Relevant General Plan Policies There were no relevant General Plan policies in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Page 64 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.3 AIR QUALITY 5.3.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs 5.3.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Air Quality Management Plan Consistency The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the project (General Plan Update) would potentially conflict with implementation of South Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD) 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2006 GPU EIR identified that the land plan would increase residential growth projections slightly over what was projected by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for Orange County in 2030. Since preparation of the 2006 GPU EIR, South Coast AQMD has adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is the current AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB). Regional Construction Impacts The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that, even after mitigation, construction air emissions could exceed South Coast AQMD's significance thresholds as a result of the amount of development activity that is anticipated in the City. Regional Operational Impacts The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the operational emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SoCAB. At the time of the 2006 GPU EIR, the SoCAB was designated as nonattainment for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO) Jos Angeles County only), and coarse particulate matter (PM10). Localized Impacts The 2006 GPU EIR demonstrated that there would be no CO exceedances caused by vehicular emissions idling at intersections, and therefore localized CO hot spot impacts would be less than significant. Odors The 2006 GPU EIR identified that odors generated within the City would not affect a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. 5.3.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Air Quality Management Plan Consistency The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that air quality impacts would be less than significant because the incremental increase in emissions associated with the LUE Amendment compared to the project as analyzed under the 2006 GPU EIR would not exceed the South Coast AQMD's regional significance threshold. May 2020 Page 65 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Regional Construction Impacts The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that the construction emissions and resulting impacts would be similar to the those analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR and impacts would be less than significant. Regional Operational Impacts The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that the incremental increase in operational emissions from the 2006 GPU EIR would not exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, operation -related regional air quality impacts were determined to be less than significant. Localized Impacts The Initial Study prepared for the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that it would result in similar CO hotspot impacts as the 2006 General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the 2014 SEIR determined that with implementation of mitigation, which would require installation of maximum efficiency rating value filters, localized impacts on new sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Odors The Initial Study prepared for the 2014 SEIR concluded that odor impacts would be similar to those analyzed in the 2006 EIR, and impacts would be less than significant. 5.3.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proposed project: Page 66 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial ImpactslNo Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under X an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X Page 66 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. A consistency determination with an AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD is the responsible in developing AQMPs for the SoCAB region. The current air quality plan for the SoCAB region is the 2016 AQMP, which was adopted March 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). Regional growth projections are used by South Coast AQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by SCAG and are partially based on land use designations included in city/county general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As stated, AQMPs utilize regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local general plans. Thus, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the 2006 GPU EIR have been incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP. The proposed project would redesignate the project site from AO to MU -H2, which would expand the overall geographic area designated as MU -H2 in the Airport Area. Although the overall geographic area designated MU -H2 would be expanded in the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity in the MU -1-12 -designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally,, the proposed project would reduce the amount of allowable nonresidential land uses both within the project site and Airport Area. Because the land uses allowed under the proposed project would be within the development capacity assumed in the 2006 GPU EIR, its implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. Additionally, and as discussed in Section 5.3(b), below, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR and could result May 2020 Page 67 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a X substantial number of people? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X Comments: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. A consistency determination with an AQMP plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the AQMP. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in an AQMP. The South Coast AQMD is the responsible in developing AQMPs for the SoCAB region. The current air quality plan for the SoCAB region is the 2016 AQMP, which was adopted March 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). Regional growth projections are used by South Coast AQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SoCAB. For southern California, these regional growth projections are provided by SCAG and are partially based on land use designations included in city/county general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality -related regional plan. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As stated, AQMPs utilize regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local general plans. Thus, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the 2006 GPU EIR have been incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP. The proposed project would redesignate the project site from AO to MU -H2, which would expand the overall geographic area designated as MU -H2 in the Airport Area. Although the overall geographic area designated MU -H2 would be expanded in the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity in the MU -1-12 -designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally,, the proposed project would reduce the amount of allowable nonresidential land uses both within the project site and Airport Area. Because the land uses allowed under the proposed project would be within the development capacity assumed in the 2006 GPU EIR, its implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. Additionally, and as discussed in Section 5.3(b), below, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR and could result May 2020 Page 67 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis in a reduction in emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and its implementation is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the AQMP when compared to the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site. Thus, because the proposed project would include less commercial space, it would generate fewer emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed for the project site as considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new impacts or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the AQMP compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The SoCAB is designated nonattainment for 03 and PM2.5 under the California and National AAQS, nonattainment for lead (Los Angeles County only) under the National AAQS, and nonattainment for PMlo under the California AAQS (CARB 2017a). According to South Coast AQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values would not add significantly to a cumulative impact (South Coast AQ)M 1993). The following describes changes in regional impacts from short- term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Regional Construction Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be 1) exhaust emissions from off-road diesel -powered construction equipment; 2) dust generated from demolition, site preparation, earthmoving, and other construction activities; 3) exhaust emissions from on -road vehicles; and 4) off -gas emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of land uses. While the proposed 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses on the project site, the project would not result in an increase in residential units within the Airport Area in comparison to the General Plan. Overall, it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR would be similar. Page 68 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The 2006 GPU EIR determined that construction activities would generate short-term emissions that would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Thus, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project would result in similar regional air quality impacts as identified in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in construction emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Development of individual land uses accommodated under the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policy NR 8.1 and regulatory measures (e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 201, Rule 403, Rule 1113, Rule 1403, and California Air Resources Board Rule 2840), which would minimize construction -related regional air quality impacts. Regional Operational Impacts The proposed project would result in the land use redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -H2. However, though the overall geographic area designated MU -H2 would be expanded in the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU -H2 - designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -H2 would generate slightly fewer average daily vehicle trips (ADT) -6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 ADTs (see Table 1, Appendix B). The estimated 6,630 trips is also conservative since it assumes buildout of the maximum number of density bonus units for a total of 444 residential units. Because the proposed project would reduce allowable non-residential building square footage on the project site, and overall Airport Area and generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would reduce emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Regional Construction Impacts The proposed project would result in similar land use types as the previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, but would reduce the intensity of these uses (see Table 3). Thus, it is anticipated that the types of construction activities and construction processes associated with the land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be less than what was considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Similar to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, development of individual land uses accommodated under the proposed project would adhere to General Plan Policy NR 8.1 and regulatory measures (e.g., South Coast AQMD Rule 201, Rule 403, Rule 1113, Rule 1403, and California Air Resources Board Rule 2840), which would contribute to minimizing construction -related regional air quality impacts. The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that construction activities would generate short-term emissions that would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional significance thresholds. Thus, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project would result in similar regional air quality impacts as identified May 2020 Page 69 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in construction emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Regional Operational Impacts Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units on-site. In comparison to the proposed project, however, the 329 residential units (plus up to 115 density bonus units) are already allocated for the Airport Area as within the MU -112 uses. Overall, similar to what was identified in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, operation of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project could generate daily long-term emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD long-term regional emissions thresholds. However, because the proposed project would include less commercial space, it would generate less emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources compared to the land uses assumed for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project would decrease operation -phase emissions compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. The following describes changes in localized impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Localized Construction Impacts Localized Significance Thresholds The localized significance thresholds (LSTs) are the amount of project -related emissions at which localized concentrations (ppm or µg/m3) would exceed the ambient air quality standards for criteria air pollutants for which the SoCAB is designated a nonattainment area (SCAQMD 2008). Per the LST methodology, information regarding specific development projects and the locations of receptors would be needed in order to quantify the levels of localized operation and construction -related impacts associated with future development projects. Due to the programmatic nature of the General Plan Update, it was not possible to calculate individual, project - related operation and construction emissions at this time. The LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level. Per South Coast AQMD methodology, quantification of LSTs was not applicable for this program -level environmental analysis. When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in a reduction in commercial square footage and an increase in residential dwelling units on the project site. The proposed project, however, would not increase residential units within the Airport Area (see Table 3 comments). Overall, the amount of development would require approximately equivalent construction activities as those anticipated in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in developing a new area because the project site was considered for development under the 2006 GPU EIR. Page 70 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Thus, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related LST impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR. Off -Site Health Risk Similar to the LST evaluation, construction health risk can only be conducted at a project level; therefore, quantification of construction -related health risk was found inapplicable for this program -level environmental analysis conducted for the General Plan update. The South Coast AQMD currently does not require health risk assessments to be conducted for short-term emissions from construction equipment. Emissions from construction equipment primarily consist of diesel particulate matter (DPM). The Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA) issued new guidance for the preparation of health risk assessments in March 2015 (OEHHA 2015). The OEHHA has developed a cancer risk factor and non -cancer chronic reference exposure level for DPM, but these levels are based on continuous exposure over a 30 -year time frame. No short-term acute exposure levels have been developed for DPM. It is not anticipated that any individual land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would have a construction duration of 30 years or more, which would limit the exposure to on-site and off-site receptors. It is likely that construction of individual developments accommodated under the plans would be spread out incrementally over this period of time, which would also limit the exposure of on- and off-site receptors to elevated concentrations of DPM. Furthermore, improvements under the proposed project would not introduce new types of construction processes or activities compared to what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, it is not anticipated that construction of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related health risk impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, no changes or new information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. Localized Operational Impacts Off -Site LSTs and Health Risks Because a quantified LST analysis can only be conducted at a project level it was not possible to calculate individual, project -related, operation emissions for the General Plan Update. Types of land uses that typically generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TAC) include industrial (stationary sources) and warehousing (truck idling) land uses. The types of land uses planned for the proposed project include 297,572 square feet of office, commercial, and auto rental facilities and up to 444 residential dwelling units. Thus, the types of land uses proposed under the proposed project would not be expected to generate substantial quantities of criteria air pollutants and TACs. Development of the commercial land uses may result in stationary sources of TAC emissions—e.g., dry cleaners, restaurants with char -broilers, or buildings with emergency generators and boilers. However, these sources are not considered large emitters by South Coast AQMD. Furthermore, they are subject to South Coast AQMD's new source review through their permitting requirements and would be subject to further study and health risk assessment prior to the issuance of any necessary air quality permits under South Coast AQMD Rule 1401. The permitting process ensures that May 2020 Page 71 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis stationary source emissions would be below the South Coast AQMD significance thresholds of 10 in a million cancer risk and 1 for acute risk at the maximally exposed individual. When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of non-residential land uses and introduce residential uses. The proposed project would not result in developing a new area as the project site was considered for development under the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, overall, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increased severity of operation -related localized air quality impacts compared to the land uses considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. CO Hotspot The 2006 GPU EIR conducted a carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis to identify whether the General Plan would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. At that time, the SoCAB was designated nonattainment under the California AAQS and National AAQS for CO. With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SoCAB and the state have steadily declined. In 2007, the South Coast AQMD was designated in attainment for CO under both the California AAQS and National AAQS. As identified in South Coast AQMD's 2003 AQMP and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (1992 CO Plan), peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the SoCAB were a result of unusual meteorological and topographical conditions and not a result of congestion at a particular intersection (SCAQMD 1992; SCAQMD 2003). The 2006 GPU EIR identified less than significant impacts related to CO hotspots. Compared to the land uses for the project site analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in minor changes to peak hour vehicle trips -615 evening peak hour trips compared to 637 evening peak hour trips, and 660 morning peak hour trips compared to 548 for the 2006 GPU EIR uses (note that these estimates conservatively assume maximum bonus density units for the proposed project). Given the reduction in trips compared to the 2006 GPU EIR, CO hotspot impacts related to mobile -source emissions from implementation of the proposed project would be reduced compared to the 2006 GPU EIR and would be less than significant. Therefore, compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to CO hotspots. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Localized Construction Impacts: LSTs and Health Risks The land use types accommodated under the proposed project would be the same as the uses analyzed for the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR for the project site, but the overall intensity of these uses would be reduced. Thus, for the same reasons in the discussion of construction LSTs and health risk in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR, it is not anticipated that development of the land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in new or increase the severity of construction -related LST and health risk impacts compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Page 72 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Localized Operational Impacts Off -Site LSTs and Health Risks The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be less than the development capacity considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of operation -related localized air quality impacts related to criteria air pollutants and TACs compared to the land uses considered in the 2014 LUE EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. On -Site LSTS and Heath Risks The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR analyzed potential localized impacts related to siting sensitive land uses near sources of emissions. The proposed project proposes a similar amount and type of development in the same footprint as development anticipated on the site in the 2014 LUE SEIR. Therefore, the project would not alter the localized impacts related to siting sensitive land uses near sources of emissions. In general, residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses (such as the hospital land uses) do not use substantial quantities of TACs and typically do not exacerbate existing hazards. CO Hotspot The project as considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR was determined to result in less than significant CO hotpot impacts overall. Because the proposed project would result in similar land use types, but overall less development capacity compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, its implementation would generate fewer peak hour trips. Thus, similar to the project considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would not result in significant CO hotpot impacts, but would result in slightly less CO hotspot impacts when compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity as it pertains to CO hotspots. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Nuisance odors from land uses in the SoCAB are regulated under South Coast AQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. May 2020 Page 73 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, chemical manufacturing, sanitary landfill, fiberglass manufacturing, transfer station, painting/coating operations (e.g., autobody shops), composting facility, food processing facility, petroleum refinery, feed lot/dairy, asphalt batch plant, and rendering plant. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The types of land uses that would be accommodated under the proposed project would consist of office, commercial, auto rental facilities, and residential. These types of uses do not usually generate significant or highly objectionable odors. In addition, land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be subject to South Coast AQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor -related nuisances. In addition to operation -related generation of odors, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and from volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU EIR, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant odors impacts. Furthermore, compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2006 GPU EIR, the types of land uses accommodated under the proposed project would result in similar construction odors. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new significant impacts or impacts of greater severity pertaining to objectionable odors compared to the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Thus, the odors impacts discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable, and for the same reasons, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of odor - related impacts compared to the land uses in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.3.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to air quality were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR. 5.3.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce air quality emissions associated with future development projects in the City: ■ NR 6.1 —Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. Page 74 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on-site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work-related and non -work-related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. ■ NR 6.9 — Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. ■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances. ■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 7.3 — Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction: Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel). ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. May 2020 Page 75 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ NR 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. ■ NR 24.4 — Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings: Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs. Page 76 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 5.4.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.4.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The GPU EIR identifies City-wide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive biological resources, including special status species; marine resources; and sensitive marine sources. Identified biological resources are mapped in the GPU EIR (Figure 4.3-1) and reproduced here as Figure 13, 2006 General Plan Biological Resources. The EIR also delineates Environmental Study Areas (ESAs), as shown on Figure 14, Environmental Study Areas (ESAs). As shown, there are no identified biological resources on the project site, and the project site is not within an ESA. The GPU would allow infill development throughout the City. A variety of plant and animal species are present within the GPU planning area, including, but are not limited to, California least tern (Sterna antillarum broivni), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia bremsten), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwicbensis beldinga), golden eagle (Aquila cbrysaetos), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longitrostris levipes), and western snowy plover (Cbaradrius alexandrinus nivosus). Numerous GPU -identified goals and policies would aid in protecting sensitive habitats and species. These policies provide protection to habitats containing candidate and special status plant and wildlife species and increase the level of protection of these plant and wildlife species within the City's regulatory framework. Compliance with federal and California Environmental Species Act and CEQA, and implementation of proposed GPU goals and policies would reduce potential impacts on sensitive plant and wildlife species to less than significant. Development under the proposed GPU could also result in the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors in both developed and undeveloped areas. Several federal and state regulations restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. During the project -level analysis of development proposed under the GPU, project -specific mitigation, such as preconstruction surveys, may be necessary to ensure that development under the GPU does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal. The General Plan includes policies restricting development within wetland areas and ESAs. The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA, and therefore these policies would not be directly applicable to the project site. The Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) is the applicable habitat conservation plan for the GPU planning area. In July of 1996, the City became a signatory agency in this plan. As a signatory agency, the City is responsible for enforcing mitigation measures and other policies identified in the NCCP/HCP Implementation Agreement for properties within the City limit that are part of the NCCP Subregional Plan. The 2006 GPU IS found that impacts resulting from the implementation of the GPU to this plan were less than significant. The 2006 GPU May 2020 Page 77 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis IS also found that the GPU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. 5.4.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR As explained in the 2014 LUE SEIR, the City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the 2014 LUE Amendment consists mainly of infill development and intensification and increases/reductions in allowable development capacity. The land use changes considered in the SEIR for the project at that time reflected consideration that the site was in an urban developed areas with a number of existing buildings, structures, and other hardscape improvements already in place. The City is known to have special -status and sensitive wildlife and plant species, and Newport Beach is also located along the coast where there are natural riparian areas, wetlands, and wildlife corridors that may be affected by intensification and infill development. However, any development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would only be concentrated in urbanized areas and would not involve habitat modifications on any candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified to occur or have the potential to occur within the City of Newport Beach. The land use changes proposed would also preclude most sites containing riparian habitats or wetland from being developed, and do not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, new developments would have to adhere to policies under the federal and California Environmental Species Acts, state regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that protect stream beds and nearby riparian communities, and state and federal laws and regulations that protect wetlands through the Corps Section 404 permitting process and the California Wetlands Conservation Policy. New development also needs to complete CEQA environmental reviews on a project- by -project basis. Additionally, the 2006 General Plan policies require site-specific biological studies and compliance with the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP. Therefore, the IS for the 2014 LUE Amendment found that impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitats; and wildlife movement, corridors, and nursery sites would be less than significant. The IS found that there would be no impacts on wetlands. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach has local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources within its neighborhoods. Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the City's municipal code regulate new development to ensure local biological resources are preserved. Specifically, Council Policy G-1 acts as the City's tree preservation policy to enhance and maintain appropriate tree diversity in the City's urban forest. Chapter 7.26 of the municipal code protects the natural habitat of migratory waterfowl and other birds. The 2014 LUE Amendment would not conflict with any of these local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. The LUE Amendment would also not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, and all future development would be required to comply with these policies. Page 78 PlaceWorks COSTA MESA Ll PIER PACIFIC OCEAN John Wayne Airport UPPER NEWPORT BAY t YFASHION ISLAND / PROJECT SITE IRVINE NEWPORT � � / I COAST CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 13 - 2006 General Plan Biological Areas — — — — Project Boundary City Boundary _ Eelgrass Bed _ Giant Kelp Bed _ Historic Grunion Spawning Area 0 Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve 0 Upper Newport Beach State Marine Park 0 County 0 1 Scale (Miles) Source: EIP Associates, 2006 PlaceWlorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 80 PlaceWorks Source: General Plan, 2006 John Wayne Airport VN' NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 14 - Environmental Study Areas — Project Boundary �� �❑ PROJECT SITE ❑ ,-, © Seminuik Slough Northstar Beach COSTA MESA ❑� ❑� © West Bay O Upper Newport Bay State Marine Park ❑ 0 and Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve O UPPER © De Anza Bayside Marsh Peninsula NEWPORT IRVINE i�JO�O�Ju F7 BAY 0 San Diego Creek ❑�❑❑o��DO ElOQO�� /�� O Eastbluff Remnant ❑�� ❑�%❑ ❑ ❑❑ D O Big Canyon ❑OC%���� ��� O Newporter North ❑�❑�� ❑ �00�� ❑DD o9P"" L Buck Gully ❑ �� \❑� 000❑ ❑� o D D�j \ ❑❑Q r�ul 1 Morning Canyon ❑ �0�❑00�© o o ® Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge o ����❑�0�0 0 0 ; l o0 00 ® Castaways ❑''""" ���❑ ® © 0�0 Banning Ranch IAI FASHION OO Com❑ O ej x NEWPORT A, D AND O Newport Coast Los Trancos, Pelican Hill e DD o ,e..x o0❑ oo �QJ �� Ridge Park ® , ISLE A" O a�����i T �!`�'�__. �0❑ D❑ Irvine Coast Marine Life Refuge a "LaoA ISLAND ❑ ❑ 10 Giant Kelp Bed in Newport Harbor ��❑��m0❑ ✓ Entrance Channel " �� m❑D❑m O O Bonita Canyon Creek Watershed ��� n➢ mmm O�oO�Ommm ' ����. SJuin Reservoir PACIFIC OCEAN����� ®an oa q a� ® Arroyo Park ❑❑ ® Coyote Canyon NEWPORT ❑ 0 MacArthur and Bison ® MacArthur/San Miguel CRYSTAL COVE®' MacArthur/San Joaquin STATE PARK ® Spyglass Hill 0 Non -Coastal Buck Gully 0 1 Scale (Miles) PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 82 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.4.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: May 2020 Page 83 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local X or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, X coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or X impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a X tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other X approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? May 2020 Page 83 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The project site is fully developed and there is no natural habitat on-site. As shown in Figures 13 and 14, the General Plan did not identify biological resources in the project area and did not designate the area as an Environmental Study Area. Vegetation is limited to ornamental species, including trees and bushes. In comparison to the General Plan, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential building square footage by approximately 60,000 square feet and introduce up to 444 residential units to the site. None of the project's land use changes—in comparison to the uses permitted in the General Plan—would affect the potential impact of biological resources on the site. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Development under the proposed project is reduced under the proposed project (see Table 3). The project site is fully developed, and biological resources are limited to ornamental vegetation. As with development under the LUE Amendment proposed land uses, the proposed project would not impact sensitive biological resources. There would be no new significant adverse impacts. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities can be found in the City, particularly along the coast and in the Upper and Lower Newport Bay. The project site is approximately 5.5 miles from the coast and 1.15 miles from Upper Newport Bay and would not impact these habitats. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, would preclude sites containing riparian habitats. Thus, no impacts would occur. Page 84 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Areas within the GPU planning area containing wetland habitat include Upper Newport Bay, Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. Additionally, Banning Ranch contains federally restored wetlands. The project site is approximately 5.5 miles from the coast, 1.15 miles from Upper Newport Bay, and 5.4 miles from Banning Ranch. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, would preclude sites containing wetlands from being developed. Thus, no impacts would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Banning Ranch is the only site in the City that provides wildlife with a significantly large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. The project site is approximately 5.4 miles from Banning Ranch. Furthermore, the proposed project would allow for development in an area that is currently almost fully built out and does not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. No habitat fragmentation would occur because there would be no disturbances of undeveloped areas under the proposed project; any new development would occur only within urbanized areas of the City. Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, which prohibit the take of all birds and their active nests. The proposed project would comply with the California Fish and Game Code, which would ensure that if construction occurs during the avian breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Compliance would involve preconstruction surveys. The surveys would be conducted no more than three days prior to construction activities. If an active bird nest is observed, the surveyor/biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer around the nest. Buffers are determined on species-specific requirements and nest location. No construction activity would occur within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated, juveniles have fledged, and May 2020 Page 85 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. With mandatory compliance with California Fish and Game Code, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Thus, no impacts would occur and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment in the Airport Area, does not include any undeveloped areas that may currently be used as wildlife corridors or nursery sites for native and migratory wildlife. Thus, no impacts would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to GPU policies, the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP, the City's Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl) of the City's municipal code. The proposed project would not conflict with any of these local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and there would be no impact. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement the GPU policies and adhere to the requirements of the Orange County Central -Coastal Subregional NCCP/HCP, the City's Council Policy G-1, and Chapter 7.26 of the City's municipal code. Thus, no impacts would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, and all future development would be required to comply with these policies. Thus, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Page 86 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would adhere to the policies of the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP. Thus, no impacts would occur. 5.4.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.4.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to biological resources. Goal NR 10: Protection of sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development. ■ NR 10.2 - Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan: Comply with the policies contained within the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan. ■ NR 10.5 - New Development Siting and Design Require: that the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, protect sensitive or rare resources against any significant disruption of habitat values. ■ NR 10.7 - Use of Buffers: Maintain a buffer of sufficient size around significant or rare biological resources, if present, to ensure the protection of these resources. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within these buffer areas. ■ NR 10.8 - Exterior Lighting: Shield and direct exterior lighting away from significant or rare biological resources to minimize impacts to wildlife. May 2020 Page 87 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5.5.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.5.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Historic Resources The City of Newport Beach has 11 properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The City has listed five additional properties in the City Register in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance. The locations of these resources are mapped on GPU EIR Figure 4.4-1, Historic Resources. None of these recognized resources is located within or proximate to the proposed project site. Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources were also analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Archaeological resources that are often culturally or religiously important to Native American groups would be protected; information resources would be maintained; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect archaeological resources would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations, including Native American groups, would be notified of all potentially adverse impacts; and all scientifically valuable archeological resources would be donated to responsible public or private institutions (per Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the 2006 General Plan). The Newport Beach City Council also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites. Thus, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Excavation during construction activities consistent with the 2006 General Plan has the potential to disturb human burial grounds, including Native American burials, in underdeveloped areas of the City. Human burials have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code, which authorizes the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any disputes related to the disposition of Native American burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) also have provisions protecting human burial remains from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to human burial grounds remain less than significant. 5.5.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR There are 23 previously recorded cultural resource studies with 16 recorded resources in the subareas proposed for land use change under the 2014 LUE Amendment. However, there are no new impacts to archaeological resources relative to the 2006 GPU EIR. The 2014 LUE Amendment would only change development capacities or land use designations on already developed properties, and no new undisturbed areas are included. Page 88 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis In case future developments in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment require additional ground - disturbing activities (e.g., deeper excavation) that may impact previously undisturbed grounds, the City of Newport Beach City Council has established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" to ensure that if cultural resources are found, the developer would be required to preserve any significant archaeological resources and mitigate any impacts. Furthermore, various policies within the 2006 GPU under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 specify requirements to identify, protect, and preserve important archaeological resources. Thus, compliance with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies in the 2006 GPU would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Furthermore, the IS for the 2014 LUE Amendment found that although soil -disturbing activities associated with development could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. 5.5.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 provides direction on determining significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Generally, a resource shall be considered "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources: ■ Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ■ Is associated the with lives of persons important in our past; ■ Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or ■ Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC § 5024.1; 14 CCR § 4852) The fact that a resource is not listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, not determined to be eligible for listing, or not included in a local register of historical resources does not preclude a lead agency from determining that it may be a historical resource. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would: May 2020 Page 89 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to S 15064.5? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach has properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRNP, the CRHR, and CHRIS. The City Register also recognizes properties of local historical or architectural significance that meet the definition of historical resources under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes properties with cultural significance to the City. However, none of the recognized sites are within the proposed project site boundaries. Thus, no impacts would occur and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR There are 16 recorded resources in the subareas proposed for land use change under the 2014 LUE Amendment, and no new impacts to archaeological resources relative to the 2006 GPU EIR. None of these are located on the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impacts. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Page 90 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource X pursuant to § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X Comments: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to S 15064.5? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach has properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRNP, the CRHR, and CHRIS. The City Register also recognizes properties of local historical or architectural significance that meet the definition of historical resources under Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes properties with cultural significance to the City. However, none of the recognized sites are within the proposed project site boundaries. Thus, no impacts would occur and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR There are 16 recorded resources in the subareas proposed for land use change under the 2014 LUE Amendment, and no new impacts to archaeological resources relative to the 2006 GPU EIR. None of these are located on the proposed site. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impacts. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Page 90 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As with land uses permitted under the General Plan, the proposed project would involve redevelopment and land disturbance. It is anticipated that grading/earthwork impacts would be similar and have comparable potential impacts to any unknown, cultural resources. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to applicable GPU policies listed under Section 5.5.4, Relevant General Plan Policies. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would also comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)." Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The intensity of land development permitted under the proposed project would be reduced in comparison to land uses under the 2014 LUE Amendment for the project site. The potential for disturbing unknown archaeological resources, however, would be similar because the project would disturb the same amount of the site as contemplated in the 2014 LUE Amendment. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies within the 2006 GPU. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Therefore, no May 2020 Page 91 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis impacts would occur. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.5.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.5.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to cultural resources. Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Goal NR 18: Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely Page 92 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. May 2020 Page 93 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.6 ENERGY 5.6.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.6.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Impacts related to energy were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because they were not officially part of the CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, long after the certification date Quly 25, 2006) of the 2006 GPU EIR by the Newport Beach City Council. Therefore, the analysis of energy impacts is new in this Addendum. However, the 2006 GPU EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services or utilities, which included electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the analysis was in Section 4.14, "Utilities and Service Systems." As concluded in the 2006 GPU EIR, impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. The electricity and natural gas analysis in Section 4.14 did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy section, which are provided below; however, the analysis (as applicable) is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes. 5.6.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Impacts related to energy were also not analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, which was certified July 22, 2014. However, an analysis of the impacts on other public services or utilities, which included electricity and natural gas, was included in Section 5.12, "Utilities and Service Systems." Impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. This analysis did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy section, but the analysis (as applicable) is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes. 5.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 94 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial ImpactslNo Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of X energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X Page 94 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Construction As with the development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, construction of the proposed project would consume energy in the short term through electricity use, construction vehicles and equipment fuel consumption, and bound energy in construction materials (e.g., asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, lumber, glass). Electricity Construction would require the use of equipment for grading, hauling, and building activities. Electricity use during construction would vary during different phases of construction—most of the construction equipment during grading would be gas or diesel powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity - powered equipment for interior construction and architectural coatings. The use of electricity would be temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Neither the development pursuant to the 2006 GPU nor the proposed project would result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to electricity use during the construction phase. Transportation Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment (off-road), delivery and haul trucks (on -road), and construction employee passenger vehicles (on -road). The majority of construction equipment during grading would be diesel powered. Construction contractors are required to minimize idling of construction equipment during construction, per California Code of Regulations Section 2485. This code requires that nonessential idling for all diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles must not exceed five consecutive minutes at any location. Such practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. Furthermore, the use of fuel by on -road and off-road vehicles would be temporary and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Construction fuel use for the proposed project would cease upon completion of project construction. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than for development pursuant to the 2006 GPU. Therefore, it is expected that construction fuel consumption associated with the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than the energy required for development contemplated in the 2006 GPU. May 2020 Page 95 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Construction Materials Construction building materials may include recycled materials and products originating from nearby sources in order to reduce the costs of transportation. With increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. The type of construction for the proposed project is conventional and would be similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU. Substantial reductions in energy inputs for construction materials can be achieved by building with recycled materials, which require much less energy to produce. The Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.11, adopts the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11). CALGreen Section 5.408, Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling, requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The incremental increase in the use of energy bound in construction materials, such as asphalt, steel, concrete, pipes, and manufactured or processed materials (e.g., lumber and gas), would not substantially increase demand for energy compared to overall local and regional demand for construction materials. It is reasonable to assume that production of building materials such as concrete, steel, etc. would employ reasonable energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. Therefore, it is expected that energy consumption associated with construction materials for the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2006 GPU. Operation Building Energy Use Operation of the proposed project would increase electricity use by 1.1 million kilowatt hours per year and natural gas use by 9.2 million kilo—British thermal units in comparison to permitted land uses for the site under the General Plan (see Tables 21 and 22 in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems). However, total mid -electricity consumption2 in Southern California Edison Company's (SCE's) service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 gigawatt hours between 2015 and 2027 (CEC 2016), and SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area. The Southern California Gas Company's (SCGC's) residual supplies are forecast to remain constant at 3,775 million cubic feet (MMCF) per day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SCGC's service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035 (CGEU 2018). SCGC forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet gas demands. Additionally, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, adopted on May 9, 2018, went into effect for new construction starting January 1, 2020. The 2019 standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to 2 The high electricity demand case incorporates relatively high economic/demographic growth, relatively low electricity rates, and relatively low committed efficiency program, self -generation, and climate change impacts. The low electricity demand case includes lower economic/demographic growth, higher assumed rates, and higher committed efficiency program and self -generation impacts. The mid case uses input assumptions at levels between the high and low cases. Page 96 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018). Under the 2019 standards, nonresidential buildings will be 30 percent more energy efficient than under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). It should be noted that the electricity and natural gas demands shown in Tables 21 and 22 do not account for this 30 percent reduction in energy use and are therefore more conservative estimates. Furthermore, the proposed project would be in compliance with 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards as well as the 2019 CALGreen standards. All appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not result in a significant impact related to energy for building use. Transportation Redesignation of the project site from AO (2006 General Plan) to MU -H2 is projected to generate fewer average daily vehicle trips 6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 (see Appendix B, New ort Airport Village Trip - Making Assessment). As shown in Appendix B, Table 1, the estimated 6,630 ADT for the proposed project is the higher estimate of potential trips and includes development of all 115 possible density bonus units for a total of 444 residential units. Furthermore, fuel consumption in passenger vehicles and trucks is regulated by federal and state laws regarding average corporate fuel economy of vehicles. Additionally, one of the primary goals of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) 2017 Scoping Plan is to provide clean transportation options for California residents. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zero -emission vehicles into a single package of standards. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary fuel demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation energy during the operational phase. Conclusion As substantiated above, the proposed project, as with development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Construction Refer to the discussion of construction related energy impacts above. Given that the proposed project would result in the same amount of residential as anticipated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR and reduced non- residential development compared to that anticipated in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, it is expected that energy consumption associated with electricity, transportation, and construction materials for the proposed May 2020 Page 97 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment. Operation Building Energy Use The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within and less than the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a decrease in electricity and natural gas demand. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and the 2019 CALGreen standards. All appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The proposed project would be consistent with the requirements of these energy-related regulations and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity demands. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not result in a significant impact related to energy for building use. Transportation Nonresidential building square footage would be reduced for proposed project relative to the LUE Amendment proposal for the project site. Both the proposed project and LUE Amendment uses would include up to 444 residential units. The proposed project, therefore, would generate fewer vehicle trips, resulting in reduced energy use. Furthermore, the proposed project would be in compliance with CARB's Scoping Plan and the Advanced Clean Cars program and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary fuel demands. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to transportation energy during the operational phase. Conclusion As substantiated above, the proposed project would reduce development intensity in comparison with land uses under the proposed 2014 LUE Amendment and would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under SB 1078 and was amended in 2006 and 2011. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Page 98 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state's RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). Senate Bill 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. Senate Bill 350 also set a new goal to double the energy -efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy -efficiency and -conservation measures. On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 100, which raised California's RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100 the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon -free electricity target. The project site is currently being serviced by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 2018, 36 percent of SCE's electricity was generated from eligible renewables; 6 percent from nuclear power; 4 percent from large hydroelectric generators; and 37 percent from unspecified sources (SCE 2019). SCE is scheduled to reach California's 2020 renewable energy as mandated. The net increase in power demand associated with the proposed project, similar to the projects pursuant to the 2006 GPU, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE's ability to implement California's renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Refer to the discussion above. It is expected that energy consumption associated with electricity, transportation, and construction materials for the proposed project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment. The power demand associated with the proposed project, similar to the projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE's ability to implement California's renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy. 5.6.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.6.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan does not include any energy goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project. May 2020 Page 99 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 5.7.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.7.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Seismic Hazards Newport Beach is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. High risk fault zones include the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, Whittier fault zone, San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and Elysian Park fault zone. However, none of these faults are zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Thus, there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the vicinity of the City, and no impact would occur. The GPU would allow infill development throughout the City, consistent with existing land use patterns, intensities, and building types. The fault zones located within the City each have the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking. Policies contained in the GPU would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards, such as strong seismic ground shaking, are minimized. Additionally, the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 33 includes building design standards for the construction of new buildings and/or structures and specific engineering design and construction measures to avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Site-specific geotechnical studies and hazards assessments would be required on a project -by -project basis to determine site-specific soil properties and potential for ground failure. Furthermore, compliance with standards in the CBC requires implementation of design measures to mitigate any potential ground failure hazards. Standards related to site-specific slope stability by the City's Building Code and those related to shoring and stabilization by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health would ensure seismic -related ground failure would be less than significant. A considerable part of the City's mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. A portion of the City's active oil field is also built on liquefiable soils. Furthermore, many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure due to steep terrain. However, proposed project is not within an area vulnerable to liquefaction or landslides (see Figure 4.5-2 of the 2016 GPU EIR). Compliance with the standards in the current CBC would also require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the GPU, site-specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as to California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. After compliance with applicable regulations as well as policies in the GPU, impacts would be less than significant. Page 100 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Soil Erosion and Compressible Soils Much of the City is built out and topsoil erosion is not an issue because there is no exposed topsoil or any agricultural or biological production that would be affected. Soil erosion is a significant problem in Newport Beach because wave actions along the coast cause sediment and coastal bluff erosion. However, the project site is not near the coast. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development that is greater than five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the employment of best management practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites. Compliance with policies in the GPU would further ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. In view of these policies, implementation of the GPU would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. Furthermore, compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. Under the added weight of fill embankments or buildings, these sediments will settle, causing distress to improvements. Also, some of the geologic units in the Newport Beach area, including both surficial soils and bedrock, have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. These materials may be present at the surface or exposed by grading activities. Man-made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used. An acceptable degree of soil stability is required by the Building Code and can be achieved for expansive or compressible material by the incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. A site-specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City's Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions, including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. Adherence to the City's codes and policies in the GPU would ensure the maximum practicable protection for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations, and impacts are less than significant. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources were analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR, which concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect paleontological resources May 2020 Page 101 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis would be monitored by a qualified paleontologist, and all scientifically valuable paleontological resources would be donated to responsible public or private institutions (per Goal HR 2 and NR 18 of the 2006 General Plan). The Newport Beach City Council also established "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. 5.7.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR reflects the geotechnical and paleontological conditions and the regulatory requirements summarized above for the 2006 GPU. The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR did not find specific constraints relative to the Saunders property, which includes the project site, and concluded that compliance with regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. 5.7.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 102 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial X evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Page 102 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As mentioned above, there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Since there are no faults zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act within or in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact. May 2020 Page 103 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result X in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect X risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? Comments: a) Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As mentioned above, there are no Alquist-Priolo fault zones within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Since there are no faults zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act within or in the vicinity of the City of Newport Beach, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact. May 2020 Page 103 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Relative to land uses under the General Plan, the proposed project would reduce potential noncommercial use (by approximately 60,000 square feet) and introduce up to 444 housing units on the project site. Seismic ground shaking caused by the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, Whittier fault zone, San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and Elysian Park fault zone could occur at the project site. All new development would implement the requirements of the 2019 CBC. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU, seismic ground shaking impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would implement the requirements of the 2019 CBC, and seismic ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project is not within an area vulnerable to liquefaction or landslides. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project is not in an area susceptible to liquefaction or landslide, and no impacts would arise. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. iv) Landslides? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR See response to Section 5.7.2 a(iii), above. The project site is not within a landslide zone, and no impacts would arise. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR See response to Section 5.7.2 a(iii), above. The project site is not within a landslide zone and no impacts would arise. Page 104 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Since the City is mostly built out, topsoil erosion is not an issue, especially in developed areas like the project site. However, soil erosion is a concern in Newport Beach. The demolition and construction of the proposed project, similar to all development in Newport Beach, would comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, the proposed project, similar to applicable development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would implement the requirements of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan, and the provision of the NPDES Phase II regulations. The 2006 GPU also includes policies that address soil erosion. Compliance with policies in the 2006 GPU and regulatory requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Topsoil erosion is not an issue in the City. However, soil erosion is a concern in Newport Beach. Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, all demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project would comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. These include regulations in CBC Chapter 70, the SWRCB's General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and related BMPs, the NPDES Phase II regulations, and the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. By complying with these regulations and the policies of the 2006 GPU, soil erosion impacts from new developments would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City, and some geologic units in the Newport Beach area are moderately to highly expansive. However, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the requirements for expansive or compressible material in the 2019 CBC. Furthermore, the City Building Code requires a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions that must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City also requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions, including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. Compliance with the CBC, the City's codes, and policies in the GPU would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 105 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, involves infill development that could potentially add weight of fill and foundation support that could decrease soil stability and lead to lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse problems in the future. However, adherence to the City's codes, CBC standards, and GPU policies would ensure maximum protection against unstable soils, and these impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 19-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR See response to Section 5.7.2 c, above. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR See response to Section 5.7.2 c, above. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not require the use of septic tanks and no impacts would arise. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The City of Newport Beach has established utility services throughout the City and does not use septic tanks. Thus, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact on soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR There are no known unique paleontological resources of unique geologic features on-site. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to the GPU policies under Goals Page 106 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis HR 2 and NR 18 in case future development requires ground -disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds. New development would: ■ Protect and preserve paleontological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Require a qualified paleontologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ Donate any scientifically valuable paleontological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)." Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)" and policies in the 2006 GPU. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 5.7.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.7.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to geology and soils. Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.5 - Storm Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. ■ NR 3.10 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. NR 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. May 2020 Page 107 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ NR 3.12 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.16 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.18 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights-of- way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. ■ NR 3.21 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Goal NR 4: Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Page 108 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Goal NR 18 Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. May 2020 Page 109 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 5.8.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs 5.8.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 GPU EIR did not evaluate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts because it was prior to Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which went into effect January 1, 2010. Thus, GHG was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, and the City did not have adopted thresholds at the time of preparation. 5.8.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR GHG Emissions Impacts The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that the LUE Amendment would achieve South Coast AQMD's efficiency metric and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. However, the SEIR concluded that additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05, which identified a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. Because no additional statewide measures were available, GHG emissions impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Consistency with Plans to Reduce GHG The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR determined that the LUE Amendment was consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and impacts were less than significant. 5.8.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 110 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a X significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse X gases? Page 110 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is by definition a cumulative environmental impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would redesignate the project site from AO to MU -H2 and allow a maximum of 297,572 square feet of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities, along with 329 residential dwelling units with an additional 115 density bonus units. However, while the overall geographic area designated as MU -H2 would be expanded within the Airport Area, the proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU -H2 designated areas as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, the proposed land uses would be within the development capacity analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -H2 as proposed would slightly reduce daily vehicle trip generation -6,630 ADTs compared to 6,829 ADTs (see Appendix B). Because the proposed project would reduce non-residential uses and generate slightly fewer vehicle trips, it would reduce area and mobile sources. As quantified in Section 5.19, water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand for the project site would increase relative to the 2006 General Plan due to the introduction of up to 444 units on the project site. Since the 329 units (444 units with maximum density bonus) allocation for the site, however, would be within the overall 2,200 maximum units for the Airport Area for the MU -142 designation, the number of units in the Airport Area would not be increased. Overall, therefore, GHG emissions would be reduced because of the reduction in non-residential development. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5.3(b), it is anticipated that the construction activities under the proposed project and 2006 GPU EIR would be similar. Thus, construction - related emissions between the proposed project and 2006 GPU EIR would also be similar. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to what was previously considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Similar to potential impacts identified in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, implementation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that exceed the South Coast AQMD GHG threshold. However, because the proposed project would reduce non-residential uses, it would also reduce emissions from area, mobile, and energy sources in addition to emissions associated with water demand, wastewater generation, solid waste generation, and construction activities when compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR permitted site land uses. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in operation -phase emissions compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 111 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include the CARB Scoping Plan and the SCAG's 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR CARB's Scoping Plan In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), CARB's Scoping Plan outlines the State's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030 (CARB 2017a). The CARB Scoping Plan has been the primary tool to develop performance-based and efficiency -based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing Senate Bill 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero -electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement Senate Bill 375; creation of a post - 2020 Cap -and -Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the Proposed Revised Project's GHG emissions. The GHG emissions associated with the land uses accommodated under the 2006 GPU EIR would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Similarly, the land uses that would be accommodated under the proposed project would also be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS was adopted April 7, 2016 (SCAG 2016). It identifies that land use strategies that focus on new housing and job growth in areas served by high quality transit and other opportunity areas would be consistent with a land use development pattern that supports and complements the proposed transportation network. The overarching strategy in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS is to plan for the southern California region to grow in more compact communities in existing urban areas; provide neighborhoods with efficient and plentiful public transit and abundant and safe opportunities to walk, bike, and pursue other forms Page 112 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis of active transportation; and preserve more of the region's remaining natural lands (SCAG 2016). The 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS contains transportation projects to help more efficiently distribute population, housing, and employment growth, as well as a forecast development that is generally consistent with regional -level general plan data. The projected regional development pattern, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel -related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers. As stated, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS utilizes regional -level growth data from local general plans. Because the proposed project would be within the development capacity considered under the 2006 GPU EIR (it would result in a net decrease in commercial square footage and no net chance in residential units since the proposed 444 residential units are within the anticipated 2,200 replacement units allocated to the Airport Area in the GPU), its implementation would not result in additional growth compared to the growth forecasted in the 2006 GPU EIR. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with SCAG's ability to implement the regional strategies outlined in the RTP/SCS. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR CARB's Scoping Plan The Scoping Plan consistency discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable. For the same reasons outlined in the aforementioned discussion, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the Scoping Plan when compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS consistency discussion provided above comparing the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR is applicable. For the same reasons outlined in the aforementioned discussion, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS when compared to the land uses considered for the project site in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.8.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to GHG emissions were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR. May 2020 Page 113 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.8.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes several policies that would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development projects in the City, including: ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.3 — Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures: Support measures to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care facilities, and on-site automated banking machines. ■ NR 6.4 — Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 6.5 — Local Transit Agency Collaboration: Collaborate with local transit agencies to: develop programs and educate employers about employee rideshare and transit; establish mass transit mechanisms for the reduction of work-related and non -work-related vehicle trips; promote mass transit ridership through careful planning of routes, headways, origins and destinations, and types of vehicles; and develop bus shelters, bicycle lanes, and other bicycle facilities. ■ NR 6.6 — Traffic Signal Synchronization: Encourage synchronization of traffic signals throughout the City and with adjoining cities and counties to allow free flow of traffic. ■ NR 6.7 — City Fleet Vehicles: Implement the program to replace existing vehicles in the City fleet with clean vehicles that are commercially available and will provide needed services. ■ NR 6.8 — Accessible Alternative Fuel Infrastructure: Support the development of alternative fuel infrastructure that is available and accessible to the public, and provide incentives for alternative fuel vehicles. ■ NR 6.9 — Education on Mobile Source Emission Reduction Techniques: Provide education to the public on mobile source emission reduction techniques such as using alternative modes of transportation. ■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances. ■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. Page 114 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ NR 7.3 — Incentives for Air Pollution Reduction: Provide incentives to promote siting or to use clean air technologies and building materials (e.g., fuel cell technologies, renewable energy sources, UV coatings, hydrogen fuel). ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. ■ NR 24.1 — Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. ■ NR 24.4 — Incentives for Provision of LEED Certified Buildings: Provide incentives for implementing Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design (LEED) certified building such as fee waivers, bonus densities, and/or awards recognition programs. May 2020 Page 115 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 5.9.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.9.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Hazardous Materials The 2006 GPU EIR found that implementation of the GPU could result in an increase in commercial development that could increase the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials within the City. Construction activities associated with implementation of the GPU could result in the release of hazardous materials to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Compliance with existing regulations and GPU policies would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities. Therefore, impacts associated with the exposure of construction workers and the public to hazardous materials during construction activities would be less than significant. Operation of future land uses that could be developed under the GPU could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code, would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. Implementation of the GPU could emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The California Pacific Charter School is located 0.25 mile southwest of the project site at 4101 Birch Street. Businesses that handle hazardous materials would be required to comply with Article 1 of the California Health and Safety Code and would prepare and implement a business emergency plan. Development would also implement the provisions of the City's Fire Code. With the implementation of these regulatory requirements impacts were found to be less than significant. Furthermore, the 2006 GPU EIR listed sites which were included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; thus, implementation of the GPU could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The 2006 GPU EIR found that hazard impacts arising from existing hazardous materials sites would be less than significant after implementation of the GPU policies. Airport -Related Hazards Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport QWA) and lies under the approach path for Long Beach Airport. The 2006 GPU EIR found that the potential growth and development that could occur through implementation of the GPU could place people at risk for an aviation hazard. The northern Page 116 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis inland portions of the City to the south just past Fashion Island are in the AELUP's height restriction zone for JWA. The AELUP referenced in the 2006 GPU EIR was dated December 19, 2002. Airport -related hazards were found to be less than significant after implementation of General Plan policies. 5.9.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Hazardous Materials The 2014 LUE Amendment consisted of changes to land use designations and increases and reductions in development capacities in certain subareas of the City. These changes in land use and allowable development did not involve any industrial uses that could result in the use of hazardous materials and/or the generation of hazardous materials that were not considered in the 2006 GPU EIR. Additionally, all new developments that would handle or use hazardous materials would be required to comply with regulations and standards established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and by the State, County, and City. Specifically, any new business is required to submit a full hazardous materials disclosure report, including an inventory of hazardous materials used, generated, stored, handled, or emitted; emergency response plans; evacuation plan; and a training program for personnel. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) conducts yearly inspections of all businesses to ensure business plans are in order. Additionally, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95 for a business emergency plan. By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the 2014 LUE would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Furthermore, compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rules and Regulations (pertaining to asbestos); Code of Federal Regulations; California Code of Regulations, Title 8 Party 61, Subpart M Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead); and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) guidelines for lead exposure would ensure that construction workers and the general public are not exposed to any risks related to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. Cal/OSHA also has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, exposure warnings, availability of safe equipment, and prepared emergency action/prevention plans. Existing contaminated sites would be required to be documented and remediated under the supervision of the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) before construction activities could begin. Furthermore, any existing old underground storage tanks (USTs) that may be disturbed during construction activities would be managed under the guidance of Orange County Department of Environmental Health regulations, and if groundwater contamination is identified, remediation activities would be required by the Santa Ana RWQCB. By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the 2014 LUE would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment during the construction and demolition phases of proposed development. The NBFD Emergency Services Office published the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan in 2004 and updates it every three years. The Emergency Management Plan guides responses to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. The City Manager is also responsible for updating, revising, publishing, and distributing the plan, with assistance May 2020 Page 117 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis from NBFD. Updating the emergency management plan every three years to incorporate changes to the City, including potentially increased traffic conditions from the 2014 LUE Amendment, would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to less than significant. Furthermore, buildout of the 2014 LUE Amendment within the Airport Area was found to place 841 household residents, guests in 150 hotel rooms, and residents in congregate care in subareas with known hazardous materials releases on and next to those areas. However, upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the impact was found to be less than significant. Airport -Related Hazards Subsequent to the adoption of the 2006 GPU, the 2008 AELUP was adopted on April 17, 2008, by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The 2008 AELUP included Safety Zones—discussed in the 2014 LUE Amendment EIR—that depict which land uses are acceptable and which are unacceptable in various portions of airport environs. Safety zones in the City range from Zone 1 to Zone 6; land use restrictions are greatest in Zone 1 and least restrictive in Zone 6. Most of the Airport Area is in Safety Zone 6 for the long runway (Runway 19R/1L) at JWA. However, some areas are within Safety Zone 3 for the short runway (Runway 19L/1R) (see Figure 12). Land use restrictions and compatibility for each zone are described in Table 4, Land Use Compatibility: Jobn Wayne Airport Safety Zones. Safety Zone 3 General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7, Overall Density and Housing Types, for mixed use districts (MU -H2) stipulates that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units averaged over the total area of each residential village. The placement of high-density housing is not consistent with the land use compatibility standards for Safety Zone 3. For consistency with the AELUP safety zones, the residential units for the proposed project would not be within Safety Zone 3. Safety Zone 6 Restricted land uses in Safety Zone 6 consist of outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities— children's schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Compatible land uses in the proposed MU -H2 zone include office; research and development; and similar uses that support the primary office and business park functions, such as retail and financial services, while allowing for the reuse of properties for the development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated with business park uses. Land uses permitted in the proposed MU -H2 zone would not conflict with prohibited land uses in Safety Zone 6. By abiding by the standards of the Safety Zones, impacts were found to be less than significant. FAR Part 77 Height Restrictions Compared to Maximum Permitted Building Heights The 2014 LUE does not propose changes to height limits under City of Newport Beach Planned Community regulations and Municipal Code Section 20.30.060(E). All existing height limits would remain. Page 118 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The maximum permitted building heights in the Airport Area for subareas with proposed development capacity increases and/or changes in land use designations under the LUE Amendment are compared in Table 5. FAA height limitations and subareas are shown in Figure 15, FAA Part 77 Height Kestrictions — 2014 LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas. ladle 5 txisting iviaximum rerminea tsuiiaing neignts Location Existing Planned Community or Zoning' Subarea Maximum Permitted Height Saunders Properties2 AO - Airport Office and Supporting Uses All The height limit for nonresidential and mixed-use Significant structure with flat roofs is 300 feet. However, Impacts/No buildings and structures shall not penetrate Federal Substantial Substantial Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Obstruction— Changes or New Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless Change in Showing New or Information approved by the Airport Land Use Commission Project Requiring Circum -stances (ALUC). Height limit ranges from 150 to 206 feet Requiring amsl. The Hangars Planned Community 11 - Newport Place All Six stories above ground level Issues Professional & Business Office - Site 9 EIR Revisions Effects Lyon Companies Planned Community 15 -Koll Center All 12 stories; must also comply with FAA height Office D Area restrictions UAP Companies Planned Community 15 -Koll Center All 12 stories; must also comply with FAA height 4699 Jamboree Road Office F Area disposal of hazardous materials? restrictions and 5190 Campus Drive Height limits for zoning districts, including District APF listed here, are set forth in Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.060(E). 2 The proposed project is located in this subarea. The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (see Figure 11). In most of the Airport Area the height limit is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl). By abiding by the City of Newport Beach Planned Community regulations and the Height Restriction Zone in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, impacts were found to be less than significant. 5.9.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: May 2020 Page 779 Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Requiring Circum -stances Increased Requiring Major EIR Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? May 2020 Page 779 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Page 120 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Requiring Circum -stances Increased Requiring Major EIR Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would X it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires? Comments: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Page 120 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 15 -Height Restrictions per Federal Air Regulations Part 77 - 2014 LUE Amendment Airport Area Changes Q. .. r Qi / 4A - Saunders 001 / 48 - The Hangars Newport Beach Source: Orange County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, 2008; PlaceWorks, 2014 Irvine �r fl Project Boundary City Boundary `eet AMSL Elevation Contours in feet above mean sea level (AMSL) Lyon Companies Airport Surfaces 0 Horizontal Surface - Elevation 206 Feet AMSL 0 Departure Surface - Slope 50:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 D -UAP Companies Transitional Surface - Slope 7:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 0 Conical Surface - Slope 20:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) 00 Runway - Elevation 54 Feet AMSL 0 2,400 Scale (Feet) PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 122 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with regulations and standards established by the EPA, the State, Orange County, the City of Newport Beach, and NBFD. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would implement the rules and regulations of the South Coast AQMD, HUD, Cal/OSHA, DTSC, the Orange County Department of Environmental Health, and the Santa Ana RWQCB. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, similar to the 2006 GPU, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR By complying with federal, State, and City regulations, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would result in a less than significant impact on the public or environment through the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan. The emergency management plan would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all emergency response plan requirements set forth by OC Environmental Health Department and the NBFD. The proposed project would also abide by the requirements of Title 22, Division 4.5, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9). Title 22 specifies the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation. The California Fire Code sets requirements pertaining to fire safety and life safety, including for building materials and methods, fire protection systems in buildings, emergency access to buildings, and handling and storage of hazardous materials. Additionally, commercial business within the proposed project would prepare business plans that must include emergency response plans and procedures to be used in the event of a significant or threatened significant release of a hazardous material. With the implementation of the emergency management plan and regulatory requirements, impacts of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 123 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan and would implement emergency response requirements of the OC Environmental Health Department; the NBFD; Title 22, Division 4.5, of the CCR; and the California Fire Code. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The California Pacific Charter School is located 0.25 mile southwest of the project site. As stated in the 2006 GPU EIR, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95, for a business emergency plan. Therefore, compliance with City and State regulations would minimize the risks associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials and would result in a less than significant impact. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As mentioned above, the California Pacific Charter School is within one-quarter mile of the project site. All businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City' Fire Code and the California Health and Safety Code, Article 1, Chapter 6.95 for a business emergency plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project includes development in areas listed as hazardous materials sites on environmental databases. An updated data search was conducted for this Addendum as shown in Table 6. The table shows Page 124 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis areas on the project site listed on the GeoTracker3 and RCRAInf04 databases. The table also shows sites within 0.25 mile of the project site that are listed as hazardous materials sites. All hazardous materials sites listed in Table 6 are known to regulatory agencies. The permitted UST and small quantity generator (SQG) listings document the presence of hazardous materials on those sites, but do not document hazardous releases. There are three open cases for leaking USTs and one open cleanup program case within 0.25 mile of the proposed project. Of the three open leaking UST cases, site assessment has occurred on one; remediation has occurred on the second; and verification monitoring to assess adequacy of site remediation is ongoing on the third. Site assessment has occurred on the open cleanup program site. Regulatory requirements for hazardous issues related to the project site would be the same for 2006 General Plan uses as the currently proposed project. Preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) would be required for each project considered for approval on the project site. Where recognized environmental conditions are identified by the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA would be required. Recognized environmental conditions are the presence or likely presence of hazardous materials or petroleum products under conditions indicating an existing or past release or a material threat of a release. A Phase II ESA consists of sampling and testing of soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater from the site for hazardous materials and a health risk assessment for any hazardous materials identified. Where a Phase II ESA identified human health risks from hazardous materials over regulatory thresholds for the proposed land use, site cleanup for hazardous materials would be required before occupancy of any proposed development on-site. These requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. The changes due to the proposed project do not change the conclusions in the 2006 GPU EIR and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Table 6 shows areas on the project site and within a 0.25 -mile radius that are listed on the GeoTracker and RCRAInfo databases. There have been no changes since the 2014 LUE Amendment EIR other than the closure of the leaking UST case at the Beacon Bay Auto Wash. Any development associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would prepare a Phase I and/or Phase II ESA, as applicable, and impacts would be less than significant. 3 GeoTracker is the Water Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. GeoTracker contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites, Department of Defense Sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including: Irrigated Lands, Oil and Gas production, operating Permitted USTs, and Land Disposal Sites. 4 RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. May 2020 Page 125 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites Area Database Site Name and Address' Type of Site Map ID No. Onsite GeoTracker Texaco Leaking Underground Storage Tank 8 4678 Campus (LUST). Gasoline release affected groundwater other than drinking water Case closed. Alamo Rent A Car Permitted Underground Storage Tank 21 4361 Birch St (UST) National Car Rental Inc Permitted UST 20 4242 Campus Dr Avis Rent A Car Permitted UST 19 4201 Birch St RCRAInfo Orange County Business Journal SQG 5 4590 Macarthur Blvd Suite 100 Sutton Place Hotel SQG 6 4500 Macarthur Within 0.25 miles GeoTracker Hertz Rent A Car Permitted UST 34 4000 Campus Dr Edler Industries Permitted UST 39 2101 Dove St Edler Industries LUST. Release of Waste Oil / Motor / 36 2101 Dove St Hydraulic / Lubricating oil affected Soil. Case closed. Beacon Bay Auto Wash #08 LUST 40 4200 Birch Gasoline release affected groundwater other than drinking water Case closed. Permitted UST 41 Koll Center Newport #8 Permitted UST 22 4590 Macarthur Blvd Sheraton Hotel Newport Permitted UST 43 4545 Macarthur Blvd Reef Funds USA#1 Permitted UST 66 1301 Dove St Westerly Place LUST 69 1500 Quail St Diesel release affected soil Case closed. Permitted UST 65 American Air Center LUST 2 19461 S Airport Way Gasoline release affected drinking water Santa Ana aquifer Case closed. Orange County Fire Station 27 Permitted UST 19459 Airport S Santa Ana 3 Page 126 PlacefForks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites Area Database Site Name and Address' Type of Site Map ID No. Santa Ana Tower F.A.A. LUST 18990 Ike Jones Rd Heating Oil / Fuel Oil release affected Santa Ana drinking water aquifer Case open: site assessment. 4 Tallmantz Aviation LUST solvents release affected drinking 19711 S Airport Way water aquifer Santa Ana Case closed. 17 Martin Aviation Permitted UST 19331 Campus Dr Santa Ana 38 UCO Air Permitted UST 19461 Campus Dr Santa Ana 33 Pan Western Fuel Farm JWA Permitted UST 19711 Campus Dr Santa Ana 32 John Wayne Airport Cleanup Program site 3151 Airway Avenue Contaminants of concern: Aviation, Costa Mesa Diesel, Gasoline, MTBE / TBA / Other Fuel Oxygenates, Trichloroethylene (TCE), Waste Oil / Motor / Hydraulic / Lubricating oil. Case Open - Site Assessment 2009 31 Amr Combs Fuel Farm LUST 19301 Campus Dr Aviation fuel release affected Santa Ana Groundwater other than drinking water Case open, remediation 2010 59 Martin Aviation (Fuel Farm) LUST 19331 S Airport Way Kerosene release affected Santa Ana drinking water aquifer Case open: verification monitoring 58 RCRAInfo Execair Maintenance Inc SQG 19301 Campus Ste 255 Santa Ana 4 Sunbird Aviation SQG 19531 Campus Drive Suite 20 Santa Ana 4 Alaska Airlines Inc SQG 18601 Airport Wy Santa Ana 18 Newport Car Clinic SQG 4360 Campus Dr 37 Atlantic Aviation Center SQG 19711 Campus Drive Santa Ana 60 Sunny Fresh Cleaners SQG 4200 Campus Dr 60 Hertz Corp SQG 61 May 2020 Page 127 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 6 GeoTracker and RCRA Info Sites Area Database Site Name and Address' Type of Site Map ID No. 4000 Campus Dr SSO Medical Waste Management Transporter 3720 Campus Dr 61 Edler Industries SQG 2101 Dove St 35 Physician Care Walk In Medical SQG 4030 Birch St 107 63 Cosmos Sport Cars SQG 4001 Birch St 63 Jetronic Industries Inc - SQG Transchem Div 3767 Birch 62 Emerald Cleaners SQG 4341 MacArthur Blvd 44 Macarthur Square Cleaners SQG 1701 H Corinthian Way 42 Bacons Airport Photo Inc SQG 4251-B Martingale Wy 42 Sources: GeoTracker 2020, RCRAInfo 2020. Notes: UST — Underground Storage Tank LUST — Leaking Underground Storage Tank SQG - Small Quantity Generators e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The central portion of the proposed project, approximately 10 acres, is within Safety Zone 3 for the short runway (Runway 19L/1R) at JWA (see Figure 12, Airport Area Safety Zones). The rest of the property is within Safety Zone 6 for the long runway (Runway 19R/1L). Land use restrictions in Safety Zone 3 include limiting residential uses to very low densities. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 stipulates that for MU -H2, residential units should be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units averaged over the total area of each residential village. The placement of high- density housing is not consistent with the land use compatibility standards for Safety Zone 3. For consistency with the AELUP safety zones, the residential units on the project site would be within Safety Zone 6. Furthermore, the project site is at an elevation of about 45 feet amsl. The FAA height restriction is at 206 feet amsl over approximately the eastern half of the project site (see Figure 11) and declines to 150 feet amsl at the southeast corner of at the intersection of Campus Drive and Dove Street. Pursuant to the AELUP land use Page 128 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis compatibility guidelines, buildings with more than three aboveground habitable floors are generally unacceptable in Safety Zone 3. Assuming that a three-story building would be 35 feet high, and given the elevation on-site of about 45 feet amsl, the top of such a building would be about 80 feet amsl. The lowest building height restriction is about 150 feet amsl; thus, within Safety Zone 3, the land use restriction in the safety zone is more restrictive than the FAA height restriction. With implementation of regulations specified in the AELUP, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have a less than significant impact. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As with the proposed project, the LUE Amendment included introducing up to 444 residential units within Airport Safety Zone 6. Only nonresidential uses would be allowed within Safety Zone 3. As shown in Table 4, Land Use Compatibility Zones: Tobn Mayne Airport Safety Zones, residential uses are a compatible land use within Zone 6 pursuant to the AELUP. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would abide by the safety regulations of the AELUP. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project involves changes in land use designations and would result in a decrease of approximately 60,000 square feet of nonresidential uses and would introduce up to 444 residential units to the project site. Since the residential units would be within the 2,200 housing units already allocated for the MU -1-12 area, it would not increase residential units within the overall Airport Area. As quantified in Section 5.17, Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would result in nominal changes to traffic congestion (as demonstrated by the minimal changes in intersection levels of service). The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan guides responses to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. Updating the emergency management plan every three years to incorporate changes to the City, including potential changes in traffic conditions from the proposed project, would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to less than significant. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As noted above, the City's Emergency Management Plan would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project and development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment to less than significant. The project proposes May 2020 Page 129 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis no net increase in development compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR land uses. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Refer to Section 5.20. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Refer to Section 5.20. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.9.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.. 5.9.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hazards and hazardous materials. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.24- Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. Goal S 7: Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized. ■ S 7.1 - Known Areas of Contamination: Require proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the County Environmental Health Page 130 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). ■ S 7.4 - Implementation of Remediation Efforts: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities. ■ S 7.5 - Siting of Sensitive Uses: Develop and implement strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that generate or use hazardous materials. ■ S 7.6 - Regulation of Companies Involved with Hazardous Materials: Require all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. May 2020 Page 131 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.10 HYDROLOGY 5.10.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.10.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 EIR found that development under the approved 2006 General Plan could increase pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, although water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated. The 2006 EIR also found that development under the 2006 General Plan could change the existing drainage pattern of the planning area and substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. However, implementation of the GPU policies and compliance with NPDES regulations, the City's municipal code, and California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant. All new development in the city in areas that are subject to flood hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City's municipal code, and impacts were less than significant. 5.10.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR found that enforcement of water quality standards by the Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES program, in addition to implementation of General Plan policies, would reduce water quality impacts to less than significant. Domestic water for the city is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water sources. The operation of the proposed land uses under the 2014 LUE Amendment would not involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater or have the potential to lower the local groundwater table level or interfere with groundwater recharge. None of the proposed land use changes in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment had the potential to substantially alter existing drainage patterns, including the course of a stream or river. Site-specific drainage improvements and erosion control would be subject to regulatory requirements, General Plan policies, and review at the time of specific project approval. Because Newport Beach is largely built out, 2014 SEIR found that the increased development intensity in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment would only nominally increase the amount of runoff from impervious surfaces and did not have the potential to result in flooding on- or off-site. Moreover, compliance with General Plan policies and regulatory requirements rendered impacts less than significant. None of the subareas proposed for change under the 2014 LUE Amendment are within a 100 -year flood zone or a dam inundation area. The coastal city of Newport Beach overall is at risk of inundation by seiches and tsunamis, but the proposed LUE Amendment introduced a nominal increase of land use intensity in areas Page 132 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis potentially subject to these hazards, and these land uses would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. These impacts would be less than significant. 5.10.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: May 2020 Page 133 Less Than Significant Substantial ImpactslNo Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground X water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project X may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. X ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or X offsite. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. X d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project X inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable X groundwater management plan? May 2020 Page 133 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ adopted by the SWRCB. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Compliance with the permit would involve filing a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB and preparing and submitting a SWPPP prior to construction activities. The Construction General Permit requirements would need to be satisfied prior to beginning construction on any project located on a site greater than one acre. Furthermore, certain projects require the preparation of a water quality management plan (WQMP). Construction would also need to abide by the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's municipal code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. Contractors constructing new development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Construction of the proposed project, similar to construction associated with development under the 2006 GPU, would be subject to the Construction General Permit, the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's municipal code, the Orange County DAMP, and the General Plan policies. Furthermore, operation of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with provisions in the DAMP, the NPDES permit, and GPU policies. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan polices that would reduce impacts from the construction and operational phases to less than significant. There are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project could create additional impervious surfaces; however, similar to the 2006 GPU, new development would be focused in areas that are currently developed and would not substantially decrease groundwater recharge. Page 134 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis As shown in Section 5.19.2 (d), the City's groundwater supply would be sufficient to meet the demand of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not decrease groundwater supplies. Thus, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater or have the potential to lower the local groundwater table level or interfere with groundwater recharge. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR Refer to Section 5.10(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Refer to Section 5.10(a) above. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project site is currently developed and it is unlikely that redevelopment would increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. The proposed project, similar to applicable development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would prepare a WQMP including measures to reduce the volume of runoff generated. Furthermore, compliance with Chapter 15.50 of the City's municipal code and NPDES regulations would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City's municipal code would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant. Thus, no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 135 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan policies that would reduce impacts from the construction and operational phases to less than significant. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Less than Significant /No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Refer to Section 5.10.c(i) above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Refer to Section 5.10.c(i) above. Impacts would be less than significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. No Impact Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project is not within a 100 -year flood, a dam inundation area (Newport Beach 2014), or a tsunami inundation zone, or at risk of flooding from seiches (Newport Beach 2014). Moreover, project land uses, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project is not at a risk of flooding and, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement state and local regulations and General Plan policies, and no impacts would arise. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project is not within a 100 -year flood zone designated by FEMA or within a dam inundation area (Newport Beach 2014). Furthermore, the proposed project would not introduce land use intensity within areas potentially subject to tsunami or seiches (Newport Beach 2014). Moreover, these land uses, similar to Page 136 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code. Therefore, there would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would not be exposed to flood hazard due to a 100 -year flood, dam inundation, tsunami, or seiches. Additionally, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be subject to the same General Plan policies and flood hazard provisions in the City's municipal code, and no impacts would arise. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. RWQCBs adopt a water quality control plan, or basin plan, that recognizes and reflects regional differences in existing water quality, the beneficial uses of the region's ground and surface waters, and local water quality conditions and problems. The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the plan adopted by the Santa Ana RWQCB. The water quality control plan is the basis for the RWQCB's regulatory programs and establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. The term "water quality standards," as used in the federal Clean Water Act, includes both the beneficial uses of specific water bodies and the levels of quality that must be met and maintained to protect those uses. The water quality control plan includes an implementation plan describing the actions by the RWQCB, and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards (Santa Ana RWQCB 2008). As indicated under Section 5.10 (a), the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and would therefore not conflict with the water quality control plan. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is a special district formed to manage the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which supplies water to residents in north and central Orange County. OCWD adopted its first groundwater management plan in 1989. The latest update was completed in 2015. This plan sets basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. Basin management goals are (1) to protect and enhance groundwater quality, (2) to protect and increase the sustainable yield of the basin in a cost- effective manner, and (3) to increase the efficiency of OCWD operations. (OCWD 2015). As indicated under Sections 5.10 (a) and (b), the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 General Plan update, would not degrade groundwater quality, substantially decrease groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 137 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Proposed Project in Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not conflict with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Water Quality Plan or the OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. 5.10.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.10.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to hydrology and water quality. Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. ■ NR 3.2 - Chemical Use Impacts: Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. ■ NR 3.4 - Ground Water Contamination: Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. ■ NR 3.5 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. ■ NR 3.6 - Natural Water Bodies: Require that development does not degrade natural water bodies. ■ NR 3.10 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. ■ NR 3.11 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.12 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. Page 138 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.16 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.17 - Siting of New Development: Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. ■ NR 3.18 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights-of- way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. ■ NR 3.20 - Natural Drainage Systems: Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. ■ NR 3.21 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Goal NR 4: Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Goal NR 5: Sanitary Sewer Outflows—Minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows NR 5.2 - Waste Discharge Permits: Require waste discharge permits for all food preparation facilities that produce grease. May 2020 Page 139 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING 5.11.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.11.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the General Plan update would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas; instead, it would allow limited infill development in select subareas in the City. Therefore, the 2006 GPU would not physically divide an established community and impacts were less than significant. The 2006 GPU EIR also analyzed land use incompatibility with regard to introducing new land uses and structures that could result in intensification of development in the city. Analyzing subareas of the City, the 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rose to a level of significance. Impacts were less than significant. The 2006 GPU was found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City. The General Plan Update was modified after preparation of the 2006 GPU Draft EIR to eliminate any potential residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, and therefore was found to be consistent with John Wayne Airport AELUP. The City of Newport Beach is subject to policies within the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Future development was required to comply with policies within the plan, and therefore no impact occurred. 5.11.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment primarily increased or decreased development capacity of certain areas of the city. However, it did not propose any extensions of roadways or other development features through areas that could physically divide an established community. Impacts were found to be less than significant. The 2014 LUE Amendment was found to be consistent with the CLUP, the 2012-2035 SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the AELUP for JWA, the 2006 GPU policies, the University of California, Irvine Long Range Development Plan, and all Planned Community Development Plans. Page 140 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.11.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists of infill and intensification of development on the project site. The proposed project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would not introduce a physical barrier that would separate land uses that are not already separated. Vehicular and pedestrian connections and access for residential uses in the surrounding area would remain. Except for driveways accessing the project site, the proposed project would not physically change the neighborhood's street pattern or otherwise impede movement through the neighborhood. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Proposed Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR Adopted land use regulations applicable to the proposed project include the AELUP for JWA, and the 2006 GPU policies. May 2020 Page 141 Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Circum -stances Increased Requiring Requiring Major Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues EIR Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an X environmental effect? Comments: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists of infill and intensification of development on the project site. The proposed project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Thus, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Proposed Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would not introduce a physical barrier that would separate land uses that are not already separated. Vehicular and pedestrian connections and access for residential uses in the surrounding area would remain. Except for driveways accessing the project site, the proposed project would not physically change the neighborhood's street pattern or otherwise impede movement through the neighborhood. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Proposed Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR Adopted land use regulations applicable to the proposed project include the AELUP for JWA, and the 2006 GPU policies. May 2020 Page 141 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis SCAG's RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The proposed project is not considered a project of "regionwide significance" pursuant to the criteria in SCAG's Intergovernmental Review Procedures Handbook (November 1995) and Section 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, this section does not address the proposed project's consistency with SCAG's regional planning guidelines and policies. The proposed project is within the following JWA zones: ■ Clear Zone/Runway Protection Zones and Accident Potential Zones ■ Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces and Notification Area ■ 65 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours of JWA Potential project impacts associated with airport -related hazard impacts (Safety Zones and FAR Part 77) are addressed in Section 5.9, Ha.Zards and Ha.ZardousMaterials. Airport -related noise impacts are addressed in Section 5.13, Noise. By complying with the AELUP safety zone land use compatibility requirements, FAR Part 77 regulations, Policy N 3.2 of the General Plan, and CCR Title 21, the proposed project would be consistent with JW -Ns land use plan. Thus, impacts to airport -related hazards and noise are less than significant. A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the various elements of the City's 2006 GPU is provided in Table 7, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis in the table concludes that the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's 2006 GPU, and the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts related to the General Plan's goals and policies. Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies I Project Consistency Goal LU 1: A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors through the recognition that Newport Beach is primarily a residential community. LU 1.1. Unique Environment. Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. LU 1.4. Growth Management. Implement a conservative growth strategy that enhances the quality of life of residents and balances the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of open space and natural resources. Page 142 Consistent.. The PCDP enhances the distinct, urban character of the Airport Area by providing a means for replacing parking lots and small- scale commercial structures with attractive and functional mixed-use development, in line with the General Plan goal of transitioning the Airport Area to a mixed-use community. The Property is not in or near any of the City's areas featuring the harbor, unique topography, or view sheds. The proposed project would introduce a mix of land uses, including residential units to the Property consistent with the uses and urbanized character of the JWA area and the MU -1-12 designation. Consistent: The Newport Airport Village Development Plan allows the City to meet the demand for additional housing without developing open space or natural areas, and without densification of existing residential areas. The PCDP enhances the quality of life for the community by improving the aesthetics of the PC District in accordance with the Site Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations contained in Sections III and IV, respectively. PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Applicable Goals and Policies I Project Consistency LU 1.5. Economic Health. Encourage a local economy that Consistent. By developing a mix of residential and nonresidential provides adequate commercial, office, industrial, and marine- uses, the proposed project represents an investment in the economic oriented opportunities that provide employment and revenue to health of the City, including by adding residents to a mixed-use area support high-quality community services. that will help support other nearby commercial uses. Goal LU 2: A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. LU 2.1. Resident -Serving Land Uses. Accommodate uses that Consistent. Consistent with housing needs demonstrated in the City's support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing element, the proposed project includes housing opportunities housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, in the form of 444 dwelling units, including 115 units reserved for culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual lower-income households. activity that are in balance with community natural resources and The project also would provide office, industrial, and commercial space open spaces. in a mixed-use setting.. LU 2.2. Sustainable and Complete Community. Emphasize the development of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self-sustaining community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, goods and services, and employment. Consistent. The project introduces 444 new residential units to the project site in an existing major employment center (the Airport Area, Irvine Business Complex, and surrounding areas), providing new opportunities for those working in the area to live near work. The project also provides office, industrial, and commercial space that will help to meet the needs of residents and employees. The introduction and subsequent integration of a mixed-use development into a well-established neighborhood of primarily commercial, retail, and office uses would provide a greater balance between housing, employment, and retail opportunities within the Airport Area. Potential employment opportunities for future residents of the proposed project that may arise in the surrounding area would be within walking/bicycle riding distance of the proposed homes. In addition, those who are currently employed in the area would be afforded a rental housing opportunity within walking/bicycle riding distance of their place of employment. LU 2.3. Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities Consistent. The PCDP allows for multi -family residential uses, for the development of residential units that respond to including affordable units, offering a variety of product types that can community and regional needs in terms of density, size, location, respond to market needs and diversify the City's housing stock. and cost. Implement goals, policies, programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. LU 2.4. Economic Development. Accommodate uses that maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current and future residents. LU 2.8. Adequate Infrastructure. Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). Consistent. See response to Policy LU 1.5. The project applicant/developer would pay the City's development impact fees, which are designed to ensure that new development does not have a negative fiscal impact on the City, and the school district's development impact fee. Additionally, a public benefit fee will be paid to the City as specified in the development agreement. The Newport Airport Village Development Plan facilitates the retention of commercial uses in the Airport Area while allowing residential uses that would enhance the economic viability of retail, restaurants, and commercial services. Consistent. Because the proposed project involves redevelopment of existing urbanized parcels instead of developing on a greenfield (undeveloped) site, it would benefit from the efficiency of connecting to existing utility infrastructure and the existing street network. For more information about the provision of public services and utilities, see May 2020 Page 143 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies I Proiect Consistencv Goal LU 3: A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. LU 3.1. Neighborhoods, Districts, Corridors, and Open Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed use (residential and Spaces. Maintain Newport Beach's pattern of residential nonresidential) project that would be built in a mixed-use context of neighborhoods, business and employment districts, commercial commercial, industrial, and offices. Furthermore, consistent with long - centers, corridors, and harbor and ocean districts. range planning efforts implemented by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine designed to change the areas around JWA to provide residential uses, the project provides 444 residential units. Therefore, the proposed project would maintain the overall land use pattern of the Airport Area. LU 3.2. Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, Consistent. The proposed project would represent a substantial districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that investment in an existing district (the JWA Airport Area) that is are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes important to the City's economic health. The proposed housing units in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those would contribute toward Newport Beach accommodating its share of areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to projected regional population growth. The proposed housing also accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional could reduce commuting distances and traffic by providing residences population growth, improve the relationship and reduce in an employment -rich area. For more information about the provision commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the of public services and infrastructure to the project site, see Sections values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live 5.15, Public Services, 5.18 Transportation and Traffic, and 5.19, for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall Utilities and Service Systems, of this Addendum. be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and The Newport Airport Village Development Plan facilitates reuse of public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of existing underutilized properties and infill development that is service. complementary to recent development in the Airport Area. The Development Plan enhances the economic viability of local retail, restaurants, and commercial services by allowing for residential uses that increases the residential population in the area. LU 3.3. Opportunities for Change. Provide opportunities for Consistent. The premise of the proposed project is exactly what is improved development and enhanced environments for residents articulated by this policy—the project would redevelop and reuse a site in the following districts and corridors, as specified in Polices featuring underperforming commercial uses and would develop 6.3.1 through 6.22.7: residential uses in a cohesive design near existing jobs and services. John Wayne Airport Area: re -use of underperforming industrial and office properties and development of cohesive residential neighborhoods in proximity to jobs and services. LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Consistent. Development within Newport Airport Village will be Commission. Refer the adoption or amendment of the General subject to ALUC review. Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. Goal LU 4: Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. LU 4.1. Land Use Diagram. Accommodate land use Consistent. Figure LU1 in the land use element shows that the Airport development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 Area is primarily intended for commercial and mixed uses. Figures depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and LU11 and LU22 show that adjacent parcels are designated MU -1-12. Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use categories Page 144 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistent for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land The proposed project would extent the MU -1-12 designation and upon Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, approval would be consistent with this policy. types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. See page 3-11 of the City's General Plan for the full policy. Goal LU 5.1: Residential neighborhoods that are well-planned and designed contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. LU 5.1.1. Compatible but Diverse Development. Establish Consistent. property development regulations for residential projects to The PCDP includes development standards and residential design create compatible and high-quality development that contributes guidelines to create a compatible and high-quality development that to neighborhood character. contributes to the emerging urban neighborhood character of the Airport Area. LU 5.1.2 Compatible Interfaces. Require that the height of Consistent. Newport Airport Village is not located near any lower - development in nonresidential and higher -density residential density residential areas, thus no compatibility conflicts would occur. areas transition as it nears lower -density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development. Goal LU 5.3: Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. LU 5.3.1 Mixed -Use Buildings. Require that mixed-use Consistent. Development will be required to comply with the buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and development and design standards in the PCDP. Conceptual landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in renderings of the proposed project are shown in Figure 10. The consideration of the following principles: proposed buildings, landscaping, and other built elements have been • Design and incorporation of building materials and features designed to exhibit high quality design and complement the to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, surrounding urban context. As illustrated in the renderings, the project lighting, odors, and similar impacts would integrate the nonresidential uses with the residential uses • Visual and physical integration of residential and through a common design theme. For an additional evaluation of nonresidential uses visual and aesthetic impacts generated by the proposed project, see • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation Section 5.1, Aesthetics, of this Addendum. of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses • Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtvards and common open spaces. LU 5.3.2 Mixed -Use Building Location and Size of Consistent. Within mixed-use buildings, ground floor nonresidential Nonresidential Uses. Require that 100 percent of the ground floor use is promoted through the Architectural Design Considerations street frontage of mixed-use buildings be occupied by retail and provided in Section IV of the PCDP. other compatible nonresidential uses, unless specified otherwise by policies LU 6.1.1 through LU 6.20.6 for a district or corridor. LU 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses. Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies LU 5.1.9 and LU 5.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should May 2020 Consistent. As shown in Figure 10, the nonresidential component would be compatible with the residential uses. Given the AELUP safety zones for the project site and land use compatibility criteria, the residential use (limited to safety zone 6) is necessarily separated from the nonresidential uses in safety zone 3. Nevertheless, the commercial uses are allowed in the mixed-use potion of the project site identified Page 145 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis IaDle i New ort Iseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy Anal sls Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through as Planning Area 1 in the PCDP. Future development would require architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not uses to be integrated through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. landscaping. LU 5.3.4. Districts Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Consistent. As described above under Policy LU 3.1, the Airport Area Uses. Require that sufficient acreage be developed for an is increasingly home to residential uses that are intermingled with individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential nonresidential uses. The project would develop sufficient acreage for and nonresidential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure mainly residential uses to prevent fragmentation and ensure the each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. viability of the residential uses. In addition, the project proposes some • Common signage program for tenant identification and commercial uses that provide a connection to surrounding commercial wayfinding areas. The addition of residential uses in the area will help ensure the • Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian viability of the remaining, existing retail uses in the vicinity. LU 5.3.6 Parking Adequacy and Location. Require that Consistent. Required number of parking spaces and parking location adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to guidelines for development within the PC District are addressed in the serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from Site Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, provided in Sections III and IV, respectively, of PCDP. architectural walls, or dense landscaping. Goal LU 5.4: Office and business districts that exhibit a high quality image, are attractive, and provide quality working environments for employees. LU 5.4.1 Site Planning. Require that new and renovated office Consistent. The development of the Planned Community will result in and retail development projects be planned to exhibit a high- high quality, cohesive development based upon the PCDP regulations. quality and cohesive "campus environment," characterized by the Pedestrian and bicycle connections are required between the following: residential areas and non-residential areas, primary access to the • Location of buildings around common plazas, courtyards, residential buildings will face a public right-of-way or central courtyard, walkways, and open space and signs will be reviewed to ensure compatibility with the • Incorporation of extensive on-site landscaping that development. emphasizes special features such as entryways • Use of landscape and open spaces to break the visual continuity of surface parking lots • Common signage program for tenant identification and wayfinding • Common streetscapes and lighting to promote pedestrian activity • Readily observable site access, entrance drives and building entries and minimized conflict between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians LU 5.4.2 Development Form and Architecture. Require that Consistent. High quality, unified development, including mixed use, new development of business park, office, and supporting residential, office and retail uses, is addressed through the Site buildings be designed to convey a unified and high-quality Development Standards and Architectural Design Considerations character in consideration of the following principles: provided in Sections III and IV, respectively, of the PCDP. • Modulation of building mass, heights, and elevations and articulation of building • Avoidance of blank building walls that internalize uses with no outdoor orientation to public spaces • Minimize the mass and bulk of building facades abutting streets • Consistent architectural design vocabulary, articulation, materials, and color palette • Clear identification of entries through design elements • Integration of signage with the building's architectural style and character Page 146 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency • Architectural treatment of parking structures consistent with their Primary commercial or office buildinq Goal LU 5.6: Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment. LU 5.6.1. Compatible Development. Require that buildings and Consistent. The vicinity surrounding the project site contains a variety properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as of nonresidential land uses at a variety of building intensities and interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. scales. Although the height of the proposed project would be greater than some of the surrounding commercial and office buildings, the Airport Area is a district in transition with new projects—like the proposed project—introducing more street -facing urban building typologies. The design and scale of the proposed project will contribute to the evolving urban neighborhood that is gradually developing in the Airport Area. It includes features such as landscaped setbacks, street trees, outdoor retail -adjacent dining and lounging space, articulated facades with balconies and windows, and varying colors and material. These outward -facing features will add visual interest and integrate the project site with neighborhood activity on surroundina streets and buildinas. LU 5.6.2. Form and Environment. Require that new and Consistent. The project's design is typical for multifamily and mixed - renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, use projects in the city and nearby jurisdictions and would not colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character unusually impact the design character or quality of the area. The and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, project's proposed material and color palette would not raise local building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials temperatures or result in glare. See response to Policy LU 5.6.1. See that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive additional analysis in Section 5.1, which analyzes the proposed illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare. adversely modify wind patterns. LU 5.6.3. Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. Consistent. All project -related exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination on-site, in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 20.30.070.A (General Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the City's zoning code, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. For additional analysis, see Impact 5.1-3 in Section 5.1. Goal LU 6.2: Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. LU 6.2.1. Residential Supply. Accommodate a diversity of Consistent. See response to Policy LU 2.1. residential units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the adopted Housing Element. LU 6.2.3. Residential Affordability. Encourage the Consistent. As described under Policy LU 2.1, up to 35 percent of the development of residential units that are affordable for those project would be affordable units (115 units reserved for lower-income employed in the City. households). This would be consistent with the City's housing element. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. LU 6.15.1. Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. Consistent. High quality, integrated development, including mixed use, residential, office, and retail uses, is addressed through the Land Use and Development Regulations (Section II), Architectural Design Considerations (Section III), and Residential Design Guidelines (Section IV) sections of the PCDP provide a comprehensive set of standards and auidelines to imDlement this May 2020 Page 147 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis laale i Newport tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy Anal sis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.2. Underperforming Land Uses. Promote the Consistent.. The PCDP facilitates the reuse of underperforming redevelopment of sites with underperforming retail uses located properties by allowing the addition of mixed-use and residential use. on parcels at the interior of large blocks for other uses, with retail Land Use and Development Regulations (Section II), Architectural clustered along major arterials (e.g., Bristol, Campus, MacArthur, Design Considerations (Section III), and Residential Design Guidelines and Jamboree), except where intended to serve and be (Section IV) provide a comprehensive set of standards and guidelines integrated with new residential development. to promote high-quality new development. LU 6.15.3. Airport Compatibility. Require that all development Consistent. The Project would be constructed in conformance with be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set the FAA's height restrictions, and all residential development would be forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and outside the Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, boundaries of Safety Zone 3 where high density residential and that residential development be located outside of the 65 development is not allowed. The Applicant has received a dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master determination of no hazard to aviation with development up to 85 feet Plan. in height from the FAA. LU 6.15.4 Priority Uses Consistent. Office and commercial uses would be compatible with Accommodate office, research and development, and similar residential uses in accordance with the Land Use and Development uses that support the primary office and business park functions Regulations (Section II) and Architectural Design Considerations such as retail and financial services, as prescribed for the "CO- (Section III) of the PCDP. Residential uses would support local retail, G" designation, while allowing for the re -use of properties for the restaurants, and services. The PCDP design and connectivity development of cohesive residential villages that are integrated requirements would integrate residential and non-residential uses and with business park uses. ensure adequate circulation and parking within the PC District. LU 6.15.5 Residential and Supporting Uses Consistent. The GPA and PCDP provides development capacity and Accommodate the development of a maximum of 2,200 multi- standards for mixed-use development. The proposed development family residential units, including work force housing, and mixed- limit is 329 dwelling units (plus up 115 density bonus when affordable use buildings that integrate residential with ground level office or housing is provided) and 297,572 square feet for commercial retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and development. The Property is not located within the Conceptual parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22, and therefore, any replacement of underlying permitted nonresidential uses. When a residential units allocated to the site are not any portion of the 550 infill development phase includes a mix of residential and units allocated to the Conceptual Development Plan Area As nonresidential uses or replaces existing industrial uses, the described in Chapter 3 of the Addendum, the Project's residential uses number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative development would replace some of the permitted underlying commercial of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would result development capacity. Specifically, the 329 units would replace 60,926 from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential square feet of permitted retail commercial uses using the City - uses. However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as approved Airport Area Residential and Mixed -Use Adjustment factors infill on surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable prepared by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure that the number of buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan peak hour trips generated by the redevelopment of the Property would Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided that the parking is not exceed the number of trips attributable to the existing permitted replaced on site. non-residential uses. Any density bonus units, up to 115 units in this case are above and beyond what the General Plan allocates in accordance with Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and State law. Two (2) projects have been approved within the Airport Area to date. Uptown Newport was approved for 632 replacement units, 290 additive units, and with a density bonus of 322 units for a total of 1,244 residential units. Newport Crossings was approved for 259 replacement units and 91 density bonus units. Therefore, the total remaining number of replacement units is 759 units and the 329 units requested by the applicant would not exceed the remaining units to be allocated pursuant to this policy. If approved, 430 replacement dwelling units would be available for other MU -H2 (Mixed -Use Horizontal 2) designated properties in the Airport Area. Page 148 PlaceWorks Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies LU 6.15.6. Size of Residential Villages. Allow development of mixed-use residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in Figure LU23). The first phase of residential development in each village shall encompass at least 5 gross acres of land, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. This acreage may include multiple parcels provided that they are contiguous or face one another across an existing street. At the discretion of the City, this acreage may also include part of a contiguous property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is used to provide functionally proximate parking, open space, or other amenity. The "Conceptual Development Plan" area shown on Figure LU22 shall be exempt from the 5 -acre minimum, but a conceptual development plan described in Policy LU 6.15.11 shall be required. LU 6.15.7. Overall Density and Housing Types. Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote a diversity of building masses and scales. LU 6.15.8. First Phase Development Density. Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Consistent. The Property is 16.46 acres in total area and does not include a centered public park. The Property is not identified on Figure LU22 or Figure LU23. The first phase, Planning Area 1, allows residential and mixed-use development is 7.14 acres and would be developed in one phase. The remaining area would be developed in subsequent phases after existing commercial leases expire. The Applicant requests the City Council waive the park dedication requirement pursuant to Policy LU 6.15.13 and instead, pay the park in -lieu fee . If the City Council waives the dedication requirement, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Consistent. The residential component of the Project is 329 units (without density bonus units) within the 16.46 -acre residential village and the density is about 20 du/ac and below the minimum 30 du/ac standard. If the density bonus units were included, the result would be about 27 du/ac. To comply, additional units would need to be included and required to be replacement units pursuant to Policy LU 6.15.5, meaning the additional units would come at the expense of underlying permitted non-residential uses. The 16.46 -acre Property is partially constrained by the JWA 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and all residential use is inconsistent in this high noise area. The Property is also partially constrained by JWA Safety Zones 3 that limits residential uses to very low densities if not deemed unacceptable because of noise. Planning Area 1 is 7.14 acres and the area outside both the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and Safety Zone 3 where residential use would be allowed consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for JWA is further limited to 6.02 acres. To comply with the Policy LU 6.15.7, 493 units would need to be constructed on 6.02 acres resulting in a density of 81.9 du/ac units per acre without including potential density bonus units which would exceed the maximum allowable density. However, California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) prohibits a City from applying a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development for projects that propose a density bonus. Waiver of height standards, number of stories and setbacks to accommodate project amenities such as an interior courtyard, community plaza and high ceilings have been interpreted as physical constraints that warrant waiver under Section 65915(e)(1). Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, (2011)193 Cal. App. 4th 1329. With the waiver of LU 6.15.7 pursuant to Government Code §65915(e)(1), the 30-50 du/acre over the total area of each residential village would not be required. However, the Project would create a 46 du/acre development not including the density bonus units in Planning Area 1 which is within the density range of the Policy LU 6.15.7. Consistent. The PCDP is divided into two (2) planning areas. Planning Area 1 allows residential and mixed-use development and is 7.14 acres. Three hundred twenty-nine dwelling units constructed over 7.14 acres results in a density of 46 du/acre which is consistent with LU 6.15.8. Planning Area 2 allows commercial development only and is 9.32 acres. May 2020 Page 149 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis lapse i New ort tseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy Anal sis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved LU 6.15.9 Subsequent Phase Development Location and Consistent. The residential component of the PCDP in Planning Area Density 1 would be developed in one phase and checked for consistency with Subsequent phases of residential development shall abut the first this requirement. Planning Area 2 only includes non-residential phase or shall face the first phase across a street. The minimum development. Therefore, there would be no subsequent phases of density of residential development (including residential mixed- residential development. use development) shall be 30 units per net acre and shall not exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the development phase. LU 6.15.12. Development Agreements. A Development Consistent. The proposed project includes approval of a development Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill agreement which will be implemented through the PCDP. residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. LU 6.15.13 Neighborhood Parks Standards. To provide a Consistent. No park is proposed, and the Applicant asks the City focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the Council to waive the requirement. The Applicant believes the location daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within proximate to John Wayne Airport is inappropriate to serve the needs of easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and the area and they have agreed to pay an in -lieu fee consistent with this improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area policy. A significant portion of the Property is impacted by high noise (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase levels and within JWA Safety Zone 3 and locating a park in such areas development in each neighborhood, or 1/2 acre, whichever is may not be appropriate or desirable. Additionally, predominant uses in greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be Planning Area 2 are vehicle storage lots for car rental agencies waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the operating with long-term leases. Air quality in the area and the limited development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the residential density planned for the Airport Area are also factors park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local suggesting a new public park within the Property may not be desirable. residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the If the park dedication was required, the best potential location would acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to be within Planning Area 1 outside the 65 dBA noise contour and JWA serve the Airport Area. Safety Zone 3 further reducing the available land for residential or mixed-use development. In this scenario, a 1 -acre dedication of 6.02 In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent acres of relatively unconstrained land is a significant percentage of the of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, area potentially available for residential use. If the dedication were whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of required in conjunction with the first phase density bonus 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new development, the cost of the dedication could render the density bonus rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A financially infeasible. These or other potential factors could provide neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements sufficient grounds for the City Council to waive the dedication of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the requirement. If the City Council chooses not to waive the parkland Recreation Element of the General Plan. dedication requirement, development of the future park would be required in accordance with this policy. With either outcome the City Council chooses, neighborhood park dedication or waiver, the Project is consistent with LU 6.15.13. LU 6.15.14 Location. Require that each neighborhood park is Consistent. No public park is proposed, and the Applicant askes the clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the City Council to waive the neighborhood park dedication requirement neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets pursuant to Policy 6.15.13 and, instead, pay an in -lieu fee. If the City on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve Council acts to waive the park dedication, this policy would not apply. the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective If the City Council chooses not to waive the parkland dedication, neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. development of the future park would be posted as a public park in accordance with this policy. Page 150 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis hale i Newport Iseacn ueneral rlan toonsistenCy Anal sls Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistent LU 6.15.15. Aircraft Notification. Require that all neighborhood Consistent. The proposed project would comply with notification parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to requirements related to aircraft overflight and noise if parks are John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. developed. LU 6.15.16 On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards. Consistent. Section II of the PCDP requires 75 square feet of Require developers of multi -family residential developments on common open space per dwelling unit in a future residential or mixed - parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational use project and it exceeds the minimum standard. Separate from the amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site City's park dedication and/or in -lieu requirement under the General recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in Plan, Chapter 19.52 (Park Dedications and Fees) of the NBMC also addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication require park dedication and/or in -lieu fees in accordance with Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation California Government Code Section 66477 et seq. also referred to as Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can the Quimby Act. However, Chapter 19.52 only applies to subdivisions consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the or condominiums. While the Applicant plans the construction of capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational apartments that would not generate a park dedication requirement, amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, condominium development would be allowed by the PCDP. Should a tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient condominium project be proposed, it would be subject to NBMC land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall Chapter 19.52. Should a future residential development include be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or publicly accessible open space that meets the policy criteria, the upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as Applicant could request a credit toward parkland dedication defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. requirements (if any). Please refer to the discussion of Policy LU 6.15.13 for additional analysis regarding park dedication requirements. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. LU 6.15.17 Street and Pedestrian Grid. Create a pattern of Consistent: Any new streets and pedestrian ways in the PC District streets and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, would be designed to break up large blocks, improve connections and improves connections between neighborhoods and community links between uses and be scaled to the residential component of the amenities, and is scaled to the predominantly residential PC District in Planning Area 1, as described in the Land Use and character of the neighborhoods. Development Regulations (Section ll) and Architectural Design Considerations (Section III), of the PCDP. The City would confirm compliance during future Site Development Review process. LU 6.15.18 Walkable Streets. Retain the curb -to -curb dimension Consistent: A future applicant be required to retain the curb -to -curb of existing streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and dimension of existing streets and would widen sidewalks to create park generous sidewalks by means of dedications or easements. strips and sidewalks in compliance with General Plan policy 6.15.18. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel The City would confirm compliance with this General Plan policy parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term during Site Development Review. parking for visitors and shop customers. LU 6.15.21 Required Spaces for Primary Uses. Consider Consistent. Future development will be required to comply with City of revised parking requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the Newport Beach Municipal Code parking requirements, including neighborhoods and overall Airport Area, as well as the availability Section 20.32.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for a density of on -street parking. bonus project. The City will confirm compliance with this General Plan policy during Site Development Review. LU 6.15.22 Building Massing. Require that high-rise structures Not Applicable. The PC District would include low- and mid -rise be surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public structures (85 feet maximum) in Planning Areas 1 and 2. No high-rise streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more structures would be constructed in the PC District. Therefore, this pedestrian scale. General Plan policy does not apply to the PC District. LU 6.15.23. Sustainable Development Practices. Require that Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed-use development that, development achieves a high level of environmental because of compliance with modern state regulations related to energy May 2020 Page 151 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies sustainability that reduces pollution and consumption of energy, efficiency and climate change, would be more energy efficient than the water, and natural resources. This may be accomplished through project site's existing commercial uses. For more information about the mix and density of uses, building location and design, this topic see Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Future transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the development would comply with the CALGreen Code, including its strategies that should be considered are the integration of water conservation measures and City water conservation codes and residential with jobs -generating uses, use of alternative standards. transportation modes, maximized walkability, use of recycled currently experiencing a housing shortage. materials, capture and re -use of storm water on-site, water Consistent. All proposed affordable units will be made available to low conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements income households for a minimum period of 30 years. that reduce heat gain and loss. Goal H 2: A balanced residential community, comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments. H 2.1. Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new Consistent. The proposed project would include affordable housing housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and units in accordance with Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code. Upon moderate -income households. provision of affordable housing units, the project would be eligible for up to a 35 percent density bonus (up to 115 additional units) H 2.2. Encourage the housing development industry to respond Consistent. The proposed project would help meet existing housing to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the needs in Newport Beach and Orange County, which are jobs -rich and demand for housing as perceived by the industry. currently experiencing a housing shortage. Housing Program 2.2.4. All required affordable units shall have Consistent. All proposed affordable units will be made available to low restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 income households for a minimum period of 30 years. years. Housing Program 2.2.8. Implement Chapter 20.32 (Density Consistent. The project utilizes a density bonus and will consider Bonus) of the Zoning Code and educate interested developers requests for incentives/waivers consistent with the City's zoning code about the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives for and Government Code Section 65915. the development of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and senior citizens. H 2.3. Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed Consistent. The proposed project is a mixed-use project with both residential and commercial use developments that improve the residential and commercial uses. balance between housing and jobs. Goal H 3: Housing opportunities for as many renter- and owner -occupied households as possible in response to the demand for housing in the City. H 3.1. Mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing Consistent. This policy addresses City strategy and not individual production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport development projects. Beach role in facilitating construction of affordable housing for all income groups. Housing Program 3.1.2. When a residential developer agrees to Consistent. The project utilizes a density bonus and requests construct housing for persons and families of very low-, low-, and incentives/waivers consistent with City's zoning code and Government moderate -income above mandated requirements, the City shall Code Section 65915. (1) grant a density bonus as required by state law and/or (2) provide additional incentives of equivalent financial value. H 3.2. Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to Consistent. The proposed project aids the City in its goal to provide meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their new housing opportunities by including 444 housing units. As construction. Development of new housing will not be allowed discussed in Section 5.13, Noise, a portion of the project site is within within the John Wayne Airport (JWA) 65 dB CNEL contour, no the airport's 65 dB CNEL, and the PCDP restricts housing within this larger than shown on the 1985 JWA Master Plan. zone. Goal H 4: Preservation and increased affordability of the City's housing stock for extremely low-, very low—, low-, and moderate - income households. H 4.1. Continue or undertake the following programs to mitigate Consistent. The housing programs listed under Policy H 4.1 in the potential loss of "at risk" units due to conversion to market -rate Housing Element are identified as being the responsibility of the City. units. These efforts utilize existinq Citv and local resources. Thev However, the proposed prosect would complv with all requirements Page 152 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable Goals and Policies Project Consistency include efforts to secure additional resources from public and enforced by the City, including restrictions regarding maintenance of private sectors should they become available. units as affordable. H 4.2. Improve energy efficiency of all housing unit types Consistent. As discussed in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (including mobile homes). and Section 5.6, Energy, the proposed project would be constructed to sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National adhere to the California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards and Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The 2016 treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen were effective source control measures. starting on January 1, 2017, and the 2019 standards were effective NR 3.14. Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff starting January 1, 2020. These standards achieve higher energy on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into efficiency that most existing housing units. Goal NR 1. Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. NR 1.1. Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce Consistent. Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses the water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit numerous water conservation requirements applicable to the proposed activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of project, including those found in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. water—efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new The proposed project would comply with these regulations. construction projects. redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where NR 1.6. Services for Lower Income Households. New Consistent. The proposed project would include housing units developments which provide housing for lower income affordable to lower-income households. Furthermore, because the households that help meet regional needs shall have priority for project is in an existing developed urban area, it is already well served the provision of available and future resources or services, by water, sewer, and other services. including water and sewer supply and services. Goal NR 3: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.9. Water Quality Management Plan. Require new Consistent. All development under the proposed project would have development applications to include a Water Quality WQMPs in place and would implement post -construction BMPs to Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall maintain surface and groundwater quality. events during construction and post -construction. NR 3.11. Site Design and Source Control. Include site design Consistent. Section 5.10 includes analysis of the proposed project's and source control BMPs in all developments. When the drainage and stormwater runoff impacts. Development would involve combination of site design and source control BMPs are not implementation of low -impact development BMPs, site design BMPs, sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National and structural and nonstructural source control BMPs that would Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural reduce the amount of runoff generated onsite and discharged off-site treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and as well as reduce the potential for pollutants to contaminate runoff. source control measures. NR 3.14. Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff Consistent. See response to Policy NR 3.11, above. on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. NR 3.20. Impervious Surfaces. Require new development and Consistent. The proposed project's site design BMPs would minimize public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces wherever possible, as discussed in Section 5.10. impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Goal NR 6: Reduced mobile source emissions. NR 6.1. Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable Consistent. The proposed project's context is Newport Beach's neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as Airport Area, which features a variety of amenities (including services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential restaurants, medical offices, and professional services) within walking areas. distance of the project site. NR 6.2. Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed-use Consistent. As discussed throughout this section, the proposed development consisting of commercial or office with residential project is mixed-use project that would add housing units in an uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases employment -rich area. May 2020 Page 153 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Newport Beach General Plan Consistency Analysis Goals and Policies and entertainment. NR 6.3. Vehicle -Trip Reduction Measures. Support measures Consistent. The proposed project's introduction of residential uses in to reduce vehicle -trip generation such as at -work day care a largely nonresidential area with numerous services and amenities facilities, and on-site automated banking machines. nearby would reduce the need for off-site vehicle trips. See the response to Policy NR 6.1 for additional information. Goal NR 18: Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1. New Development. Require new development to Consistent. This topic is discussed in Section 5.5, Cultural protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological Resources. The proposed project would be required to comply with resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to regulatory requirements and GPU policies regarding monitoring and such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. discovery of paleontological and archaeological resources, and would Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the reduce potential impacts to less than significant. preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any and new residents of the community development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. Consistent. The proposed project uses the City's density bonus NR 18.3. Potential for Development to Impact Resources. Consistent. This topic is discussed in Section 5.18, Tribal Cultural Notify cultural organizations, including Native American Resources. organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Goal R 1. Provision of Facilities: Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community R 1.4. Density Bonuses. Consider development of incentives Consistent. The proposed project uses the City's density bonus such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other incentives, as discussed in this table. developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. R 1.12. Aircraft Overflight and Noise. Require that all public Consistent. The proposed park will be posted with the required parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the notification to park users. This will be ensured through the City's 1985 JWA Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a development review and plan check process. notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise. 5.11.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.11.4 Relevant General Plan Policies Relevant 2006 General Plan goals and policies are reviewed in detail in Table 7, above. Applicable General Plan policies for specific environmental topics are listed in the topical analysis sections of this Addendum. Page 154 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES 5.12.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIR 5.12.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Based on the California Geological Survey, areas known as mineral resource zones (MRZs) are classified according to the presence or absence of mineral resources. All of Newport Beach is zoned either MRZ-1 or MRZ-3, areas with no significant mineral deposits and areas containing mineral deposits of undetermined significance, respectively. The City is required to evaluate potential impacts to mineral resource recovery areas designated MRZ-2, areas with significant mineral deposits; however, there are no areas zoned MRZ-2 in the city. Furthermore, most of the active oil wells are in the West Newport and Newport production areas. Generally, these areas overlap with the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion of the Newport Oil Field within the Balboa Peninsula subarea. Consequently, the EIR found that implementation of the 2006 GPU would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of the city, county, or state and no impact occurred. 5.12.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR There are no regional, state, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the city. Furthermore, the active oil fields are in the Banning Ranch subarea, with a smaller portion in the Balboa Peninsula subarea. The 2014 LUE Amendment did not affect any land uses in the northwest area of the City. Therefore, there were no impacts to mineral resources. 5.12.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: May 2020 Page 155 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to X the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific X plan or other land use plan? May 2020 Page 155 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR All of Newport Beach is zoned either MRZ-1 or MRZ-3, and most active oil wells are in the Newport Oil Field and the West Newport Oil Field, in the northwest area of the city. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact to mineral resources, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not introduce new development into areas designated as MRZ-2. Furthermore, no development would affect active oil wells in the northwest area of the City. Therefore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would have no impact to potential mineral resources.. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach 2006 GPU EIR states that there are no regional, state, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the city. Consequently, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would have no impact on mineral resource recovery sites in the city, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would not introduce development into areas with regional, state, or locally important mineral resources and no impacts would arise. 5.12.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Page 156 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.12.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan does not include any mineral resources goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project. May 2020 Page 157 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.13 NOISE 5.13.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs 5.13.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the General Plan policies, especially those associated with Goal N-2, Transportation Noise, would reduce the impact. However, existing receptors would still be exposed to new noise levels in excess of standards, and this impact, even with the proposed General Plan policies, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that vibration impacts would potentially exceed the threshold of 72 VdB, if construction activities occurred within 150 feet of sensitive receptors (e.g., residences and schools). No feasible mitigation measures were identified, and this impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. Construction noise was determined to be less than significant. Construction noise would be exempt from the City code during limited hours of the day and days of the week, and construction noise would comply with Municipal Code standards. Impacts due to airport noise were also found to be less than significant. Receptors that would fall under the John Wayne Airport QWA) 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL noise contours would be required to be consistent with General Plan Policies N.3.1 and N.3.2. These policies ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential uses. 5.13.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that stationary, nontransportation noise would be less than significant. This was based on the traffic noise increase of the LUE Amendment in comparison to the 2006 General Plan buildout on study roadway segments. The SEIR also found that although some roadway segments could experience noise increases due to traffic, no roadway segments would exceed the City's transportation noise thresholds, so the impact of transportation noise was found to be less than significant. Airport noise impacts from JWA were found to be less than significant with the application of Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element and compliance with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which ensure that new uses are compatible and residential uses achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that construction noise impacts would not substantially differ from the 2006 GPU EIR and would be less than significant. However, like the 2006 GPU EIR, construction vibration could not be mitigated in all cases and would remain significant and unavoidable. Page 158 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.13.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project result in: Comments: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Traffic Noise Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 8. May 2020 Page 159 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general X plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public X use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Traffic Noise Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 8. May 2020 Page 159 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 8 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses (dBACNEL) No Project Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 75 0 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan. The proposed project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses as analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. In addition, redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -H2 would generate 327 fewer daily trips (Urban Crossroads 2020). Because the proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would result in less overall traffic noise. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR. Stationary Noise The proposed project would change the land use designation of the site from AO to MU -H2. The site is currently developed as office and commercial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with these uses include rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment and truck loading and unloading. The land use re- designation would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the existing land use designation. In general, stationary noise sources associated with the proposed residential uses are similar to or less than commercial uses. Stationary noise sources associated with residential uses include HVAC equipment, but would not require truck loading and unloading needed for retail uses. Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standards from the Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Construction Noise As discussed in Section 5.13.1, the 2006 GPU EIR concluded that construction noise would be less than significant. When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate land uses that would require similar construction processes and intensities. Though the proposed 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses for the proposed project area, overall it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR would be similar. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments Page 160 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not considered noise and vibration sensitive unless noise and vibration would interfere with normal operations and business activities. The closest sensitive receptor to the site is the Hyatt Regency John Wayne Airport Hotel, approximately 80 feet east of the project boundary. Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to noise as addressed in the 2006 GPU EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the noise ordinance limits and hours in the City's municipal code. Because the project's construction noise levels would not substantially differ from the 2006 GPU EIR, construction noise impacts with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Traffic Noise Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units compared to the 2014 LUE SEIR. Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a minimum of 3,899 fewer daily trips with density bonus units and an estimated 4,463 fewer daily trips without density bonus (Urban Crossroads 2020). Because the proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips, its implementation would result in less overall traffic noise. Therefore, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information requiring the preparation of an EIR. Stationary Noise The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that stationary, non -transportation noise would be less than significant. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units. The proposed project would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Because the proposed project would result in less commercial space, stationary noise impacts are anticipated to be less than what was previously analyzed. Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standards from the Municipal Code. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Construction Noise The proposed project would result in similar land use types and be within the land use amounts previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential units. Thus, it is anticipated that the types of construction activities and construction processes associated with the land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be similar to or less intensive than what was considered in the 2014 LUE May 2020 Page 161 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR When compared to the land uses considered for the project site under the 2006 GPU EIR, the proposed project would accommodate similar types of land uses, although the 2006 GPU EIR does not include residential uses for the proposed project area. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed project and the 2006 GPU EIR would be similar. The GPU EIR states that construction -related vibration levels could be problematic if sensitive uses are located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites. There are no sensitive receptors (residents, school children, hospitals) within 100 feet of the project site. Given the potential that other site may not be able to be adequately mitigated for construction -related vibration, this impact was concluded to be potentially significant in the GPU EIR. Vibration impacts for the Airport Village Planned Community would be anticipated to be less than the potential impacts anticipated overall for the GPU. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would result in similar land use types and be within the land use amounts previously considered under the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Buildout of the proposed project would result in less commercial space and the same number of residential dwelling units. Thus, it is anticipated that the types of construction activities and construction processes associated with the land use development projects accommodated under the proposed project would be similar to or less intensive than what was considered in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact/No Changes or New Information Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element requires that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which can be no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). In addition, it requires that residential developers notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight andnoise. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an AELUP, amended April 17, 2008, that included JWA. The AELUP is a land use compatibility plan that is intended to protect the public from Page 162 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis adverse effects of aircraft noise. The proposed project is within the "airport influence area" defined by the AELUP. In most instances, the airport influence area is designated by the ALUC as its planning area boundary for the airport, and the two terms can be considered synonymous. The aircraft noise contours that are used for planning purposes by the County of Orange and Airport Land Use Commission are found in the AELUP and derived from the 1985 Master Plan for JWA and the accompanying EIR 508. These noise contours are based on fleet mix and flight level assumptions developed in EIR 508. The AELUP identifies noise impact zones based on the airport noise contour projections: ■ Noise Impact Zone "P' is the high noise impact that would occur in areas within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The ALUC does not support residential development within this zone. All residential units would be inconsistent in this area unless it can be shown that the interior 45 dBA CNEL noise level is not exceeded in interior areas with an accompanying avigation easement for noise. Commercial, industrial, and recreational uses may be acceptable in this zone providing that commercial and industrial structures are sufficiently sound attenuated to allow normal work activities. The 12 -hour Leq interior noise standards due to exterior noise are measured from 7 am to 7 pm (or another approved time period): • 45 dBA—private offices, church sanctuary, board room, conference room • 50 dBA—general office, reception, clerical • 55 dBA—bank lobby, retail store, restaurant • 65 dBA—manufacturing, kitchen, warehousing ■ Noise Impact Zone "2" is the moderate noise impact that would occur in areas within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Even though residential units are not incompatible in this area, the ALUC strongly recommends that residential units be limited or excluded from this area unless sufficiently sound attenuated, that is, with a CNEL value not exceeding an interior level of 45 dBA. Since the 2006 GPU EIR was approved, the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR was approved. This amendment approved an increase in the number of passengers per year in three phases. The EIR concluded that the CNEL noise increases due to Phases 1 and 2 would result in less than a 1 dBA CNEL increase, and that Phase 3 would result in noise level increases less than 1.5 dBA CNEL. These increases did not exceed FAA or County of Orange noise standards. Figure 16, 2008 AELUP JVA Noise Exposure at the Project Site, shows how airport noise and noise impact zones affect the project site. Consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.2, the project does not propose residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 1. That is, the proposed residential uses would be outside the AELUP 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed project includes residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, which is the area in the AELUP 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL, and with 45 dBA CNEL interior noise requirement for any residential uses proposed in Noise Impact Zone 2, project -level design review will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, which demonstrates to the City per General Plan Policy N 1.2 that all residential units of the proposed project will meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. May 2020 Page 163 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Office uses within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour were already considered under the 2006 GPU EIR and would be "normally compatible" per General Plan land use compatibility standards and ALUC noise compatibility guidelines. Project -level design review prior to the issuance of a building permit demonstrates to the City, per General Plan Policy N 1.2, that the 12 -hour Leq interior noise level due to exterior noise measured from 7 am to 7 pm—or another approved time period—does not exceed 50 dBA. The noise contours associated with the settlement for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR show that the proposed residential development as part of the proposed project would remain outside the 65 CNEL contour. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR concluded that with the application of Policy N 3.2 of the Noise Element and compliance with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which ensure that new uses are compatible and achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less for residential uses, airport noise impacts from JWA would be less than significant. Similar to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the project proposes residential uses within the Airport Area near the intersection of Birch Street and MacArthur Boulevard. Consistent with General Plan Policy N 3.2, the project does not propose residential uses within Noise Impact Zone 1, but outside the AELUP 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed project includes residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, within the AELUP 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Consistent with Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise level of 45 dBA, and with the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise requirement for residential uses in Noise Impact Zone 2, project -level design review will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit to demonstrate to the City, per General Plan Policy N 1.2, that all residential units of the proposed project will meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. Office uses as part of the proposed project were already considered under the 2006 GPU EIR and would be "normally compatible" per General Plan land use compatibility standards within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Office uses are "normally consistent" with the ALUC noise compatibility guidelines within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and must demonstrate through project -level design review, prior to the issuance of a building permit, which demonstrates to the City per General Plan Policy N 1.2 that the 12 -hour Leq interior noise level due to exterior noise measured from 7 am to 7 pm, or other appropriate, approved time periods does not exceed 50 dBA. The noise contours associated with the settlement for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the 2014 John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment EIR show that the proposed residential development as part of the proposed project would remain outside the 65 CNEL contour. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. Page 164 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Figure 16 - 2008 AELUP JWA Noise Exposure at the Project Site t JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT ice- irpo (OA Q� Use /Res enti I Us i 65 dBA CNEL Contour QJ O 'i Airport (O !• Uses /Reside tia`I Accessory and Amenity U s Unincorporated Orange County v 60 dBA CNEL Contour ! Newport Beach Q m Q / Oo `esu thigh ilk Project Boundary Office -Airport (OA) Uses/Residential Accessory and Amenity Uses 65 dBA CNEL Contour 0 1,200 —••— City Boundary Office -Airport (OA) Uses/Residential Uses 60 dBA CNEL Contour Scale (Feet) Source: Airport Land Use Commission, 2008 PlaceVorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 166 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.13.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project No mitigation measures related to noise and vibration were outlined in the 2006 GPU EIR. 5.13.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce noise associated with future development projects in the City. Noise Element Goal N 1: Noise Compatibility: Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. ■ N 1.1 - Noise Compatibility of New Development: Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2 of the Noise Element, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3 of the Noise Element. N 1.2 - Noise Exposure Verification for New Development: Applicants for proposed projects that require environmental review and are, located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N4, Figure N5, and Figure N6 of the Noise Element may conduct afield survey, noise measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. N 1.4 - New Developments in Urban Areas: Require that applicants of residential portions of mixed- use projects and high density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. ■ N 1.6 - Mixed Use Developments: Encourage new mixed-use developments to site loading areas, parking lots, driveways, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and other noise sources away from the residential portion of the development. N 1.7 - Commercial/Entertainment Uses: Limit hours and/or requires attenuation of commercial/ entertainment operations adjacent to residential and other noise sensitive uses in order to minimize excessive noise to these receptors. Goal N 2: Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors May 2020 Page 167 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ N 2.1- New Development: Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. ■ N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, and interior noise insulation, double paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element shall govern this requirement. ■ N 2.3 - Limiting Truck Deliveries: Limit the hours of truck deliveries to commercial uses abutting residential uses and other noise sensitive land uses to minimize excessive noise unless there is no feasible alternative. Any exemption shall require compliance with nighttime (10:00 PM. to 7:00 A.M.) noise standards. Goal N 3: Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. ■ N 3.1- New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides to future planning and development decisions. ■ N 3.2 - Residential Development: Require that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. ■ N 3.3 - Avigation Easement: Consider requiting the dedication of avigation easements in favor of the County of Orange when noise sensitive uses are proposed in the JWA planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). Goal N 4: Minimization of Nontransportation-Related Noise: Minimized nontransportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. ■ N 4.1- Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 of the Noise Element and in the Cites Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning egwpment. ■ N 4.2 - New Uses: Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element and the City's Municipal Code. ■ N 4.3 - New Commercial Developments: Require that new commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, Page 168 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. ■ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in-home hobby or work related activities. Goal N 5: Minimized excessive construction -related noise. ■ N 5.1- Limiting Hours of Activity: Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Land Use Element Goal LU 5.3: Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. LU 5.3.1- Mixed -Use Buildings: Require that mixed-use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: • Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts • Visual and physical integration of residential and nonresidential uses • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of their massing • Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses • Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses • Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontage but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces. Goal LU 6.1: A diversity of governmental service, institutional, educational, cultural, social, religious, and medical facilities that are available for and enhance the quality of life for residents and are located and designed to complement Newport Beach's neighborhoods. LU 6.1.3: Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses: Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development, addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. May 2020 Page 169 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Goal LU 6.2: Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. LU 6.2.5: Neighborhood Supporting Uses: Allow for the integration of uses within residential neighborhoods that support and are complementary to their primary function as a living environment such as schools, parks, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and comparable uses. These uses shall be designed to ensure compatibility with adjoining residential addressing such issues as noise, lighting, and parking. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. ■ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. Page 170 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.14.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.14.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR The 2006 GPU EIR projected that buildout of the 2006 GPU would add 31,131 residents and 14,215 residential units to the City—at buildout the population would be 103,753 and the number of residential units 54,394. In 2004, SCAG forecast that the city would have 94,167 residents and 43,100 residential units in regional projections. General Plan buildout added 8,192 more residents and 8,810 more households to the city in 2030 than the regional forecasts. Implementation of the General Plan was therefore concluded to result in a significant and unavoidable population growth impact. No mitigation measures were identified to reduce or eliminate this significant impact. The 2006 GPU primarily planned development 1) on the sparse developable land the City had left, 2) by intensifying current land uses, and 3) through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. Also, new development could take place on the vacant Banning Ranch area if it could not be retained for open space. No substantial demolition of residential uses was proposed under the 2006 GPU. Since the 2006 GPU did not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, the EIR found no impact. 5.14.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Population and Housing Buildout of the General Plan as amended by the 2014 LUE Amendment added up to 1,729 more residential units in the city. This total assumed that the maximum number of units was developed, including potential density bonus units. In comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR and based on the 2013 average household of 2.22 for the city, this resulted in an additional 3,838 persons and a total population of 106,197 at General Plan buildout. This population exceeded the 2035 SCAG population projection for the City of 90,030 by 16,167 persons (approximately 18 percent). This impact was found to be significant. Employment The General Plan LUE Amendment resulted in a net increase of 388 employees in comparison to buildout of the 2006 GPU Estimated employment at buildout of the General Plan as amended was 85,905. Table 9, Projected Job -Hou ing Ratio, compares the resultant jobs -housing balance between buildout of the 2006 GPU and the 2014 LUE Amendment. Implementation of the LUE Amendment would reduce the jobs -housing ratio by 0.07, from 1.83 to 1.76 (a 3.8 percent reduction). Since the City was jobs -rich, this reduction was considered a beneficial impact. May 2020 Page 171 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 9 Projected Jobs -Housing Ratio The 2014 LUE Amendment involved changes in land use designations and increasing or reducing development capacities within subareas of the city. The areas proposed for decreased development capacities were Westcliff Plaza, Newport Coast Center, Newport Coast Hotel, Bayside Center, Harbor View Center, The Bluffs, Gateway Park, and Newport Ridge. The majority of these areas are commercial shopping centers with reduced square footage or, in the case of Newport Coast Hotel, a reduction in allowable hotel rooms. The only residential use subarea with reduced allowable dwelling units was Newport Ridge. However, the reduction was in the allowable development capacity of existing dwelling units in Newport Ridge. Thus, the 2014 LUE Amendment was found not to displace any existing housing in the city or necessitate the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, resulting in no impact. 5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: 2006 General Plan Buildout General Plan LUE Amendment Buildout Chane Percent Change Total Employees 85,517 85,905 388 0.04% Housing Units 46,601 48,330 1729 3.7% Jobs/Housing Ratio 1.84 1.78 -.0.06 -3.2% The 2014 LUE Amendment involved changes in land use designations and increasing or reducing development capacities within subareas of the city. The areas proposed for decreased development capacities were Westcliff Plaza, Newport Coast Center, Newport Coast Hotel, Bayside Center, Harbor View Center, The Bluffs, Gateway Park, and Newport Ridge. The majority of these areas are commercial shopping centers with reduced square footage or, in the case of Newport Coast Hotel, a reduction in allowable hotel rooms. The only residential use subarea with reduced allowable dwelling units was Newport Ridge. However, the reduction was in the allowable development capacity of existing dwelling units in Newport Ridge. Thus, the 2014 LUE Amendment was found not to displace any existing housing in the city or necessitate the need to construct replacement housing elsewhere, resulting in no impact. 5.14.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 172 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, X through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? Page 172 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Population and Housing As detailed in Chapter 3, Project Description, buildout of the proposed project would result in up to 444 more residential units on the project site. This total assumes that the maximum number of units are developed, including the potential for density bonus units. Based on the 2019 average household of 2.27 for the city (Census Bureau 2019), this would result in an additional 1,008 persons on the project site. In comparison to the 2006 GPU, the proposed project adds this population to the project site but does not result in a net increase in population for the Airport Area. The proposed 329 units and up to 115 density bonus units would be introduced to the project site under the proposed MU -142 land use classification. A total of 2,200 units are allowed in the Airport Area, and the project would involve a redistribution of these future units, not a net increase. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the 2040 SCAG population projection for the city. Employment Implementation of the proposed project would result in a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space in comparison to buildout of the 2006 General Plan. Using the employment density factor of one retail and service -use job per 617 square feet (Natelson 2001), the proposed project would result in a decrease of 98 jobs. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce population growth through job creation. Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in population compared to the 2006 GPU and would result in a decrease in the number of employees, there would not be substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment allocated 596,575 square feet of office uses and 444 dwelling units to the proposed project site. Under the LUE Amendment, the new residential units were additive to the 2,200 units allocated to the Airport Area under the General Plan. Since the proposed project would use a portion of the 2,200 units allocated to the MU -1-12 designated areas, it would not increase housing units. Therefore, in comparison to the LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce housing units by 444 units. Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space. The proposed project would reduce impacts related to induced growth in comparison to the 2104 LUE Amendment for both housing and employment. May 2020 Page 173 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR There was no housing on the site at the time the 2006 General Plan was adopted. As with existing conditions for the 2006 GPU EIR, there are no residential units currently on the project site, and project development would not displace any existing housing. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would be developed on a site with no current housing units. Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.14.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.. 5.14.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The City of Newport Beach's General Plan Housing Element was updated in 2013. This is in accordance with the state's requirement to update housing elements every five years in response to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Goals and policies particularly relevant to the proposed project, including affordable housing and airport -area -related policies, are reproduced below. Housing Element (2013) ■ H 1.1- Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. ■ H 2.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. ■ H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. ■ H 3.1 - Mitigate potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability by increasing the City of Newport Beach role in facilitating construction of affordable housing for all income groups. Page 174 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis ■ H 3.2 - Enable construction of new housing units sufficient to meet City quantified goals by identifying adequate sites for their construction. Development of new housing will not be allowed within the John Wayne Airport QWA) 65 dB CNEL contour, no larger than shown on the 1985 JWA Master Plan. May 2020 Page 175 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.15 PUBLIC SERVICES 5.15.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.15.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Fire Protection The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. The GPU EIR noted that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service and than an increase in density by both infill and conversion of low rise properties to mid and high rise would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company to the Santa Ana Heights fire station. To support the needs of future growth, the GPU included policies that ensure development would only occur with the provision of adequate infrastructure. Thus, fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain response times. The 2006 GPU EIR found that buildout of the GPU would have a less than significant impact on fire services. Police Protection Buildout of the 2006 GPU was determined to have a less than significant impact on police services. In order to maintain acceptable levels of service, the GPU includes policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). Furthermore, to maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents) at the time the 2006 GPU EIR was prepared, the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) would have had to provide an additional 53 officers upon GPU buildout. Maintaining NBPD's ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require NBPD to expand police facilities. However, since NBPD did not have near-term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine whether a new substation would be considered. Furthermore, all new development would be subject to the City's project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Schools The 2006 GPU EIR analyzed school capacity in Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD), comparing existing enrollment to projected enrollment at GPU buildout. At buildout, the student population in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students, using the assumption that approximately. The Airport Area is served by the SAUSD. The GPU EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students generated City- wide under GPU buildout). The GPU EIR also noted that anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively impact Airport Area schools. Page 176 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The 2006 GPU included goals and policies to address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the EIR concluded that compliance with 2006 General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. Parks (Note that the following information is excerpted from the GPU EIR Section 4.12, Parks and Open Space. Inclusion of this analysis is included under Public Services in this Addendum for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, as adopted December 2018.) The 2006 GPU EIR found that there was an existing deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with 7 of the 12 service areas experiencing the deficit. An increase in population in accordance with buildout of the GPU would potentially generate a higher demand on recreational facilities. The 2006 GPU includes goals and policies to address the potential increase in demand and accelerated deterioration of existing facilities. Goal R 2 requires the maintenance and preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities. More specifically, Policy R 2.1 promotes the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires new development to pay fees or dedicate land as parkland. Policy R 2.2 protects public parkland from nonrecreational uses, requiring in-kind replacement of any parkland lost through governmental action. Goal R 1 strives to provide adequate park and recreational facilities to existing and future residents of the City. Specifically, Policy R 1.1 requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees to maintain a minimum of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, per Section 19.52.040 (Parkland Standard) of the City's municipal code. Policy R 1.4 requires park fees to be updated regularly for new residential developments, and Policy R 1.5 promotes development of incentives for private projects to provide usable open space to the public. High- density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger are required to provide on-site recreational amenities per Policy R 1.3. Lastly, Policy R 1.10 provides additional park and recreational facilities that meet the needs as identified by direct feedback from residents, analysis of trends, and observation by City staff. The 2006 GPU EIR concludes that these goals and policies would ensure that increased demand from the larger population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities, and new parks and facilities would be constructed to meet the needs of the growing population. Based on the 2006 GPU EIR, future development of parks and recreational facilities to meet the parkland ratio of five acres per 1,000 residents may adversely impact the existing environment. For example, lighted sports fields may cause light and glare impacts in communities, biological habitats may be impacted, or hydrology and drainage may be altered due to new park development. Nevertheless, significant new development would be subject to the City's environmental review process, which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, future provisions of new or improved parks and recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse impacts and would be less than significant. May 2020 Page 177 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.15.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Fire Protection NBFD indicated that there were no deficiencies in the level of fire protection service provided to the city and that the proposed changes within the 2014 LUE Amendment were minor and incremental in scope relative to overall NBFD service demand levels. Therefore, increases to fire services were found to be less than significant. Police Protection In order to maintain the ratio of officers to residents at the buildout of the 2014 LUE Amendment, NBPD would have to provide an additional 5 sworn officers upon buildout. The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that NBPD did not have near-term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory. Though an increase in population and structures, whether residential or commercial, would require an increase in police presence, the department stated that the 2014 LUE Amendment would not have an adverse impact on its existing level of service. Furthermore, not knowing the exact types and locations of new structures makes it difficult to determine how much, if any, additional police facilities, personnel, or equipment would be needed. As development occurs, property and sales tax revenue would grow in rough proportions and provide more funding for the City's general funds, which would allocate funding to NBPD as necessary to ensure the department has enough facility space, personnel, and equipment to maintain a high-quality level of service for its residents. Schools The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that buildout would have no impact on SAUSD and LBUSD, and that NMUSD had enough capacity to accommodate the growth associated with the 2014 LUE Amendment buildout. Parks The 2014 LUE Amendment EIR found that the Airport Area does not have any existing parkland because there are currently no residential developments in the area. Within the Airport Area, the 2014 LUE Amendment would allow for the development of up to 329 dwelling units on Saunders Properties, 850 replacement units on Lyon Communities, and a land use designation for Congregate Care use on UAP Companies property. The future residents in the Airport Area would most likely use existing park facilities in the closest service areas— Santa Ana Heights, Eastbluff, and Big Canyon. Eastbluff and Big Canyon have substantial surpluses of 38.1 and 21.96 acres, respectively. In addition, future residential developments in the Airport Area would be required to comply with the same policies outlined in the 2006 GPU FIR to address potential park and recreation facilities, and Chapter 19.52 of the municipal code requires parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees for all new developments, which would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units in the Airport Area. Furthermore, the new and/or revised land use policies proposed under the General Plan LUE Amendment ensured the availability and maintenance of City parkland. Thus, impacts on the demand of existing park and recreational facilities in Newport Beach were less than significant. Page 178 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Library Services The land use changes in the 2014 LUE Amendment allowed for increased development capacity in some areas of the city; these changes had the potential to affect library services to the general Newport Beach population if demands substantially increased. However, increased development in the City does not necessarily immediately equate to an increase in total volumes or square feet of library space, especially given the growing need for electronic resources rather than physical library collection items. Therefore, library service impacts due to the 2014 LUE Amendment were found to be less than significant. 5.15.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: Comments: a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units on the project site and a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The 444 proposed project housing units, however, are well within the 4,300 units anticipated for the Airport Area in the General Plan Update. GPU Policy LU 3.2 would ensure that fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain current response times. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all applicable federal, state, May 2020 Page 179 Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Requiring Circum -stances Increased Requiring Major EIR Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Comments: a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units on the project site and a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The 444 proposed project housing units, however, are well within the 4,300 units anticipated for the Airport Area in the General Plan Update. GPU Policy LU 3.2 would ensure that fire staffing and facilities would expand commensurately to serve the needs of new development and maintain current response times. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with all applicable federal, state, May 2020 Page 179 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis and local regulations governing fire protection services, such as adequate fire and emergency access, fire flows, and number of fire hydrants. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would increase residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units and would also increase allowable nonresidential development for the project site (by approximately 238,000 square feet). Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential fire protection service impacts compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment.. b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units on the project site and a decrease of 61,000 square feet of nonresidential space. The number of residential units within the Airport Area as a whole, however, would not increase in comparison to the GPU. To maintain acceptable levels of service, the GPU included policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences development (Policy LU 2.8). Furthermore, property and sales tax revenue from the proposed project would provide more funding for the City's general funds, which would allocate funding to NBPD. Therefore, impacts from the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment would increase residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units. The proposed units under the LUE Amendment were additive to the 4,300 units evaluated in the GPU EIR for the Airport Area. Nonresidential development for the project site was also contemplated to be greater under the 2014 LUE Amendment than under the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential police protection services relative to the proposed site uses under the LUE Amendment. . c) Schools? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project is within the service area of SAUSD, which services the entire Airport Area (CSCD 2020). The proposed project would result in an increase of 444 dwelling units at the project site but would not increase the number of households within the Airport Area. Page 180 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 10 shows the estimated student generation (K-12) from an additional 444 dwelling units in accordance to the proposed project. Student generation rates are used by school districts to estimate the number of students generated by new development in order to determine whether or not existing school facilities would be adequate for future student enrollment. The estimates use student generation rates specific to SAUSD. Table 10 Projected Student Population in SAUSD Grade Level Student Generation Rate Estimated Buildout Generated Proposed Project Buildout Students K-5 0.194 86 444 DU 49 64 6-8 0.111 9-12 0.143 Project Total 177 Existing District Enrollment 51,482 Total District Enrollment + Project 51,659 Total District Capacity 62,672 Remaining Capacity 11,013 Source: CDE 2020; SAUSD 2018; SAUSD 2020a. According to Table 10, buildout of the proposed project would generate 177 more students. Using SAUSD's current capacity and enrollment, SAUSD would have enough capacity to accommodate 11,013 additional students beyond those generated from buildout of the proposed project. Also, the need for additional services is addressed through compliance with the school impact fee assessment. SB 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) set a state school facilities construction program that restricts a local jurisdiction's ability to condition a project on mitigation of school impacts in excess of fees in Education Code Section 17620. These fees are collected by school districts at the time building permits are issued for commercial, industrial, and residential projects. SAUSD charges $3.79 per square foot of residential development greater than 500 square feet, and $0.61 per square foot of commercial development. It would collect these fees from individual developers, pursuant to SB 50 (SAUSD 2020b). The State Legislature has declared that the payment of school impact fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts of new development, per Government Code Section 65995. Furthermore, Chapter 19.48 (School Sites and Fees) of the City's municipal code may require, as a condition of approval, dedication of land within a subdivision development for the construction of elementary and high schools necessary to ensure that residents of the subdivision have adequate public school service. Thus, impacts from implementation of the proposed project on school services would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and reduce the number of residential dwelling units allowed within the Airport Area (see Table 3). Therefore, the proposed May 2020 Page 181 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis project would reduce student generation in comparison to uses allowed under the LUE Amendment, and reduce potential impacts to the SAUSD.. d) Parks? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Refer to Section 5.16.2. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and reduce the number of residential dwelling units allowed within the Airport Area (see Table 3) Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to park services relative to the LUE Amendment. e) Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As summarized in Table 3, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential development by approximately 60,000 square feet and would not increase the number of residential units within the Airport Area or city. It would introduce up to 444 residential units on the project site, but these units are already allocated in the 2,200 allowable units in MU -H2 designated areas in the Airport Area. The GPU EIR analyzed a total of 4,300 units within the Airport Area. The proposed project, therefore, would not increase the demand on other public facilities, including library services. It would not increase population in the city and would reduce nonresidential, airport/office land use. Residents of the proposed project would be served by the Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL); the nearest NBPL facility to the project site is the Crean Mariners Library at 1300 Irvine Avenue, approximately three miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project would pay a property excise tax per City municipal code Chapter 3.12, part of which is designated for libraries, and would generate additional tax revenues supporting the City's General Fund. Therefore, impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As shown in Table 3, development under the 2014 LUE Amendment increased residential units for the project site (and Airport Area) up to an additional 444 units. The proposed units under the LUE Amendment were additive to the 4,300 units evaluated in the GPU EIR for the Airport Area. Nonresidential development for the project site was also greater under the 2014 LUE Amendment in comparison to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to other public service, including library services, in comparison to proposed site uses under the LUE Amendment. Page 182 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.15.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.. 5.15.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to public services. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. ■ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities—Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. R 1.4 - Density Bonuses: Consider development of incentives such as density bonuses for private commercial, office, and other developments to provide usable open space such as rooftop courts, pocket parks, public plazas, jogging trails, and pedestrian trails. R 1.12 - Aircraft Overflight and Noise: Require that all public parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the 1985 JWA Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise. May 2020 Page 183 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.16 RECREATION 5.16.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.16.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Although impacts related to physical deterioration of recreational facilities were considered less than significant for the majority of the city, there was a greater possibility for impacts in the Airport Area. At the time of the 2006 GPU, the Airport Area had no residential units and no park facilities. The 2006 GPU added up to 4,300 multifamily residential units to this area. Policy LU 6.15.15 of the 2006 GPU required residential developers to dedicate and develop a neighborhood park of at least 8 percent of gross land area, with a minimum size of one acre, in the first phase of development in each residential neighborhood or pay in -lieu fees when development is inappropriately located to serve the needs of the residents. This was in addition to the private recreational facilities required in Policy R 1.3. The recreational facilities provided by these policies was at the neighborhood level, and there was the potential for additional use and deterioration of existing sports fields at Bonita Creek and Bonita Canyon Sports Park. However, the policies under Goal R 2 helped ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities were maintained and preserved. Implementation of Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration, by using funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and facilities such as Bonita Canyon Sports Park. With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area were less than significant. Through the environmental review process, the future provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts and this impact was found to be less significant. 5.16.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The intensification of some land uses pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment could result in an increased demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the increase in demand was determined not to result in an acceleration of deterioration of existing facilities. The 2014 LUE Amendment did not include changes to parks or recreational facilities that had the potential to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed increased development capacity included increases in dwelling units and hotel rooms, which would lead to an increase in visitors and overall population and related increase in park demands and consequently, the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. However, as stated in the 2006 General Plan EIR, all significant new development of recreational facilities would be subject to the City's environmental review process, which includes project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Thus, the future provision of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities would result in a less than significant impact. Page 184 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.16.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Development of up to 329 residential units (444 with density bonus) would be within the number of units projected and analyzed for the Airport Area within the GPU EIR. Development would be required to comply with the 2006 GPU policies and Chapter 19.52 of the municipal code, which requires parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees. This would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact relative to the impacts as analyzed in the GPU EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The project proposes the same number of residential units as analyzed in the 2014 LUE SEIR. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement Policies LU 6.15.15, R 1.1, R 1.2, and R 1.3 in addition to the requirements of Chapter 9.52 of the City's municipal code. Adherence to the 2006 GPU policies and the municipal code would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, impacts of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be less than significant. May 2020 Page 185 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Development of up to 329 residential units (444 with density bonus) would be within the number of units projected and analyzed for the Airport Area within the GPU EIR. Development would be required to comply with the 2006 GPU policies and Chapter 19.52 of the municipal code, which requires parkland dedication or payment of in -lieu fees. This would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact relative to the impacts as analyzed in the GPU EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The project proposes the same number of residential units as analyzed in the 2014 LUE SEIR. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would implement Policies LU 6.15.15, R 1.1, R 1.2, and R 1.3 in addition to the requirements of Chapter 9.52 of the City's municipal code. Adherence to the 2006 GPU policies and the municipal code would ensure park and recreation facilities are simultaneously developed with residential dwelling units. Thus, impacts of the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be less than significant. May 2020 Page 185 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project does not include development of any recreational facilities. It would also not result in the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities relative to the GPU EIR. The proposed project would introduce up to 444 new residential units to the project site, but these units are already accommodated within the Airport Area under the GPU EIR analysis of up to 4,300 units. The proposed project, therefore, would not have the potential to require recreational facilities that could have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, the future provision of new or expanded parks or recreational facilities associated with the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would result in no impact, and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project does not include development of any recreational facilities. It would reduce residential units by up to 444 units in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment (see Table 3), and therefore would not result in the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities relative to the LUE Amendment. There would be no impacts. 5.16.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.16.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to recreation. Goal LU 6.15: A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability. Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities—Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. ■ R 1.1 - Provision of Parkland: Require future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. ■ R 1.3 - High -Density Residential Developments: Require developers of new high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On-site recreational amenities Page 186 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights- of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30% of the parkland dedication requirement. May 2020 Page 187 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.17 TRANSPORTATION This section, in part, has been excerpted from the analysis in the following study prepared for this Addendum: ■ NezvportAirport Village Trip Making Assessment, Urban Crossroads, March 5, 2020 This report is included in its entirety as Appendix B to this Addendum. 5.17.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.17.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR With respect to transportation/circulation impacts, the 2006 General Plan EIR concluded: ■ Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would contribute to a substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies. This would be a significant and unavoidable impact. • Implementation of the 2006 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, volume -to -capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections compared to existing conditions. With improvements proposed in the Circulation Element, growth related to buildout of the proposed 2006 General Plan alone would be reduced to less than significant levels. The improvements included in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the GPU EIR. • The 2006 General Plan would not result in a substantial impact to CMP arterials in Newport Beach. Impacts related to CMP facilities would be less than significant. • Circulation improvements would be implemented, and no improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments. Implementation of Circulation and Land Use policies in the 2006 General Plan would provide for increasing safety of roadways, balancing safety, quality of life, and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Impacts would be less than significant. • The 2006 General Plan would provide adequate emergency access to the project area, and impacts would be less than significant. • The 2006 Circulation Element contained new policies to encourage alternatives modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, and the development of waterfront walkways. Intersection improvements would not affect implementation of these policies. The 2006 General Plan did not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation, and impacts would be less than significant. Page 188 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.17.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Trip Generation and Intersection Performance The LUE Amendment altered, intensified, and redistributed land uses in certain subareas of the city, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the Airport Area near John Wayne Airport. The changes were projected to result in a citywide increase of 260 morning peak hour inbound trip ends, 521 morning peak hour outbound trip ends, 434 evening peak hour inbound trip ends, 324 evening peak hour outbound trip ends, and 8,221 daily trip ends. The Airport Area land use changes were described in the LUE Amendment EIR as follows: Airport Area: The Airport Area is another subarea proposed for considerable changes from the existing land use plan. The project proposes changes to four properties within the subarea: Saunders Properties, The Hangars, Lyon Communities, and UAP Companies. Currently, the four properties only consist of office buildings. The proposed project would allow for increased square footage for retail and office uses as well as residential units and hotel rooms. As with Newport Center/Fashion Island, the Airport Area would allow for denser infill development and an estimated additional 10,771 daily trips. Table 11, Project Trip Generation - LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas, shows the trip changes anticipated within the proposed change areas in the Airport Area (see Figure 6, Airport Area Proposed Changes, 2014 LUE Amendment). Table 11 Project Trip Generation - LUE Amendment Airport Area Change Areas Source: Urban Crossroads 2014. TSF = thousand square feet The General Plan LUE Amendment would result in the redistribution of peak hour directional traffic movements, which generally would not degrade roadway system performance in comparison to the 2006 General Plan. In summary, based on the intersection impact criteria described, there would be no significant impacts with the planned improvements at study -area intersections. May 2020 Page 189 AM PM In Out In Out Area Area Name Land Use Chane ADT Saunders Pro a p ty 329 du Apartment 239 220 211 221 4,651 238.077 TSF General Office The Hangars 11.8 TSF General Commercial 13 6 14 17 340 -10 TSF General Office 42 850 du Apartment (High -Rise) Lyon Homes 150 room Hotel 103 352 321 210 5,780 85 TSF General Commercial -250.176 TSF General Office UAP Companies trip neutral land uses 0 0 0 0 0 Citywide Total 355 578 546 448 10,771 Source: Urban Crossroads 2014. TSF = thousand square feet The General Plan LUE Amendment would result in the redistribution of peak hour directional traffic movements, which generally would not degrade roadway system performance in comparison to the 2006 General Plan. In summary, based on the intersection impact criteria described, there would be no significant impacts with the planned improvements at study -area intersections. May 2020 Page 189 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Congestion Management Program Intersections The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) was established in 1991 to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions. Compliance with CMP requirements ensures a city's eligibility to compete for state gas tax funds for local transportation projects. For OCTA CMP intersections, the acceptable LOS is E. If the intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS and the project increases the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.03 or greater, mitigation is required to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no -project conditions. CMP intersections in the vicinity of the LUE Amendment consist of: ■ I-405 Northbound Ramps/Jamboree Road ■ I-405 Southbound Ramps/Jamboree Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard/Jamboree Road ■ MacArthur Boulevard/Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard/Coast Highway Implementation of the LUE Amendment would not cause a CMP intersection to fall below LOS E and would not cause a cumulative increase of more than 0.03 in the V/C ratio at any CMP intersection with an established LOS standard worse than LOS E for any scenario. The LUE Amendment's contribution to trips at CMP intersections would be less than significant. Alternative Transportation Consistency Implementation of the LUE Amendment would have no impact on policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Development in accordance with the LUE Amendment would not result in changes to the circulation system and would not conflict with the design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Development of each site would have to comply with policies in the Land Use Element and Circulation Element related to alternative transportation. 5.17.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: Page 190 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial ImpactslNo Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and X pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X Page 190 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances, as well as regional programs addressing the circulation system. It would not impact transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Urban Crossroads study (in Appendix B) evaluated the project's potential impact on trip generation and intersection performance in comparison to development of the site under the 2006 General Plan land use designations. Table 12 summarizes allowed site uses for the project site that were evaluated using the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for the 2006 General Plan traffic study in comparison to the proposed land uses for the project. Table 12 2006 General Plan U date Traffic Anal sis — Land Use Comparison to Proposed Project Less Than TAZ 1378 Total Studied 2006project Adjustment for smaller area: 62.7%1 Proposed Project Studied General Commercial Significant 91,476 171,191 107,336 Substantial General Office Impacts/No 198,198 370,913 Substantial Change in New Changes or 22,869 42,798 Change in Circum- Information New 0 0 Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X Comments: a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances, as well as regional programs addressing the circulation system. It would not impact transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The Urban Crossroads study (in Appendix B) evaluated the project's potential impact on trip generation and intersection performance in comparison to development of the site under the 2006 General Plan land use designations. Table 12 summarizes allowed site uses for the project site that were evaluated using the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for the 2006 General Plan traffic study in comparison to the proposed land uses for the project. Table 12 2006 General Plan U date Traffic Anal sis — Land Use Comparison to Proposed Project TAZ 1377 TAZ 1378 Total Studied 2006project Adjustment for smaller area: 62.7%1 Proposed Project Studied General Commercial 79,715 91,476 171,191 107,336 46,4102 General Office 172,715 198,198 370,913 232,562 232,562 Industrial 19,929 22,869 42,798 26,834 18,6003 Apartments0 0 0 3294 (444 w/density bonus) 1 Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres). 2 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336 — 60,926 = 46,410). 3 Total floor area studied overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234. 4 Proposed project requests a GPA to allow 329 of the 1,650 replacement dwelling units already allowed by the general plan in the MU -H2 land use category. As shown, in comparison to the 2006 land uses analyzed for the project site, the proposed project reduces commercial and industrial building space and introduces up to 444 residential units. Table 13 compares the trip May 2020 Page 191 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis generation, including AM and PM peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) for the proposed project in comparison to the 2006 General Plan land uses for the site. Table 13 Project Site Trip Generation — 2006 GPA vs Proposed Pro NBTM I I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code I Quantity In Out Total In I Out I Total I Daily 2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) Trip Generation Results General Commercial 10a 107.366 TSF 191 86 277 164 217 381 4,105 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 26.834 TSF 13 3 16 5 9 14 147 TOTAL 399 149 548 260 377 637 6,829 Proposed Project Trip Generation Results Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 329 DU 33 125 158 95 53 148 1,612 General Commercial 10a 46.41 TSF 83 37 120 71 94 165 1,775 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 18.6 TSF 9 2 11 3 6 9 102 TOTAL Density without Bonus 320 224 544 260 304 564 6,066 Apartment (High -Rise) I 3c 115 DU 12 44 56 33 18 51 564 TOTAL with Density Bonus 332 2681 600 2931 322 615 6,630 Difference without Density Bonus -79 75 -4 0 -73 -73 -763 Difference without Density Bonus 1 -67 119 521 33 -55 -22 -199 DU = dwelling unit TSF = thousand square feet As shown, in comparison to the 2006 GPU land uses for the project site, the proposed project would reduce daily trip generation even with full buildout of the 115 additional units under the density bonus (199 fewer daily trips than the GPU land uses). It would result in a decrease of 22 total PM peak hour trips, but increase total AM peak hour trips by 33. The projected inbound and outbound trip distribution for the proposed project is shown on Exhibits A and B, respectively, of the traffic report. The peak hour trip differences were applied to the trip distributions to develop AM and PM peak hour intersection volume changes. Exhibits showing the AM and PM peak trip difference with the proposed project (with and without the density bonus) are included in Appendix B, Exhibits C through E Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) changes due to the project were calculated. The performance changes at area intersections due to the proposed project are shown in Table 14. The analysis conservatively assumes that buildout of the proposed project includes all potential density bonus units (total 444 residential units). Page 192 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 14 Intersection Level of Service - 2006 GPU vs Proposed Project Intersection Approved GP Approved GP with Project DB AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS' ICU LOS' ICU LOS' ICU LOS' 9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.58 A 0.67 B 0.58 A 0.67 B 10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.65 B 11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.69 B 0.74 C 0.69 B 0.74 C 12 MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.64 B 0.56 A 0.64 B 0.56 A 15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N. 0.51 A 0.75 C 0.51 A 0.75 C 16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N. 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 0.64 B 17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S. 0.81 D 0.59 A 0.81 D 0.59 A 18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S. 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.50 A 0.53 A 29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.. 0.62 B 0.88 D 0.62 B 0.88 D 69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps 0.68 B 0.67 B 0.68 B 0.67 B 70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps 0.61 B 0.77 C 0.61 B 0.76 C 71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr. 0.68 B 0.88 D 0.69 B 0.88 D LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS "A", representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS "IF", representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions. As shown, implementation of the proposed project would have a nominal effect on the performance of intersections surrounding the project site in comparison to the 2006 GPU land uses. The impact of the project would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would comply with General Plan policies and ordinances as well as regional programs addressing the circulation system. It would not impact transit, roadway, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities given the net decrease in development compared to development anticipated in the 2014 LUE SEIR. The Urban Crossroads study in Appendix B evaluated the project's potential impact on trip generation and intersection performance in comparison to development of the site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Table 15 summarizes allowed site uses for the project site that were evaluated using the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for the 2014 LUE Amendment traffic study in comparison to the proposed land uses for the project. May 2020 Page 193 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis I aDle "l5 ZU14 L`Ut Amenament I raTTIC Analysis — Lana use uom arlSon to rro osea rro ect 444 DU TAZ 1377 TAZ 1378 Total Studied 2014 Adjustment for smaller project Proposed Project area: 62.7%1 Studied General Commercial 79,715 91,476 171,191 107,336 46,4102 General Office 243,262 347,115 590,377 370,166 232,5623 Industrial 19,929 22,869 42,798 26,834 18,6004 Apartments 297 147 444 N/A5 329 (444 w/density bonus) Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres). 2 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336 — 60,926 = 46,410). 3 2014 study included an increase of 238,077 square feet of office in TAZs 1377 and 1378. No increase in the allowed office development for the proposed project. 4 Total floor area studied in 2014 overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 sq. ft. 5 All 444 dwelling units were planned to go into the same general area as the current proposed project. As shown, in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment land uses analyzed for the project site, the proposed project reduces commercial, office, and industrial uses on the project site and includes development of the same number of residential units. Table 16 compares the trip generation, including AM and PM peak hour trips, and ADT for the proposed project in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment uses for the project site. Table 16 Project Site Trip Generation - 2014 LUE Amendment vs Pro NBTM I AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Code I Quantity' In Out I Total I In Out I Total 2014 LUE Amendment Trip Generation Results Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 444 DU 44 169 213 129 71 200 2,176 General Commercial 10a 107.336 TSF 191 86 277 164 217 381 4,105 General Office 23a 370.166 TSF 311 96 407 144 241 385 4,101 Industrial 26 26.834 TSF 13 3 16 5 9 14 147 TOTAL 1 5591 3541 9131 4421 5381 9801 10,529 Proposed Project Trip Generation Results Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 329 DU 33 125 158 95 53 148 1,612 General Commercial 10a 46.41 TSF 83 37 120 71 94 165 1,775 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 18.6 TSF 9 2 11 3 6 9 102 TOTAL Density without Bonus 320 224 544 260 304 564 6,066 Apartment (High -Rise) I 3c 115 DU 12 44 56 33 18 51 564 TOTAL with Density Bonus 332 2681 600 293 322 615 6,630 Difference without Density Bonus -239 -130 -369 -182 -234 -416 -4,463 Difference with Density Bonus 227 86 313 149 -216 -365 -3,899 DU = dwelling unit TSF = thousand square feet As shown, in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment land uses for the project site, the proposed project would reduce AM and PM peak hour trips and daily trip generation even with full buildout of the 115 additional units. It would decrease ADT by 3,899 trips, PM trips by 365, and AM peak trips by 313. Page 194 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis The traffic study evaluated the potential changes to intersection performance for the proposed project in comparison to the LUE Amendment. Table 17 shows the resulting ICU values and levels of service. Table 17 Intersection Level of Service - 2014 LUE Amendment vs Proposed Project Intersection LUE LUE Update with Project DB AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS' ICU LOS' ICU LOS' ICU LOS' 9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.62 B 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.70 B 10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.57 A 0.71 C 0.57 A 0.71 C 11 Von Karman AV. & Campus Dr. 0.66 B 0.74 C 0.66 B 0.73 C 12 MacArthur BI. & Von Karman Av. 0.62 B j 0.58 A 0.62 B 0.57 A 15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N. 0.50 A 0.73 C 0.50 A 0.73 C 16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N. 0.60 A 0.64 B 0.60 A 0.64 B 17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S. 0.79 C 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.59 A 18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S. 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.49 A 0.53 A 29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd.. 0.64 B 0.89 D 0.64 B 0.89 D 69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps 0.69 B 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.66 B 70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps 0.63 B 0.79 C 0.63 B 0.79 C 71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr. 0.70 B 0.90 D 0.70 B 0.90 D LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS "A", representing completely free-flow conditions, to LOS T", representing breakdown in flow resulting in stop -and -go conditions. As shown, implementation of the proposed project would have a nominal effect on the performance of intersections surrounding the project site in comparison to the LUE Amendment land uses. The impact of the project would be less than significant, and no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines S 15064.3, subdivision (b)? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR This Appendix G checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the 2006 GPU EIR. The legislature found that with the adoption of the SB 375, the state had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). Additionally, AB 1358 (Complete Streets Act) requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users. May 2020 Page 195 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, OPR released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allows agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, and they become mandatory on July 1, 2020. In Citi.Zens for Positive Growth & Preservation a City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 609, 625-626, the Third District Court of Appeal refused to address the merits of a pending CEQA appeal involving the sufficiency of an EIR's LOS -based analysis of transportation -related impacts. The court found that this particular challenge was moot, in that, if the court were to find problems with the analysis and remand the matter back to the respondent city, the city would be under no obligation to undertake additional LOS -based analysis. After noting that section 15064.3 was "[t]he regulation was promulgated, in part, pursuant to section 21099 and certified by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency before being approved by the Office of Administrative Law on December 28, 2018," the court reasoned as follows: In mandamus proceedings like this one, "the law to be applied is that which is current at the time of judgment in the appellate court" [Citations.] Under section 21099, subdivision (b)(2), existing law is that "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. Accordingly, the 2035 General Plan's impacts on LOS (i.e., automobile delay) cannot constitute a significant environmental impact, as Citizens argues, rendering Citizens's traffic impacts argument moot. In short, as of December 28, 2018, "automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment" under CEQA, except for roadway capacity projects. Thus, the former obligation under CEQA to address LOS in transportation analyses ceased to exist as of that date, except (at agencies' discretion) with respect to transportation projects. The City of Newport Beach has not implemented VMT metrics yet and currently uses the established LOS criteria. The guidelines are not yet mandatory. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the 2006 GPU EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The referenced section of the CEQA Guidelines and Appendix G checklist question were added in 2018, and therefore not addressed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. As described above, the City of Newport Beach has not implemented VMT metrics yet and currently uses the established LOS criteria. The guidelines are not yet mandatory. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the 2014 LUE SEIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR. Page 196 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed from the existing arterials fronting the project site. The project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the 2006 GPU. Impacts would be less than significant. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project site is already developed and the proposed development would be accessed from the existing arterials fronting the project site. The project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would not modify any public road or introduce features that would affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area compared to the 2006 General Plan EIR because the project would reduce the total number of onsite trips. The proposed project would not result in new impacts in comparison to the 2006 GPU EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would not introduce impacts in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment. 5.17.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no transportation/traffic mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.17.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies from the Circulation Element that are relevant to transportation/traffic impacts of the proposed project. May 2020 Page 197 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Goal CE 1.1: An overall transportation system that facilitates the movement of people and goods within and through the City of Newport Beach and accommodates conservative growth within the City of Newport Beach, but is not expanded primarily to accommodate growth in the surrounding region. • CE 1.1.1 - Comprehensive Transportation System: Provide a diverse transportation system that provides mobility options for the community. • CE 1.1.2 - Integrated System of Multiple Modes: Provide an integrated transportation system that supports the land use plan set forth in the Land Use Element. • CE 1.1.3 - Levels of Service Related to Community Character: Establish level of service standards that reflect the character of the various unique districts and neighborhoods of Newport Beach. Goal CE 1.2: Reduced summertime visitor traffic impacts. • CE 1.2.4 - Public Transit: Support and encourage OCTA efforts to provide/fund summertime expanded bus service and/or local shuttle services to reduce visitor traffic. Goal CE 2.1: A roadway system that provides for the efficient movement of goods and people in the City of Newport Beach, while maintaining the community's character and its residents' quality of life. • CE 2.1.1- Level of Service Standards: Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards: a. Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted b. LOS "E" at any intersection in the Airport Area shared with Irvine c. LOS "E" at Coast Highway (E\V) and Dover Drive (NS) due to right-of-way Limitations d. LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) and Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of Corona del Mar e. LOS "B" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) and Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of in Corona del Mar • CE 2.1.2 - Street and Highway Network: Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section). • CE 2.1.4 - Roadway Improvements: Pursue construction of intersection improvements shown on Figure CE3 or alternate improvements that achieve an acceptable level of service. Page 198 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis • CE 2.1.6 - Protection of Right -of -Way: Protect right-of-way for designated future streets and highways through all practicable means. Goal CE 2.3: Optimal roadway system operation. • CE 2.3.4 - Improvements to Reflect Changing Traffic Conditions: Based on the monitoring of traffic conditions, consider additional improvements in areas with operations issues, such as intersections with heavy turn volumes (e.g. additional turn lanes, traffic signal progression, etc.). Goal CE 5.1: Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. • CE 5.1.2 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. • CE 5.1.3 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects: Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. • CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods: Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate. • CE 5.1.5 - Bikeway System: Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region. • CE 5.1.6 - Bicycle Supporting Facilities: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads. • CE 5.1.7 - Bicycle Safety: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices. • CE 5.1.8 - Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians: Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. • CE 5.1.9 - Integrated Bicycle Improvements: Coordinate community bicycle and pedestrian facilities in a citywide network for continuity of travel. Goal CE 6.2: Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies. • CE 6.2.1 - Alternative Transportation Modes: Promote and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and provide facilities that support such alternate modes. May 2020 Page 199 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis • CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. • CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes: Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. Goal CE 8.1: Adequate funding for needed transportation infrastructure and operations. • CE 8.1.9 - Right -of -Way Dedication: Require the dedication of needed right-of-way in conjunction with approval of subdivision maps or other discretionary approvals. • CE 8.1.10 - Development Requirements: Require development to provide the needed roadway improvements adjacent to a site, commensurate with project impact and in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways. • CE 8.1.11 -joint Funding with Adjoining jurisdictions: Pursue joint funding of improvements in areas (such as the Airport Area) where traffic growth and/or needed improvements are demonstrably based upon traffic contributions or improvements that are a joint responsibility of Newport Beach and one or more adjacent jurisdictions/agencies. • CE 8.1.12 - Measure M Restrictions: Measure M sales tax revenues shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has been committed for any project or normal subdivision obligations. • CE 8.1.13 - Transportation Improvement or Special Assessment District: Establish a transportation improvement or special assessment district to fund improvements needed in the Airport Area. Page 200 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The City of Newport Beach has a long cultural history and is known to have been home to Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro -Americans. Archaeological materials associated with occupation of the city are known to exist and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory. Archaeological resources are often of cultural or religious importance to Native American groups, particularly if the resource includes human and/or animal burials. Consequently, ground -disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy Native American resources that may be present on or below the ground surface. AB 52, which took effect July 1, 2015, requires analysis of tribal cultural resources (TCR) in CEQA documents. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources. Or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. AB 52 requires consultation with tribes at an early stage to determine whether the project would have an adverse impact on TCRs. Consultation concludes when both parties have agreed on measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, or a party, after a reasonable effort in good faith, decides that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Consultation only applies to CEQA documents that require public circulation; however, the CEQA document must disclose significant impacts to TCRs and discuss feasible alternatives or mitigation that avoid or lessen the impact. Although this Addendum does not require public review and therefore does not require consultation with Native American tribes, impacts to TCRs are analyzed in this section for consistency with the updated CEQA Guidelines, adopted December 2018. 5.18.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.18.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because this analysis was not required in environmental documents until AB 52 became effective in 2015, long after the 2006 GPU EIR was certified. 5.18.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR because this analysis was not required in environmental documents until AB 52 became effective in 2015, after the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR was certified. However, Senate Bill (SB) 18, which went into effect on March 1, 2005, required local jurisdictions to provide opportunities for involvement of California Native Americans tribes in the land planning process during this time. The City did consult with applicable tribes, pursuant to SB 18, on the 2014 LUE Amendment. The May 2020 Page 201 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources section of the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR included a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC recommended contact with 14 Native American tribes or individuals who might have additional knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of historic properties within or immediately adjacent to the study area. Upon implementation of GPU policies, the requests of the tribes, and regulatory requirements, impacts to Native American resources were found to be less than significant. 5.18.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: Comments: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Page 202 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Requiring Circum -stances Increased Requiring Major EIR Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in X Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth X in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Comments: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Page 202 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would alter land uses and intensities on the project site. The entire site, however, is previously developed, and project implementation would not result in disturbing new areas. The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would adhere to the GPU policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 in case future development requires ground -disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed ground. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2006 GPU, would comply with the City's "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)." Although soil -disturbing activities associated with development could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. No impact would occur in comparison to the GPU EIR, which was assessed as less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR On October 14, 2013, the NAHC replied that there were no known Native American cultural resources within the planned land use change areas within the LUE Amendment, including the proposed project site (Saunders Property). The proposed project, similar to development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be required to implement the requirements of the "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and policies in the 2006 GPU under Goals HR 2 and NR 18. Therefore, there would be no impact to tribal cultural resources relative to the conclusions in the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code 5 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to the 2006 General Plan EIR See Impact 5.17.2 (a). Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR See Impact 5.17.2 (a). May 2020 Page 203 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.18.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project Therc were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.18.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan includes the following goals and policies that are relevant to tribal cultural resources. Goal HR 2: Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Goal NR 18: Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1 - New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Page 204 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Require new development, where on site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. May 2020 Page 205 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 5.19.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Previous EIRs 5.19.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Wastewater Treatment and Collection The 2006 GPU EIR concluded that the 2006 GPU would have no impact on wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) because the City requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The permits contain limits on allowable concentrations and mass discharge of pollutants from both point and nonpoint sources. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by RWQCB. In addition, the City's municipal code mandates dwelling units and businesses to connect to the City's public sewer and prohibits the discharge of polluting substances into public sewers. Furthermore, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements regulate discharge from construction sites. Policies in the 2006 GPU also specify minimal adverse effects to water quality from sanitary sewer outflows (Policies HB 7.6, NR 4.1, NR 5.1, NR 5.3, NR 5.4). Thus, no impact to the City's wastewater treatment quality would occur. Using the City's 1996 Master Plan of Sewer's wastewater generation factors, buildout of the 2006 GPU was estimated to produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be distributed between Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 was found to have a capacity of 174 mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity. Reclamation Plant No. 2 was found to have a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the 2006 GPU was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies within the 2006 General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Thus, impacts were determined less than significant. Lastly, according to the 2006 EIR, the City served approximately 1,200 acre-feet per year (afy) of irrigation demand using potable recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the 2006 General Plan encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Future recycled water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when project -level details are known. Thus, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City were considered less than significant. Water Supply and Distribution The City's surface water supply comes from the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). In addition, all three service providers use groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply. Development in accordance with the 2006 GPU would increase water demand within Page 206 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis the City; however, the 2006 EIR concluded that impacts to existing water supply and infrastructure would be less than significant. The 2006 General Plan buildout would increase the City's water demands by approximately 998 afy; however, MWDOC, the City's imported water supplier, indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet. Thus, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs through 2030. Beyond 2030, additional water transfers, local projects, conservation efforts, and State Water Project improvements may be necessary to meet Newport Beach's future demand requirements. Groundwater supplies were also identified to meet demands through 2030. Various policies in the 2006 General Plan Natural Resource Element aimed to increase the use of recycled water, provide financial incentives for reduced water use, offer alternative water resources through advance water treatment processes, and implement water conservation measures. Furthermore, the 2006 General Plan buildout would increase water demand by 270 afy in the IRWD service area. The additional water demand, however, would not change IRWD's urban water management plan (UWMP) conclusions with respect to projected water supply reliability. IRWD identified surplus water supplies under normal, single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios for both imported and groundwater supplies. The MCWD service area would experience an increase in water demand by approximately 58.6 afy. However, Mesa indicated that they had adequate water supply sources to supply the additional demand. In addition, any new development would be subject to site-specific evaluation of existingwater system's capacity to service the development. If improvements are required, developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. Environmental impacts associated with these improvements would be evaluated at a project -level. Policy LU 2.8 of the 2006 General Plan also directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Thus, overall impacts to the three water suppliers were found to be less than significant. Storm Drainage Systems The 2006 GPU EIR found that development would have a less than significant impact on Newport Beach's storm drainage system capacity. Buildout would generally result in infill development or redevelopment, which would not substantially alter drainage patterns because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. The City's Storm Drain Master Plan was completed in 2000 and addressed drainage deficiencies. However, no upgrades were proposed as necessary with implementation of the 2006 GPU. Several GPU policies addressed stormwater. Section 15.50.160 of the City's municipal code also regulates flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. By complying with the General Plan policies and City's municipal code, impacts to existing drainage system capacities would be less than significant. Solid Waste The 2006 EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project -generated solid waste were less than significant. Development of the 2006 GPU would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately 0.68 May 2020 Page 207 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill accepts annually. Given the landfill's 16 -year lifespan and remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the 2006 EIR was prepared, the increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the 2006 GPU was considered less than significant. Other Utilities The projected electrical demand for buildout under the GPU was found to be within the SCE's 2016 load forecast. Though SCE's total system demand was expected to continue to increase annually, excluding any unforeseen problems, SCE's plans for new distribution resources would be adequate to serve all existing and new customer loads throughout the coming decade. However, to reduce any potential impacts associated with buildout of the proposed GPU, SCE recommended the use of energy efficient and high-performance design for nonresidential and residential building design and construction. SCGC also indicated the natural gas level of service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the GPU. 5.19.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR Wastewater Treatment and Collection The 2014 LUE Amendment would result in an additional 431,340 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater in the City's service area when compared with the buildout of the 2006 GPU buildout. According to OCSD, the growth would not necessitate new or expanded treatment facilities. Furthermore, if development under the General Plan LUE Amendment required additional sewer flow connections to the OCSD sewer lines or pump stations, then OCSD design guidelines would apply. Additionally, a sewer connection fee would be required prior to issuance of building permits, pursuant to Chapter 14.24 of the City's municipal code (Leon 2013). Developers are also required to pay for infrastructure expansions or improvements, including sewer improvements, if their projects could have a significant adverse impact on existing conditions. Therefore, impacts to the sewer system were found to be less than significant. Water Supply and Distribution The 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR found that buildout under this amendment would increase water demand within the City's service area by an additional 422 afy when compared to the 2006 GPU buildout. According to the City's 2010 UWMP, the 2035 projected availability of imported water supply from MWDOC meets the 2035 projected imported water demand. Due to its active efforts in promoting water conservation and water use efficiency to residents, the City is projecting a flattening demand trend in the next 25 years despite a projected 11 percent population growth. Projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment would comply with the requirements of the City's municipal code Chapter 14.16, Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations, and Chapter 14.17, Water -Efficient Landscaping; the policies of the 2006 GPU; and the requirements of the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.5 Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply could accommodate the increased water demand 5 The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the California Department of Water Resources in 2010 pursuant to the Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SBX7-7), and established a statewide water conservation target of 20 percent reduction in water use by 2020 compared to the State's 2005 baseline use. Page 208 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis associated with the 2014 LUE Amendment. Furthermore, IRWD's water system was found to be sufficient and operating at a high level of service. According to IRWD's 2010 UWMP, the water supply was 100 percent reliable and able to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events, if needed. IRWD's 2035 projected availability exceeds the projected water demands by at least 51,082 afy. IRWD also indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development and its associated water demands. Lastly, the LUE Amendment proposed only one land use designation change within the MCWD at King's Liquor Store, 1526 Placentia Avenue. All subsequent developments on the property would be required to go through a project -level environmental review by the City to determine adequate water supply to future development. Therefore, impacts to water supply and delivery systems were found to be less than significant. Storm Drainage System Implementation of the LUE Amendment would allow for development in various subareas proposed for changes in land use designation and/or development capacities. Since the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out, development would occur only in areas with existing storm drainage infrastructure. The Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan requires new developments to create and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure pollutant discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Thus, any additional stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the LUE Amendment would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Solid Waste The buildout of the General Plan LUE Amendment was estimated to generate an additional 66,615 pounds of solid waste per day (approximately 12,157 tons per year) when compared to the 2006 General Plan buildout. The two landfills accepting nearly all solid waste landfilled from Newport Beach—Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Olinda Alpha Landfill—had residual capacities of 192,300,000 and 43,900,000 cubic yards and estimated closure dates of 2053 and 2021, respectively. For a more conservative approach, if all 66,615 pounds generated per day (approximately 33.3 tons per day) from the buildout of the LUE Amendment were sent to the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, it would represent only 0.30 percent of its maximum daily permitted tonnage. If all 12,157 tons generated per year were sent to the Olinda Alpha Landfill, it would represent only 0.42 percent of its maximum daily permitted tonnage. Thus, both landfills, individually, would be able to take in the complete amount of solid waste generated, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Other Utilities Similar to the 2006 GPU EIR, implementation of the General Plan LUE Amendment was found not to increase energy demands to exceed forecast energy supplies through 2030. Development in accordance with the 2014 LUE Amendment resulted in a net increase for electricity demand of approximately 8,026,488 kilowatt hours (KWh) per year. SCE forecast that it would have adequate electricity to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2022. Using SCE's anticipated consumption in 2022 in a high -demand consumption scenario, electricity demand was expected to be 116,637 gigawatt hours (GWh). The increase in electricity demand from the 2014 LUE Amendment would be 0.006 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area. The increase in May 2020 Page 209 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis demand would be nominal from that expected from the 2006 General Plan buildout. Therefore, no additional electricity production facilities would be needed. Furthermore, implementation of the LUE Amendment would result in a net increase for natural gas demand of 380,043 KBTU per year, approximately 1,014 cubic feet per day, in comparison to the 2006 General Plan buildout. The increase in natural gas demand from the LUE Amendment would be less than 0.0001 percent of overall demand in SCGCs' service area. Thus, the increase in demand would be nominal from that expected from the 2006 GPU buildout, and no additional natural gas facilities would be needed. 5.19.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the proposed project: Page 210 PlaceWorks Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment the construction or X relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected X demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? c) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during X normal, dry, and multiple dry years? e) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or X relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Page 210 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would include the redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -142, thus expanding the overall geographic area designated as MU -H2 within the Airport Area. The proposed project would include up to 297,572 square feet of nonresidential uses and up to 444 residential units. For purposes of the traffic study and analyzing potential utility impacts, the following breakdown of the nonresidential uses was assumed: 232,562 square feet of office use, 46,410 square feet of commercial use, 18,600 square feet of industrial use. In comparison to the 2006 GPU, the proposed project reduces commercial square footage and adds units to the project site but does not result in a net increase in units for the Airport Area. Using the City's wastewater generation factors from the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed project would generate 123,560 gallons per day (gpd), as shown in Table 18. The net change in wastewater generation for the project site compared to what is allowed for the site under the 2006 GPU is also shown in Table 18. It should be noted that even though the 329 units were accommodated within the airport MU -1-12 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered to be new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of impacts. May 2020 Page 211 Less Than Significant Substantial Impacts/No Substantial Change in New Changes or Change in Circum- Information New Project stances Showing New Information Requiring Requiring or Increased Requiring Major EIR Major EIR Significant Preparation of Environmental Issues Revisions Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact f) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair X the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? h) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or X telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Comments: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The proposed project would include the redesignation of the project site from AO to MU -142, thus expanding the overall geographic area designated as MU -H2 within the Airport Area. The proposed project would include up to 297,572 square feet of nonresidential uses and up to 444 residential units. For purposes of the traffic study and analyzing potential utility impacts, the following breakdown of the nonresidential uses was assumed: 232,562 square feet of office use, 46,410 square feet of commercial use, 18,600 square feet of industrial use. In comparison to the 2006 GPU, the proposed project reduces commercial square footage and adds units to the project site but does not result in a net increase in units for the Airport Area. Using the City's wastewater generation factors from the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed project would generate 123,560 gallons per day (gpd), as shown in Table 18. The net change in wastewater generation for the project site compared to what is allowed for the site under the 2006 GPU is also shown in Table 18. It should be noted that even though the 329 units were accommodated within the airport MU -1-12 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered to be new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative estimate of impacts. May 2020 Page 211 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 18 Net Increase in Wastewater Generation Source: Uty Or Newport [teach Jewer master Flan, August Zulu. 1 The 2010 Sewer Master Plan does not have a wastewater generation factor for Office land use; therefore, a conservative generation factor of 2,500 gpd/ac, currently used for Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Private Institutions, is used for Office. A single wastewater generation rate is used for the office, commercial, and industrial uses proposed for the project. ac — acres SF — square feet du — dwelling unit gpd — gallons per day Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 208 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 168 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd (C)CSD 2018). Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 191 mgd. Given that the proposed project would generate an additional 103,060 gpd (0.10 mgd) of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Thus, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. Furthermore, if development under the proposed project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment allocated 596,575 square feet of office uses and 444 dwelling units to the proposed project site. Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and maintain the number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site (although reduce overall residential uses within the Airport Area). The wastewater generation rate for office uses is equivalent to other non-residential uses (i.e., commercial and industrial) (see Table 18); therefore, the wastewater generation factor used for office in the 2014 LUE Amendment would be the same generation factor that would apply to the project's non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed project would generate less wastewater and would reduce wastewater -related impacts in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment. Page 212 PlaceWorks Projected Projected Wastewater Wastewater Generation Wastewater Generation Wastewater For the 2006 Total Buildout Generation For the Proposed Total Buildout Generation GPU Net Increase Land Use Proposed Project Factor Project (gpd) 2006 GPU Factor (gpd) (gpd) Residential - Single and 444 du 240 gpd/du 106,560 0 240 0 106,560 Multifamily gpd/du 6.8 ac 500 2,/ac' 8.2 ac 2,500 Office/commercial/industrial (297,572 SF) gpd 17,000 (358,572 SF) gpd/ace 20,500 (3,500) Total - 123,560 - - 20,500 1 103,060 Source: Uty Or Newport [teach Jewer master Flan, August Zulu. 1 The 2010 Sewer Master Plan does not have a wastewater generation factor for Office land use; therefore, a conservative generation factor of 2,500 gpd/ac, currently used for Commercial, Industrial, Public Facilities, and Private Institutions, is used for Office. A single wastewater generation rate is used for the office, commercial, and industrial uses proposed for the project. ac — acres SF — square feet du — dwelling unit gpd — gallons per day Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 208 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 168 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd (C)CSD 2018). Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 191 mgd. Given that the proposed project would generate an additional 103,060 gpd (0.10 mgd) of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Thus, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. Furthermore, if development under the proposed project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The 2014 LUE Amendment allocated 596,575 square feet of office uses and 444 dwelling units to the proposed project site. Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and maintain the number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site (although reduce overall residential uses within the Airport Area). The wastewater generation rate for office uses is equivalent to other non-residential uses (i.e., commercial and industrial) (see Table 18); therefore, the wastewater generation factor used for office in the 2014 LUE Amendment would be the same generation factor that would apply to the project's non-residential uses. Thus, the proposed project would generate less wastewater and would reduce wastewater -related impacts in comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment. Page 212 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As mentioned above, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in wastewater that cannot be accommodated by OCSD's treatment plants. Furthermore, the City requires NPDES permits, which set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The City's municipal code also requires dwelling units and commercial uses to connect to the City's public sewer network and prohibits certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed project, similar to development in accordance with the 2006 GPU, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the municipal code and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Implementation of the proposed project would generate less wastewater than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Furthermore, both the proposed project and development pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment would need to comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit and the City's municipal code and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 211,084 gpd, or 236 afy (see Table 19). Residential water demand calculations are based on 202 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which is the City's target goal for year 2020 (Arcadis 2018). The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit is 2.22 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport Beach for 2019 (DOF 2020). Table 19 shows the net change in water demand for the project site compared to what is allowed for the site under the 2006 GPU. As shown, the net increase in water demand is 195,672 gpd (219 afy). It should be noted that even though the 329 units (or 444 units with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU - H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were assumed to be new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative approach. May 2020 Page 213 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Table 19 Net Increase in Water Demand Source: Arcadis, August 2019. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit ac -acres gpd — gallons per day gpcd — gallons per capita per day gpad — gallons per acre per day The proposed project is within the City of Newport Beach's water service area. According to the City's 2015 UWMP, the 2040 projected availability of water supply meets the 2040 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The 2040 projected water demand for normal years is 16,973 afy. The 195,672 gpd (219 acre-feet/year) net increase for the project site water demand equates to 1.3 percent of the total water demand for the City. Since the residential units for the project, however, are already allocated within the Airport Area, placing the units on the project site would not increase water demand relative to another location within the Airport Area. The net, citywide water demand for the project, therefore, would be due to the reduction in non-residential square footage, resulting in a decrease of 3,500 gpd (3.9 afy). Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Additionally, if development of the proposed project requires improvements to the existing water system capacity, the developer would be required to pay their share of costs for all or portions of the needed improvements. Thus, overall impacts to the water supply are less than significant. Overall, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts to the water service. Therefore impacts are less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and result in the same number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site. Thus, the proposed project would reduce water demand, and impacts would be less than significant. Page 214 PlaceWorks Projected Water Projected Water Total Buildout Demand Demand Proposed Water For the Proposed Total Buildout Water Demand For the 2006 GPU Net Increase Land Use Project Demand Factor Project d 2006 GPU Factor d d Residential - 986 persons Single and (444 du) 202 gpcd 199,172 0 202 gpcd 0 199,172 Multifamily 5.3 ac 5.3 ac Office (232,562 SF) 1,757 gpad 9,312 (232,562 SF) 1,757 gpad 9,312 0 Commercial a 2,200 gpad 2,200 2.5 ac 2,200 gpad 5,500 (3,300) (46,1 SF) (107,336 SF) Industrial 0.4 ac 1,000 gpad 400 0.6 ac 1,000 gpad 600 (200) (18, SF) (26 834 SF) Total 211,084 15,412 195,672 Source: Arcadis, August 2019. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit ac -acres gpd — gallons per day gpcd — gallons per capita per day gpad — gallons per acre per day The proposed project is within the City of Newport Beach's water service area. According to the City's 2015 UWMP, the 2040 projected availability of water supply meets the 2040 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. The 2040 projected water demand for normal years is 16,973 afy. The 195,672 gpd (219 acre-feet/year) net increase for the project site water demand equates to 1.3 percent of the total water demand for the City. Since the residential units for the project, however, are already allocated within the Airport Area, placing the units on the project site would not increase water demand relative to another location within the Airport Area. The net, citywide water demand for the project, therefore, would be due to the reduction in non-residential square footage, resulting in a decrease of 3,500 gpd (3.9 afy). Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Additionally, if development of the proposed project requires improvements to the existing water system capacity, the developer would be required to pay their share of costs for all or portions of the needed improvements. Thus, overall impacts to the water supply are less than significant. Overall, buildout of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts to the water service. Therefore impacts are less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Compared to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR, the proposed project would reduce nonresidential space and result in the same number of residential dwelling units allowed for the project site. Thus, the proposed project would reduce water demand, and impacts would be less than significant. Page 214 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR As detailed above, the proposed project would generate an increase in water demand of 55.6 afy for the project site, but a net 3.9 afy decrease in water demand compared to the city-wide 2006 GPU buildout. The City's 2015 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient to meet the 2040 projected water demand for its residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed project. Impacts are less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Implementation of the proposed project would require less water supply than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Since the City has sufficient water supply for the future water demand and can accommodate the 2014 LUE Amendment, water supplies would also be able to accommodate the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant. e) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Development of the proposed project would alter the on-site drainage patterns with the development of the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. However, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would be required to implement a WQMP. The WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices. BMWs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be designed in accordance with Section 19.28.080 of the City's municipal code. Thus, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Both the implementation of projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment and the proposed project would implement WQMPs to manage post -construction runoff. The goal of the WQMP is to ensure that new development and significant redevelopment does not contribute to increased urban runoff flow rates and velocities to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, any new drainage facilities would be designed pursuant to the requirements of the City's municipal code, and impacts would be less than significant. May 2020 Page 215 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis f) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 26,740 pounds of solid waste per day, shown in Table 20, which also shows the net change in solid waste generation for the project site. Buildout of the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of approximately 4,119 pounds per day (2.05 tons/day) of solid waste compared to the 2006 GPU buildout. It should be noted that even though the 329 units (444 with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU -H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units are considered new for purposes of this analysis for a conservative estimate of impacts. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill and Olinda Alpha Landfill have residual capacities of 3,600 tons/day and 867 tons/day and estimated closure dates of 2053 and 2021, respectively (CalRecycle 2019c, 2019d). Thus, both landfills, individually, would be able to take in the complete amount of additional solid waste generated by the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2006 General Plan, would comply with the California Green Building Standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 341, and AB 1826. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341 mandates a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Table 20 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation Source: CalRecyle 2019a. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit lbs - pounds Page 216 PlaceWorks Projected Solid Waste Projected Solid Generation Waste for the Generation Total Buildout Proposed For the 2006 Net Proposed Solid Waste Project Total Buildout Solid Waste GPU Increase Land Use Project Generation Factor (lbs/day) 2006 GPU Generation Factor (Ibslday) (lbs/day) Residential - Single 444 du 12.23 5,430 0 12.23 0 5,430 and Multifamily lbs/household/day lbs/household/day Office 232,562 SF 0.084 lbs/SF/day 19,535 232,562 SF 0.084 lbs/SF/day 19,535 0 Commercial 46,410 SF 0.013 lbs/SF/day 603 107,336 SF 0.013 lbs/SF/day 1,395 (792) Industrial 18,600 SF 0.063 lbs/SF/day 1,172 26,834 SF 0.063 lbs/SF/day 1,691 (519) Total - 1 1 26,740 1 - 22,621 4,119 Source: CalRecyle 2019a. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit lbs - pounds Page 216 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR Implementation of the proposed project would generate less solid waste than the buildout proposed for the project site under the 2014 LUE Amendment. Since the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill can accommodate the 2014 LUE Amendment, the landfill can also accommodate the proposed project. Additionally, the proposed project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would comply with the California Green Building Standards, AB 341, and AB 1826. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. g) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (California Public Resources Code §§ 40000 et seq.) requires all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities must divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste generation into recycling. Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Target disposal rates for the City are 9.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident and 11.5 ppd per employee. Actual disposal rates in 2018 were 6.9 ppd per resident and 7.4 ppd per employee (CalRecycle 2019b). Thus, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach is consistent with AB 939 and the project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939. AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (California Public Resources Code §§ 42900 et seq.) required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. The City's municipal code includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327. Therefore, the project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 1327. Furthermore, the proposed project, similar to all projects pursuant to the 2006 GPU, is required to recycle construction waste in compliance with the 2019 California Green Building Code, store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. Overall, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As mentioned above, the proposed project, similar to projects pursuant to the 2014 LUE Amendment, would be in compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations and impacts would be less than significant. May 2020 Page 217 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis h) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impacts/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR Buildout of the proposed project is expected to use approximately 5.9 million kilowatt hours (kWhr) of electricity per year (see Table 21). When compared to the buildout allocated for the project site in the 2006 GPU, development on the project site would result in an increase of approximately 1.1 million kWhr per year in electricity use. It should be noted that even though the 329 units (444 units with density bonus) were accommodated within the airport MU -H2 area in the 2006 GPU, these units were considered new for purposes of this analysis to provide a conservative approach. Total mid -electricity consumption in SCE's service area is forecast to increase by approximately 12,723 GWh between 2015 and 2027. SCE forecasts that it will have sufficient electricity supplies to meet demands in its service area, and impacts would be less than significant (CEC 2018). Table 21 Annual Net Increase in Electricity Use — Project Site Source: CaIEEMod 2016. Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Electricity, NT24 Electricity, and Lighting Electricity were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, nonhistorical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit kWh — kilowatt hours For natural gas, the proposed project is estimated to use about 9.0 million kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) annually (see Table 22). When compared to the buildout allocated for the project site in the 2006 GPU, the project site would generate about an additional 5.9 million kBTU annually. SCGC's residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SCGC's service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 Page 218 PlaceWorks Projected Electricity Use Projected for the Electricity Use Proposed For the 2006 Total Buildout Electricity Project Total Buildout GPU Net Increase Land Use Proposed Project Use Factor kWhr) ear 2006 GPU Electricity Use Factor kWhr) ear kWhr) ear Residential - Single and 444 du 4,230 kWhr/du 1,878,120 0 4,230 kWhr/du 0 1,878,120 Multifamily Office 232,562 SF 14.34 kWh r/S F 3,334,939 232,562 SF 14.34 kWhr/SF 3,334,939 0 Commercial 46,410 SF 11.72 kWhr/SF 543,925 107,336 SF 11.72 kWhr/SF 1,257,978 (714,053) Industrial 18,600 SF 8.62 kWhr/SF 160,332 26,834 SF 8.62 kWhr/SF 231,309 (70,977) Total - 5,917,316 - 4,824,226 1,093,090 Source: CaIEEMod 2016. Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Electricity, NT24 Electricity, and Lighting Electricity were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, nonhistorical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit kWh — kilowatt hours For natural gas, the proposed project is estimated to use about 9.0 million kilo British Thermal Units (kBTU) annually (see Table 22). When compared to the buildout allocated for the project site in the 2006 GPU, the project site would generate about an additional 5.9 million kBTU annually. SCGC's residual supplies were forecast to remain constant at 3,775 MMCF/day from 2020 through 2035. Total natural gas consumption in SCGC's service area is forecast to decline slightly from 2,591 MMCF/day in 2019 Page 218 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis to 2,313 MMCF/day in 2035. SCGC forecasts that it will have sufficient natural gas supplies to meet gas demands, and the proposed project would not require SCGC to obtain new or expanded gas supplies. Impacts would be less than significant (CGEU 2018). Table 22 Annual Net Increase in Natural Gas Use Source: CaIEEMod 2016. Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Natural Gas, and NT24 Natural Gas were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, non -historical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used. For the office land use, factors for general office building were used. For industrial land use, factors for general light industrial were used. For commercial land use, factors for a strip mall were used. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit kBTU — kilo British thermal units Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). All new appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within and less than the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the electricity and natural gas efficiency requirements as mentioned above and impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.19.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.. May 2020 Page 219 Projected Natural Gas Use Projected forthe Natural Gas Use Total Buildout Proposed For the 20067ke Proposed Natural Gas Use Project Total Buildout Natural Gas Use GPU Land Use Project Factor' kBTUI ear 2006 GPU Factor kBTUI ear Residential - Single and 444 du 14,046 kBTU/du 6,236,424 0 14,046 kBTU/du 0 6,236,424 Multifamily Office 232,562 SF 10 kBTU/SF 2,325,620 232,562 SF 10 kBTU/SF 2,325,620 0 Commercial 46,410 SF 2 kBTU/SF 92,820 107,336 SF 2 kBTU/SF 214,672 (121,852) Industrial 18,600 SF 21 kBTU/SF 390,600 26,834 SF 21 kBTU/SF 563,514 (172,914) Total 9,045,464 - 3,103,806 5,941,658 Source: CaIEEMod 2016. Climate Zone 8 was used for Newport Beach ZIP Code 92660. The electricity use factors for T24 Natural Gas, and NT24 Natural Gas were summed up. Since the buildings would be new construction, non -historical factors were used. For the dwelling units, the factors for high-rise apartments were used. For the office land use, factors for general office building were used. For industrial land use, factors for general light industrial were used. For commercial land use, factors for a strip mall were used. SF — square feet du — dwelling unit kBTU — kilo British thermal units Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the requirements of the current California Building Energy and Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). All new appliances would comply with the 2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (Title 20, CCR Sections 1601 through 1608). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The land uses accommodated under the proposed project would be within and less than the development capacity considered for the project site as analyzed in the 2014 LUE Amendment. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with the electricity and natural gas efficiency requirements as mentioned above and impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 5.19.3 Adopted Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR.. May 2020 Page 219 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.19.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The General Plan includes several policies that would reduce impacts to utilities and service systems associated with future development projects in the City, including: Goal HB 8: Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors and wetlands. ■ HB 8.4 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. ■ HB 8.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. ■ HB 8.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Elimination System, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ HB 8.14 - Runoff Reduction on Private Property: Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into recreational waters, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ HB 8.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Goal NR 1: Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. ■ NR 1.1 - Water Conservation in New Development: Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water—efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. Page 220 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis 5.20 WILDFIRE 5.20.1 Summary of Impacts Identified in the Program EIRs 5.20.1.1 2006 GENERAL PLAN EIR Impacts related to wildfire were not analyzed in the 2006 GPU EIR because the requirement to analyze wildfire in CEQA documents did not become effective until January 1, 2019, after of the 2006 GPU EIR by the Newport Beach City Council Quly 25, 2006). However, the 2006 General Plan identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Nonetheless„ the analysis of wildfire impacts is new in this Addendum. 5.20.1.2 2014 LUE AMENDMENT SEIR The 2015 LUE Amendment SEIR did not analyze impacts related to wildfire. The requirement to analyze wildfire in environmental documents came into effect on January 1, 2019, after the SEIR certification date Quly 22, 2014). 5.20.2 Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Would the project: May 2020 Page 221 Less Than Significant Impacts/No Substantial Substantial New Information Changes or New Change in Change in Showing New or Information Project Requiring Circum -stances Increased Requiring Major EIR Requiring Major Significant Preparation of Issues Revisions EIR Revisions Effects an EIR No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire X or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may X result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope X instability, or drainage changes? May 2020 Page 221 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Comments: According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Wildland fire protection in California is the responsibility of the state, local, and federal governments. In state responsibility areas (SRA), the State of California has the primary financial responsibility for the prevention and suppression of wildland fires. SRAs cover over 31 million acres, for which the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) provides a basic level of wildland fire prevention and protection services. Fire protection for local responsibility areas (LRA) is typically provided by city fire departments, fire protection districts, counties, and by CAL FIRE under contract to local government (CAL FIRE 2012). CAL FIRE is mandated by California Public Resources Code Sections 4201 to 4204 and California Government Code Sections 51175 to 51189 to identify fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ) for all communities in California. Local governments accept CAL FIRE's determination or make other, local determinations. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed project consists mainly of infill and intensification of development on the project site. New development would occur in urbanized and developed areas far from the City's eastern grassy hillsides and brush -covered areas, which are more susceptible to wildfire. The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, there are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The project site is not in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a very high FHSZ. Therefore, there are no impacts. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact Page 222 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No impacts would arise and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, there are no impacts. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high FHSZ. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts would arise and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Therefore, no impacts would arise. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project Comparison to 2006 General Plan EIR The project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility per the 2006 General Plan (Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impacts would arise and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. May 2020 Page 223 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 5. Environmental Analysis Project Comparison to the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR As noted above, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no impacts would arise. 5.20.3 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Program EIR and Applicable to the Proposed Project There were no mitigation measures in the 2006 GPU EIR or the 2014 LUE Amendment SEIR. 5.20.4 Relevant General Plan Policies The 2006 General Plan does not include any wildfire goals or policies that are relevant to the proposed project. Page 224 PlaceWorks 6. Summary This document is Addendum No. 3 to the previously — certified City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR and Addendum No. 1 to the previously certified General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR, May 2014. As such, this Addendum analyzes the potential differences between the environmental impacts identified in each of the previous Program EIRs and the impacts anticipated for the proposed project (Airport Village PCDP). CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that a Program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: 1. Geographically, 2. A logical part in the chain of contemplated actions, 3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or 4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing or statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states that subsequent activities undertaken pursuant to a Program EIR must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EIR." This EIR Addendum provides the environmental information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the proposed project, as more fully described in Section 3, Project Description. The City has determined that an Addendum to the above -referenced Program EIRs is appropriate, rather than a Supplement or Subsequent EIR, based on the following: a. As demonstrated in Section 5, Environmental Analysis, the proposed project would not require major revisions to the previously -certified EIRs because the project would not result in any new significant impacts to the physical environment nor would it create substantial increases in the severity of the environmental impacts previously disclosed in the respective programmatic EIRs. May 2020 Page 225 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 6. Summary b. There have been no substantial changes in circumstances subsequent to the certification of the 2006 GPU EIR and 2014 LUE Amendment EIR that would require major EIR revisions. The topical analysis in Section 5 of this Addendum describes updated regulatory requirements and conditions that could affect the potential significance of impacts associated with the proposed project. Existing, surrounding land uses have been described. Moreover, the project -related land use changes in comparison to both previous Program EIRs (square footage by use and number of residential uses) have been quantified, and the analysis for these changes, quantified as applicable. The incremental environmental impact due to the project would not combine with other related projects to result in new significant cumulative impacts. c. There is no known new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIRs that would result in increased significant impacts. Page 226 PlaceWorks 7. References AKM. August 2010. City of Newport Beach Sewer Master Plan. Arcadis. 2019, April 29. 2019 Water Master Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=64184. 2018, March. 2015 Amended Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=58831. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017, December 19. Area Designations Maps/State and National. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm. 2017a, November. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp—pp—final.pdf. 2017b, November. Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California's 2030 GHG Target. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2015. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Tustin Quadrangle. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. California Department of Education (EDU). 2020, March 17 (accessed). 2018-2019 Enrollment by Garda Santa Ana Unified Report. https: / /datal .cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dgcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=3066670&agglevel=district& year=2018-19. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016, September. Appendix D Default Data Tables. http: / /www agmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3- 1.pdf. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2012. Frequently Asked Questions. http://calfire.ca.gov/fireprevention/ fire_prevention_wildland_fags.php#modelO2. California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU). 2018. 2018 California Gas Report. https://www socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_Cahfornia_Gas_Report.pdf. CalRecyle. 2019a. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https: / /www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ WasteCharacterization/ General/Rates. May 2020 Page 227 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. References 2019b. Jurisdiction Review Report. https: / /www2. calrecycle. ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports /PerCapitaDisposalTr ends. 2019c. SWIS Facility/Site Search. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/directory. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. News Release: Energy Commission Adopts Standards Requiring Solar Systems for New Homes, First in Nation. http: / /www energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html. 2016, December 5. California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, 2017-2027. https://eflhng.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=214635. California School Campus Database (CSCD). 2020, March 17 (accessed). http: / /www.mapcollaborator.org/mapcollab_cscd/?base=map&y=33.72320&x=- 117.89566&z=12&layers=notes%2Cpolygons%2Cschoolboundaries%2Cdistricts_uni%2Cdistricts_e lem%2Cdistricts_sec%2Ccides&opacs =100%2C25%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100%2C 100. Cogstone. 2014, February. Cultural Resources Assessment for the Newport Land Use Element. Department of Finance (DOF). 2020. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011-2019, with 2010 Benchmark. http://www.dofca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Natelson Company, The. 2001, October 31. Employment Density Study Summary Report. http://www.scag.ca.gov/pdfs/Employment—Density—Study.pdf. Newport Beach, City of 2014. Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=19735. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015, February. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf. Orange County Sanitary District (OCSD). 2018, June 27. Proposed Budget Fiscal Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. https://www.ocsd.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=24974. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015, June 17. Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan. https://www.ocwd.com/what-we-do/groundwater-management/groundwater- management-plan/. Page 228 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. References Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana RWQCB). 2008. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin. https: / /www waterboards. ca.gov/ santaana/water_is sues /programs /basin_plan/index.html. Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). 2018. Facilities Master Plan. https://www.sausd.us/cms/lib/CA01000471 /Centricity/Domain/47/ 18- 0710%20SAUSD_Master%20Plan_FINAL%20-%20REDUCED.pdf 2020a. SAUSD Residential Development School Fee Justification Study. 2020b. SAUSD Developer Fees. https://www.sausd.us/page/1133. South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 1992. Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide. 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.agmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air- plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp. 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 2017, March 4. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/ final-2016- agmp/ final20l 6agmp.pdf?sfvrsn= l 5. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016, April 7. Final 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS): A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life. http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx. Southern California Edison. 2019, July. 2018 Power Content Label. https://www sce.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/2018SCEPCL.pdf. US Census Bureau (Census Bureau). 2019, July 1. QuickFacts Newport Beach. https:/ /www census.gov/quickfacts/ fact/table/newportbeachcitycalifornia,US/PST045219. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2020. EnviroMapper for EnviroFacts. http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef home. May 2020 Page 229 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7. References Tbis page intentionally left blank. Page 230 PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendices Appendix A Newport Village Planned Community Development Plan May 2020 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendices Tbis page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN PC -60 Adopted XXXXXX, 2020 Ordinance No. XX -2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE............................................................................................... 1 A. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1 B. Location................................................................................................................................1 C. Surrounding Area................................................................................................................. 3 D. Purpose and Objective......................................................................................................... 4 E. Relationship to Other Regulations....................................................................................... 4 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS....................................................................... 5 A. Permitted Uses..................................................................................................................... 6 B. Prohibited Uses.................................................................................................................... 7 C. Existing Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures............................................................ 7 D. Land Use Concept................................................................................................................ 7 E. Development Standards — Planning Area 1 (Mixed -Use Residential Area) ......................... 8 F. Development Standards — Planning Area 2 (Non -Residential Area) ................................. 12 G. Additional Development Standards................................................................................... 13 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS......................................................................... 16 A. General Principles.............................................................................................................. 16 B. Mixed-Use..........................................................................................................................16 C. Residential Uses................................................................................................................. 16 D. Office/Commercial Uses.................................................................................................... 17 E. Conceptual Images to Guide Development....................................................................... 17 IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES......................................................................................... 21 A. Architectural Variety.......................................................................................................... 21 B. Windows and Entries......................................................................................................... 21 C. Massing and articulation.................................................................................................... 21 V. PLAN ADMINISTRATION and implementation...................................................................... 22 A. Permit Review Procedures................................................................................................. 22 B. Parcel or Tract Maps.......................................................................................................... 22 C. Amendments to Planned Community Development Plan ................................................. 22 D. Administrative Responsibility............................................................................................ 22 E. Enforcement...................................................................................................................... 22 Newport Airport Village TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURE PAGE Figure1 - Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure2 - Airport Area.................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3 - Newport Airport Village Planned Community................................................................ 3 Figure4 - Land Use Map................................................................................................................. 5 Figure 5 - Conceptual Development Plan..................................................................................... 10 Figure 6 - Mixed -Use Conceptual Images................................................................................... 188 Figure 7 - Multi -Unit Residential Conceptual Images................................................................... 19 Figure 8 - Office/Commercial Conceptual Images........................................................................ 20 Newport Airport Village NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PCDP) I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE A. Introduction The Newport Airport Village Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) (PC -60) is envisioned to be a horizontal mixed-use development on an approximately 16.46 -acre site that is located in the northern portion of the City, near Macarthur Blvd and Campus Drive. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) allows a Planned Community Development Plan to address land use designations and regulations in Planned Communities. The PCDP serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for the site and is authorized and intended to implement the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan. The maximum buildout of the PCDP would result in 329 residential dwelling units, exclusive of any density bonus as allowed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915; and 297,572 square feet of office, retail, and commercial use. The Newport Airport Village Planned Community (PC) consists of approximately 16.46 acres and prior to the development pursuant to this PCDP, a variety of commercial services, including: retail, restaurants, offices, rental car agencies, and other similar uses were developed. The Newport Airport Village Design Guidelines (contained herein) provide a conceptual vision of the physical implementation of the project and have been drafted to assist the City and community to visualize the architectural theme and desired character of the development. The Design Guidelines also provides the visual and mental imagery of what the current property owner and City see for the future development of the PC. B. Location As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the PC District is generally located southeast of John Wayne Airport and within the "Airport Area" Sub -Area as defined by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Airport Area includes 360 acres in the northernmost portion of Newport Beach, bounded by Campus Drive to the west and north, Jamboree Road to the east, and Bristol Street to the south. The City of Irvine is located north and east of the Airport Area. The Airport Area is proximate to Interstate 405 and State Routes 55 and 73. The Airport Area initially was a light industrial and commercial office area of Newport Beach, but is gradually redeveloping into a mixed-use community integrating residential development with existing non-residential uses consistent with the 2006 Newport Beach General Plan. I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Newport Beach Figure I - Vicinity Map _p Figure 2 -Airport Area Newport Airport Village 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE More specifically, the PC is located west of MacArthur Boulevard, south of Campus Drive, north of Birch Street, and about 550 feet north of Dove Street, as shown in Figure 2. Sane C�CydNewport GlS '' Figure 3 - NenportAirbort Village Planned Community As also noted in Figure 3, the 65-dBA CNEL noise contour line for John Wayne Airport (JWA) transects the site. Areas east of (i.e., outside) the 65 dBA CNEL line are "Clearly Compatible" or "Normally Compatible" with multi -family residential and mixed-use development under General Plan Table N2 (Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix). Areas west of (i.e., inside) the 65 dBA CNEL line are "Normally incompatible" or "Clearly incompatible" with multi -family residential and mixed-use development under General Plan Table N2. Under the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP), this means that areas west of the 65 dBA CNEL line are deemed suitable for residential uses and other noise -sensitive uses if the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL can be maintained with an accompanying dedication of a avigation easement for noise. Additionally, building heights west of the 65 dBA CNEL line are restricted for aviation safety. C. Surrounding Area John Wayne Airport, a commercial and general aviation airport that is owned and operated by the County of Orange, is located to the west and north of the site (across Newport Airport Village 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Campus Dr). To the immediate northeast of the site, on the southwest corner of MacArthur Blvd and Campus Dr, is a five -story office building and a small multi -tenant commercial building. Across MacArthur Boulevard, on the northeast corner of MacArthur Blvd and Campus Dr, is a nine -story office building that contains professional and medical office uses; a five -story apartment building at the intersection of Douglas and Martin Court; and multiple hotels and restaurants along MacArthur Blvd. To the east (across Birch St) are several multi -story office buildings that range from three to fourteen stories, hotels, and retail and restaurant uses. Commercial services, including vehicle sales and repairs and a pharmacy; restaurants; and office uses, including medical offices occupy the properties to the south of the PC. D. Purpose and Objective The purpose of the PCDP is to establish appropriate zoning regulations that govern the land use and development of the PC in a manner that is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Implementation of the PCDP will: — Provide a quality mixed-use development that includes residential and supporting commercial uses; as well as, commercial uses that support or benefit from the proximity to the airport. — Create two planning areas to guide the development of the PC District (see Figure 4). Planning Area 1 will include the residential and, potentially, a complimentary retail or service commercial component of the PC District. Planning Area 2 will consist exclusively of non-residential uses. — Provide new housing opportunities in response to increased demand for housing, reduction of vehicle trips, and an encouragement of an active lifestyle by increasing the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. Such housing will be proximate to, and interconnected with, commercial development through pedestrian walkways provided by future development within the PCDP. — Ensure all residential units are located outside the John Wayne Airport 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and Safety Zone 3. E. Relationship to Other Regulations Whenever the provisions of this PCDP conflict with the regulations of the NEMC, the regulations contained herein will prevail. The NBMC including the Zoning Code apply and shall also regulate this development whenever regulations are not provided within this PCDP. Unless otherwise defined herein, all words and phrases used in this PCDP shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the NBMC. Newport Airport Village 4 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The PC is subdivided into two planning areas. Figure 4 shows the Land Use Map for the PC District with the 65 d6A CNEL noise contour separating the residential use area from the non-residential use area. r 1 �i ■ ■ i ■ �wr� John Wayne'Airpor# 41 , L �i ■' Planning Area 1 ► { f a 1Planning Area 2 �' as lyzor m. uO � 5 •` lob, ► Airport Village Land Use * �� Planning Area 1 - Mixed -Use Residential 7-14 acres Planning Area 2 - Commercial 9.32 acres G1% oo,� Figure 4 -Land Use Map Newport Airport Village 5 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS A. Permitted Uses Table 1 lists the permitted uses for each planning area of the Planned Community. The uses identified within the table are not intended to be a comprehensive list, but rather major use categories. The Community Development Director may determine other uses not specifically listed herein are allowed or allowed pursuant to a MUP or CUP, provided they are consistent with the purpose of the planning areas, are compatible with surrounding uses, and are not listed as a prohibited use. Table 1 Permitted Uses Uses Planning Area 1 Planning Area 2 Additional Regulations Residential Multi -unit dwellings P - Live/work units P - Mixed-use development P - Accessory dwelling units P - NBMC 20.48.200 Home Occupations P - NBMC 20.48.110 Residential accessory uses and amenities P P Food, alcohol, entertainment Alcohol sales (off-site) MUP MUP NBMC 20.48.030 Alcohol Sales (on-site) CUP CUP NBMC 20.48.030 Bars, lounge, nightclub CUP CUP NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090 Food service, no late hours MUP MUP NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090 Food service, late hours CUP CUP NBMC 20.48.030 & 20.48.090 Office, retail, service Financial Institutions P P Offices, business & professional P P Offices, medical and dental P P Personal services, general P P Personal services, restricted MUP MUP Retail sales (less than 10,000 sq. ft.) P P Retail sales (greater than 10,000 sq. ft.) P P Other uses Uses not listed herein, but allowed in the OA zone A A Subject to applicable NBMC requirements Newport Airport Village 6 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Table 1 Continued P = Permitted Use CUP = Conditional Use Permit MUP = Minor Use Permit A = Allowed subject to permit requirements provided in Table 2-4 of NBMC Section 20.20.020(C) - = Not Permitted B. Prohibited Uses The following uses shall be expressly prohibited from the PCDP: 1. Any use not authorized by this PCDP unless the Community Development Director determines a particular use consistent with the purpose and intent of the PCDP, 2. Residential dwelling units within (i.e., west of) the 65 dBA CNEL (or above) noise contour from John Wayne Airport (residential accessory uses, and amenities are allowed), 3. Residential dwelling units within John Wayne Airport Safety Zone 3 (residential accessory uses, and amenities are allowed), 4. The following uses, if said structure within 250 feet of any residential dwelling unit: a. Handicraft Industry b. Industry, Small (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) C. Emergency Health Facilities/Urgent Care d. Ambulance Services e. Funeral Homes and Mortuaries f. Maintenance and Repair Services. C. Existing Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures Existing legally established use and structures that no longer conform to the provisions of this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.38. D. Land Use Concept Figure 5 depicts the conceptual development plan for Newport Airport Village Planned Community. Multi -story residential structures would be located nearthe north side of the site in Planning Area 1 and may have a retail/commercial component. Office, commercial and other non-residential buildings would be located south of the residential buildings in Planning Area 2. A landscaped esplanade with open space areas, pedestrian pathways with areas for passive seating, and bicycle facilities will be provided to create an efficient and safe pedestrian -friendly environment interconnecting the various land uses through - Newport Airport Village 7 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS out the site with surrounding properties and public ways. Although the PC may not be developed exactly as depicted in the conceptual land use development map, it serves as a demonstration of what could be achieved through the application of the site development standards of this PCDP. E. Development Standards — Planning Area 1(Mixed-Use Residential Area) 1. Permitted Height of Residential or Mixed -Use Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 85 feet measured consistent with the Zoning Code. 2. Permitted Height of Nonresidential Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 37 feet measured consistent with the Zoning Code, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which case the maximum shall be 55 feet. 3. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be as follows: a. Buildings, or portion thereof, that are under 20 feet in height shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line. b. Buildings, or portion thereof, that are 20 feet or greater in height shall be setback a minimum of 20 feet from any street property line and a minimum of 5 feet from any internal property line. 4. Residential Density: Densities shall be a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre, not including density bonus units. 5. Residential Development Limit: A maximum of 329 dwellings units shall be permitted, exclusive of any density bonus as allowed pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, residential development (excluding density bonus units) shall be subject to the maximum development allocation for the Airport Area established by General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.5, or any successor policy or development limit resulting from a future General Plan Update/Amendment, provided that such allocation does not result in a reduction of the 329 permitted dwelling units in Planning Area 1. 6. Floor Area Limit: Floor area for nonresidential uses shall not exceed 94,583 square feet. This floor area limit is based on the conversion of commercial development allowed by the general plan to residential dwelling units pursuant to General Plan Newport Airport Village 8 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Policy LU6.15.5. The 2006 General Plan allowed a 0.5 FAR (155,509 square feet) that is reduced by 60,926 square feet and converted to allow 329 dwelling units. 7. Common Open Space: All residential development shall incorporate common open space in the amount of 75 square feet per unit with minimum dimensions of 15 feet in any direction. At least half of the common open space shall consist of recreational amenities, including but not limited to the following: a. Swimming pools/spas and adjacent lounging decks b. Exercise facilities C. Tennis courts d. Basketball courts e. Clubhouse rooms f. Roof deck recreation areas g. Community gardens h. Barbecue and other active (e.g. bocce ball) or passive (e.g., reading) courtyards i. Other amenities as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director Outdoor common areas or recreational areas shall be posted with an outdoor notification sign to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and presence of operating aircraft. Newport Airport Village 9 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Figure S - Conceptual Development Plan Newport Airport Village 10 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 8. Private Open Space: All residential development shall incorporate private open space in the amount of 5% of the gross floor area (minimum) for each unit with a minimum dimension of 6 feet in any direction. 9. Affordability Requirements: Residential development shall include affordable housing as follows: a minimum of 5% of units for very -low income households, or a minimum of 10% of units for low-income households, or a minimum 10% of units for moderate -income households within a common -interest development. The following requirements also apply: a. Affordable units shall be provided on-site. b. Affordable units shall be designed and distributed within the residential as follows: i. Number of Bedrooms. Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole. ii. Comparable Quality and Facilities. Affordable units shall be comparable in the facilities provided (e.g., laundry, recreation, etc.) and in the quality of construction and exterior design to the market -rate units. iii. Size. Affordable units may be smaller and have different interior finishes and features than the market -rate units, and iv. Location. Affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the residential development, unless clustering is allowed by the review authority. C. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) shall be prepared and submitted with any site development review application seeking approval of a residential development within the PC District. The AHIP shall clearly demonstrate how the proposed residential development project will meet the affordability requirements of this PCDP and any applicable provisions of the State Density Bonus Law and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The AHIP shall specify eligible income categories, the amount of the requested density bonus, any concession/incentives requested, and any development standards waivers or modifications sought and justifications for said concessions/incentives or development standard relief. d. Density bonuses/incentives or development standard concessions shall be provided pursuant to NBMC Chapter 20.32 and Section 65915 et. seq of the California Government Code. 10. Sound Mitigation: The interior ambient noise level of all new residential dwelling units shall meet applicable standards of the City's Community Noise Ordinance (NEMC Section 10.26.030). An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be submitted describing the acoustical design features of the structure that will satisfy the interior noise standard. The residential units shall be constructed, and noise attenuated in compliance with the report. Newport Airport Village 11 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 11. Residential Design: Unless otherwise deemed appropriate by the City's Review Authority all residential and mixed-use buildings shall be generally consistent with the residential design guidelines as set forth in Section IV of the PCDP. 12. Notification to owners and tenants: A written disclosure statement shall be prepared prior to sale, lease, or rental of a residential unit within the development. The disclosure statement shall indicate that the occupants will be living in an urban type of environment adjacent to an airport and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area. The disclosure statement shall include a written description of the potential impacts to residents of both the existing environment (e.g., noise from planes, commercial activity on the site and vehicles streets) and potential nuisances based upon the allowed uses in the zoning district. Each and every buyer, lessee, or renter shall sign the statement acknowledging that they have received, read, and understand the disclosure statement. A covenant shall also be included within all deeds, leases or contracts conveying any interest in a residential unit within the development that requires: (1) the disclosure and notification requirement stated herein; (2) an acknowledgment by all grantees or lessees that the property is located within an urban type of environment and that the noise, odor, and outdoor activity levels may be higher than a typical suburban residential area; and (3) acknowledgment that the covenant is binding for the benefit and in favor of the City of Newport Beach. 13. Deed notification: A deed notification shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office, the form and content of which shall be satisfactory to the City Attorney. The deed notification document shall state that the residential unit is located in a mixed-use development and that an owner may be subject to impacts, including inconvenience and discomfort, from lawful activities occurring in the project or zoning district (e.g., noise, lighting, odors, high pedestrian activity levels, etc.). 14. Park Dedications and Fees: All residential subdivisions shall comply with all park dedications and fees, as required in NBMC Chapter 19.52. F. Development Standards — Planning Area 2 (Non -Residential Area) In addition to the additional development standards listed in Section II(F) of this PCDP, the following standards apply to all development in Planning Area 2. 1. Permitted Height of Structures: No structure, nor any portion of any structure, architectural feature, elevator penthouse, or mechanical equipment shall exceed a height of 37 feet, unless a Site Development Review is approved pursuant to Newport Airport Village 12 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS NBMC Section 20.52.080, in which the review authority may allow buildings or structures to exceed 37 feet to a maximum of 55 feet. 2. Setbacks: Minimum setbacks shall be 15 feet from any street property line and 5 feet from any internal property line. 3. Floor Area Ratio: Floor area ratio shall not exceed 0.5, except for warehouse uses, which are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.75. 4. Lot Size and Dimensions: Newly created lots shall meet the minimum standards for lots provided in NBMC Section 20.20.030 for the OA (Office—Airport) Zoning District. G. Additional Development Standards In addition to the planning area specific development standards listed in Sections II(D) and II(E) of this PCDP, the following standards apply to all development within the Newport Airport Village Planned Community. 1. Maximum Intensity: The total area of all office, retail, and other commercial uses within the Newport Airport Village PC shall not exceed 297,572 square feet. 2. Parking and Circulation: Parking and on-site circulation shall comply with NBMC Chapter 20.40. All proposed development is required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, Public Works Department, the City Traffic Engineer, Fire Department and Building Division. On-site circulation, including but not limited to, driveway location, sight distance, parking lot design, drive aisles, emergency vehicle access and access the disabled shall meet applicable codes, polices and design standards. All approved vehicle entry points to the PC District shall comply with applicable City of Newport Beach Public Works and Fire Department requirements regarding safe and convenient vehicular access. 3. Landscaping: A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted with the Site Development Review application. Landscaping shall be designed, installed, and maintained in consistent with all requirements of NBMC Chapters 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscaping) and 20.36 (Landscaping Standards). Landscape shall also be maintained in a healthy, weed -free condition, free of litter and consistent with NBMC Section 20.30.130 (Traffic Safety Visibility Area). 4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection: All uses in the PC shall be interconnected through safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle paths, including a pedestrian Newport Airport Village 13 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS connection feature between the residential and non-residential components of the PC District. 5. Lighting: A detailed lighting plan with lighting fixtures and standard designs shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application and shall comply with NBMC Section 20.30.070. The lighting system shall be designed and maintained to conceal the light source and minimize light spillage and glare outside of the boundary of the PC District. A minimum average 0.5 foot-candle shall be provided on all driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one hour thereafter. All lighting shall comply with NBMC Section 20.30.070. 6. Utilities: A Utilities Plan shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application. The final alignment and location of utilities shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Adequate access for maintenance vehicles shall be provided. All utilities on private property shall be privately maintained and operated. 7. Air Conditioning Units: The use of individual through -window or through -wall air conditioning units any commercial or residential unit is prohibited. Signs: A comprehensive sign program with sign materials and lighting details shall be submitted with the Site Development Review application. All signage shall comply with the Chapter 20.42 of the Municipal Code. Should a future neighborhood public park be constructed in either Planning Area, the park shall be posted with a notification to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. Outdoor common areas or recreational areas shall also be posted with an outdoor notification sign to users regarding the proximity to John Wayne Airport and presence of operating aircraft. 8. Fences, Hedges, & Walls: Fences, hedges, and walls shall be limited to the following heights, subject to the exceptions contained in NBMC Section 20.30.040: a. Street setback areas — 42 inches b. Interior setback areas — 6 feet C. Between residential uses and nonresidential uses and parking areas — 8 feet 9. Buffering and Screenin a. General Requirements: Mechanical equipment must be located so that the impact of noise on residential uses is minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Screening shall be maintained in good condition at all times. Landscaping used as screening shall provide a dense, year-round screen. Newport Airport Village 14 II. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS b. Roof -mounted Mechanical Equipment and Appurtenances: Roof -mounted mechanical equipment and appurtenances may not be visible in any direction (360 degrees) from a public right-of-way or adjacent residential property, as may be seen from a point six feet above ground level. Methods of screening may include mechanical roof wells recessed below the roof line or by solid and permanent roof -mounted screens. Screening must be compatible with the architectural style, materials, and color of the building on which the equipment is located. Supports for window washing equipment are permitted and are not required to be screened from view. No setbacks are required for rooftop mechanical equipment or appurtenances. All roof - mounted mechanical equipment and appurtenances shall be at or below all applicable height limits. C. Ground -mounted Mechanical Equipment: Ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from public rights-of-way and/or public property as seen from a point six feet above ground level. Methods of screening may include fences, walls, solid hedges, or other similar methods. Chain link fencing is not permitted with or without slats is not allowed. d. Outdoor Storage: Where equipment, material, or merchandise is allowed to be stored outdoors, these items shall be screened from public view and adjacent residential areas using fences, walls, solid hedges, or other methods. Chain link fencing with or without slats is not allowed. e. Solid Waste Storage Areas: New development shall provide adequate, enclosed areas with solid roofs for collecting, storing, and loading solid waste and recyclable materials. The square footage provided for solid waste and recyclable materials storage must be in compliance with NBMC Section 20.30.120. Solid waste and recyclable materials storage areas must be adequate in distribution to serve the project and be screened from public rights-of-way and/or public property as seen from a point six feet above ground level. Screening may consist of solid masonry walls, metal gates, landscaping, or similar methods. Structures used for solid waste screening must be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and must be properly secured to prevent access by unauthorized persons, while allowing authorized persons access for disposal of materials. Newport Airport Village 15 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS A. General Principles The following general principles shall be considered when siting and designing new development within Newport Airport Village. 1. Development should be designed to convey a unified and high-quality character with use of consistent architectural design vocabulary, materials, and color palette. 2. Building elevations should employ architectural treatments, articulation and modulation of mass to avoid the appearance of monolithic box -like buildings. 3. High-quality doors, windows, moldings, and finishes should be used on elevations visible from streets and pedestrian paths. 4. Roof profiles should be articulated to reduce the appearance of large structures and provide visual interest. 5. Streetscape design and plant materials should reflect the street's location and nature. 6. Abundant use of landscape within interior courtyards, open spaces, and parking areas should be encouraged. 7. The design of parking areas and parking facilities should consider architectural consistency and physical integration with nearby buildings. 8. Open parking lots should be set back from public streets and screened using buildings, decorative walls, berms or dense landscaping. B. Mixed -Use The following principles shall be considered when siting and designing new mixed-use development. 1. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through pedestrian connections, landscape, and other physical connections. 2. Conflicts between different uses, such as noise, vibration, glare, odors, and similar impacts, should be minimized through careful siting, building design and incorporation of appropriate building materials. 3. Entries for residential units and nonresidential businesses should be separate and well-defined. C. Residential Uses The following principles shall be considered when new development includes residential use. Newport Airport Village 16 III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 1. Private open space for each residential unit should be usable and functional. 2. Common residential open space should create opportunities for recreation and promote an attractive living environment. D. Office/Commercial Uses The following principles shall be considered when siting and designing new office or commercial development. 1. Building siting should be oriented around public spaces such as plazas, courtyards, walkways, and open spaces. 2. On-site landscaping should emphasize special features such as entryways. 3. Landscape and other amenities should be used to provide visual relief within surface parking lots. 4. A common signage program that reflects the architectural style and character of the development should be prepared to address tenant identification and wayfinding. 5. Common streetscape and lighting programs should be developed to promote pedestrian activity. 6. Site design should provide clear site access, entrance drives and building entries as well as minimize conflicts between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians. E. Conceptual Images to Guide Development The following images provide general direction to convey the desired quality for new development through architectural massing, detail, variety in building materials and integration of pedestrian -orientation. These images are meant to inspire designers and do not indicate the precise design of future development within Newport Airport Village. The images are grouped by land use type: mixed use, multi -unit residential buildings, and office/commercial development. Newport Airport Village 17 • � � II � I •il • iRl ��� ; � 1 I� IIS �, � � � a I � � I' *��r TV n a F.- *007 f a p Oa m 40 r■�r `��f�■E■L7 ;��ii [ ------------ III. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Figure 8 - Officel Commercial Conceptual Images Newport Airport Village 20 IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES IV. RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES The Newport Airport Village Residential Design Guidelines are intended to set parameters for the design of residential buildings and ensure an appropriate aesthetic quality is provided on all residential buildings. All residential and mixed-use buildings within Newport Airport Village PC should be generally consistent with the guidelines contained in this section of the PCDP. A. Architectural Variety 1. Buildings should utilize more than a single -color on all facades. 2. Buildings should utilize more than a single finished material on all fagades. For the purpose of this requirement, windows are not considered a finished material. 3. Building should have more than one roof height. The change in roof height shall be at least 5 feet for buildings with a height under 30 feet tall and 10 feet for buildings with a height of 30 feet or more. 4. Buildings should not have blank fagades. For the purpose of these guidelines a blank fagade shall mean, any portion of the fagade that is above the ground level and does not have a window or balcony 15 feet in any direction. B. Windows and Entries 1. The primary pedestrian entry into the building should lead into a common lobby or corridor and shall face the street or a common open space. 2. Ground level dwelling units are encouraged to have an individual primary entry on the exterior fagade of the building. 3. Rain protection should be provided above all pedestrian entries through the use of awnings, porticos, arcades, or the like. 4. Exterior windows and doors should be inset a minimum 2-% inches from the adjoining wall. C. Massing and articulation 1. The first three floors of a building should have a plane -break to divide all street facing facades into segments no more than 30 feet wide. Plane -breaks shall have a minimum depth and width of 5 feet. 2. The fourth floor and above of a building should have a plane -break on all street facing facades. Plane -breaks shall have a minimum depth of 5 feet and be across 25% of the width of the building. Newport Airport Village 21 V. PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION V. PLAN ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION A. Permit Review Procedures Approval of the Site Development Review application by the City -designated Review Authority consistent with NBMC Chapter 20.52 shall be required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for the construction of any new structure within the boundaries of the PCDP. The application shall include all materials necessary to clearly determine consistency with this PCDP and applicable requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The applicant shall include a descriptive narrative supported by facts, exhibits, or diagrams that clearly show how a proposed development generally conforms to the PCDP design guidelines. B. Parcel or Tract Maps No parcel or tract map shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Site Development Review for the entire project or significant phase so that the responsibility for performance of, and payment for, maintenance are clear. C. Amendments to Planned Community Development Plan Applications for amendments to this Planned Community Development Plan shall follow the process identified in the NBMC Section 20.56.050(E). D. Administrative Responsibility All property within this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.60 that prescribes the authority and responsibilities of the Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission, Hearing Officer, Zoning Administrator, and Community Development Director (Planning Director) in the administration of this PCDP and the Zoning Code. E. Enforcement All property within this PCDP shall be subject to NBMC Chapter 20.68 that establishes provisions intended to ensure compliance with this PCDP and the Zoning Code. Newport Airport Village 22 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendices Appendix B Newport Village Trip Making Assessment May 2020 NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE EIR ADDENDUM CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendices Tbis page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks OURBAN CROSSROADS April 23, 2020 Ms. JoAnn Hadfield PLACEWORKS 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Ofc: 1001 Dove St. I Suite 260 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Main: 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 200 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SUBJECT: NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE TRIP -MAKING ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. JoAnn Hadfield: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this assessment of Trip Generation, Distribution, and Intersection Volume Shifts for the proposed Newport Airport Village mixed-use (residential and office/commercial) Project located in the City of Newport Beach. The Project is located on the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at Birch Street (EW) as shown on Exhibit A. Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) 1377 and 1378 encompass the Project, and also surrounding parcels, with extents to MacArthur Boulevard, Campus Drive, Birch Street, and Dove Street. It is our understanding that the residential portion of the Project includes up to 329 residential dwelling units plus 115 density bonus units with accessory uses (such as open space and parking). The non- residential portion of the Project includes 297,572 square feet of non-residential facilities. BACKGROUND LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION Urban Crossroads, Inc. has compiled previous land use and trip generation information for the Project and related area from the transportation analysis documents prepared in support of the 2006 General Plan EIR and the 2014 Land Use Update EIR. The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (Urban Crossroads, March 12, 2014) studied proposed city wide changes to land us element including a sub -area identified as "Saunders Properties". The Saunders Properties land use change studied increases of horizontal mixed-use land uses consisting of 329 Apartment dwelling units (plus 115 density bonus units) and 238,077 square feet of office. The result was a total of 4,651 additional daily trips. The Saunders Property area was 26.24 acres and included TAZs 1377 and 1378 in their entirety, including the proposed project site. Since the proposed project site area is 16.46 acres of the of 26.24 acres of the area studied in 2014, trip generation was calculated by using 62.7% (16.46 acres of 26.24 acres) of allowed land uses (0.5 FAR) in TAZs 1377 and 1378 plus the proposed increase of 62.7% of the additional 238,077 square feet of office studied in the 2014 Land Use Amendment. The 329 dwelling and 115 density bonus dwelling units were 12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx Ms. JoAnn Hadfield PLACEWORKS April 23, 2020 Page 2 of 3 all included in the proposed project analysis as the location of those units contemplated in 2014 was within the proposed project area. Please refer to Table 1 for more information. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (Urban Crossroads, March 22, 2006) provides trip rate adjustment for specific types and locations of land uses, including vertical mixed-use developments. On page 3-4, the study indicates that in the Airport Area, the 20% high rise apartment reduction has been applied with no accompanying reduction for mixed use. Pursuant to the Airport Area Residential & Mixed -Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analysis in Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach, July 2009), the Airport Area land use conversion factor for commercial uses being demolished for conversion to residential is 5.40 DU/KSF. Similarly, a conversion factor of 2.29 DU/KSF would be used for office conversion to residential or 1.16 for industrial conversion to residential. PROJECT LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION The 2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) included 107,336 square feet of commercial uses, 232,562 square feet of office uses, and 26,834 square feet of industrial uses. The 2013 LUE amendment included 107,336 square feet of commercial uses, 26,834 square feet of industrial uses, 444 dwelling units, and 370,166 square feet of office uses on the Project site. The Project proposes to include a total of 297,572 square feet of non-residential uses (which is represented as 46,410 square feet of commercial, 232,562 square feet of office, and 18,600 square feet of industrial uses for purposes of this analysis). The Project proposes to convert 61,000 square feet to accommodate the 329 dwelling units, which is based upon the commercial conversion factor. An additional 35% of residential units (115 additional units) are proposed as density bonus units, for which a non-residential reduction is not proposed. The total residential on-site would therefore be 444 dwelling units. NBTM trip generation calculations for the site for General Plan conditions are shown in Table 2. The worksheets that calculate trips for individual land use categories are shown in Attachment 1. As shown on Table 2, the greatest directional Project increase (in comparison to approved land uses) without the density bonus is 75 vehicles in the outbound direction for the AM peak hour. With density bonus, the AM peak hour outbound direction Project increase is 119 trips. Table 3 presents a comparison of the Project to the Land Use Element scenario. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC VOLUME CHANGES Exhibit A shows the anticipated outbound Project trip distribution pattern. The inbound trip distribution pattern is shown on Exhibit B. 12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx LO► URBAN Ms. JoAnn Hadfield PLACEWORKS April 23, 2020 Page 3 of 3 The Project trip difference based upon NBTM rates is applied to these trip distribution patterns to develop AM and PM peak hour intersection volume changes. Exhibits C and D show the resulting AM and PM peak hour Project difference volumes without density bonus, respectively. Peak hour Project difference volumes with density bonus are shown on Exhibits E and F, respectively. PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF NEARBY INTERSECTIONS The Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) includes two relevant attachments. The first attachment includes intersection analysis data for the approved General Plan (the 2006 Project). Attachment 2 of this letter provides Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) calculation sheets for General Plan buildout conditions at study area intersections. Intersection analysis worksheets with the previously proposed Citywide Land Use Element Amendment are provided in Attachment 3 of this letter. Because the density bonus units within the Newport Airport Village Project represent conservative "worst case" conditions, the potential traffic volume changes associated with this scenario have been applied to the background traffic volumes in Attachments 2 and 3. Intersection analysis worksheets for Newport Airport Village Project volume changes from approved General Plan conditions are included in Attachment 4. Attachment 5 includes study area intersection analysis worksheets for Newport Airport Village Project volume changes from the former Citywide Land Use Element Amendment. The results of these changes in ICU values associated with the Newport Airport Village Project are summarized in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, potentially impacted study area intersections continue to experience acceptable operations for long range future conditions with the Newport Airport Village Project. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. John Kain, AICP Principal 12907-02 Letter - revised - 2020.04.23.docx r Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Associate LO► URBAN Newport Airport Village EXHIBIT A: PROJECT OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT B: PROJECT INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION Newport Airport Village I- 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg URBAN CROSSROAnS EXHIBIT C: PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS 9 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 10 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 11 Von Karman Av. (NS) / 12 MacArthur BI. (NS) / Campus Dr. (EW) Birch St. (EW) Campus Dr. (EW) Von Karman Av. (EW) 10 �12 —12 � vv f --,B `15-11}f 7ff' -4-41f �I}f' +11— •12 •11� •7— v N 15 Campus Dr. (NS) / 16 Birch St. (NS) / 17 Campus Dr. (NS) / 18 Birch St. (NS) / Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) .or.- �--4 vl- �---4 4 n,v My i �•4 � i � � �► i �► 1 } •8-4 } -3-1 4— , 4- —29 29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) / 69 MacArthur BI. (NS) / MacArthur BI. (EW) 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) i 9 i ►f---5 I f f? f 7� . — ,4--* 70 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) / 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) Michelson Dr. (EW) QQ 10 fT 'ff 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg Newport Airport Village LEGEND: Q = INTERSECTION ID •10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT -10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT D: PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS 9 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 10 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 11 Von Karman Av. (NS) / 12 MacArthur BI. (NS) / Campus Dr. (EW) Birch St. (EW) Campus Dr. (EW) Von Karman Av. (EW) :;- I f f' 15 Campus Dr. (NS) / 16 Birch St. (NS) / 17 Campus Dr. (NS) / 18 Birch St. (NS) / Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) .or. -4 M -T '1 f ' f f f f f -4- 29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) / 69 MacArthur BI. (NS) / MacArthur BI. (EW) 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) .7- 70 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) / 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) Michelson Dr. (EW) OQ f� �7tI- 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg Newport Airport Village LEGEND: Q = INTERSECTION ID '10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT -10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT E: PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES WITH DENSITY BONUS 9 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 10 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 11 Von Karman Av. (NS) / 12 MacArthur BI. (NS) / Campus Dr. (EW) Birch St. (EW) Campus Dr. (EW) Von Karman Av. (EW) �10 �10 �7 ao — (nM • 4-# } f ' f f' ;;� '1 f ' � '1 f f' � •is� •Ism � � � 15 Campus Dr. (NS) / 16 Birch St. (NS) / 17 Campus Dr. (NS) / 18 Birch St. (NS) / Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) c%jrj 4-3 10N �---3 1010 1010 i �•6 � i � 3 � �► i �► } f ,6- f f .4— 29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) / 69 MacArthur BI. (NS) / MacArthur BI. (EW) 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) i 9 N i ►f---3 70 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) / 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) Michelson Dr. (EW) QQ QJ`' C ���8 ���►� 0\�L 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg Newport Airport Village LEGEND: Q = INTERSECTION ID •10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT -10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT URBAN CROSSROADS EXHIBIT F: PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUME DIFFERENCES WITH DENSITY BONUS 9 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 10 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 11 Von Karman Av. (NS) / 12 MacArthur BI. (NS) / Campus Dr. (EW) Birch St. (EW) Campus Dr. (EW) Von Karman Av. (EW) �_ �_ 10�_ NN P 9- '1 } f .y- ' f :6- '1 I f f .yam Ln Ln 15 Campus Dr. (NS) / 16 Birch St. (NS) / 17 Campus Dr. (NS) / 18 Birch St. (NS) / Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. N (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) Bristol St. S (EW) 4.2 �--•2 3 � �► i �► �.2 11 f ' f +2� f �' .3-4 f f 29 Jamboree Rd. (NS) / 69 MacArthur BI. (NS) / MacArthur BI. (EW) 1-405 NB Ramps (EW) 3 i �► f -• N i �- f --*2 -3� 70 MacArthur BI. (NS) / 71 MacArthur Bl. (NS) / 1-405 SB Ramps (EW) Michelson Dr. (EW) QQ �. v .o eQ i �► f -*2 j i l- - f� �'ff 12907 - 01 - study area. dwg Newport Airport Village LEGEND: Q = INTERSECTION ID •10 = VOLUME INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT -10 = VOLUME DECREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITH DENSITY BONUS IN COMPARISON TO APPROVED PROJECT URBAN CROSSROADS TABLE 1: NEWPORT AIRPORT VILLAGE TRAFFIC LAND USE DATA 2014 Land Use Element - Land Uses Studied in NBTM ' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) z 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) 32014 study included an increase of 238,077 square feet of office in TAZs 1377 and 1378. No increase in the allowed office development for the proposed project. °Total floor area studied in 2014 overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 sq. ft. 'Tall 444 dwelling units were planned to go into the same general area as the current proposed project. 2006 General Plan Update - Land Uses Studied in NBTM TAZ 1377 TAZ 1378 Total Studied Adjustment Proposed (2014) for smaller Project (2006) project Studied area: 62.7%1 General 79,715 91,476 171,191 107,336 46,4102 Commercial General Office 243,262 347,115 590,377 370,166 232,5623 Industrial 19,929 22,869 42,798 26,834 18,6004 Apartments 297 147 444 N/A5 329 (444 w/density bonus) ' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) z 60,926 sq. ft. converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) 32014 study included an increase of 238,077 square feet of office in TAZs 1377 and 1378. No increase in the allowed office development for the proposed project. °Total floor area studied in 2014 overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 sq. ft. 'Tall 444 dwelling units were planned to go into the same general area as the current proposed project. 2006 General Plan Update - Land Uses Studied in NBTM ' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) Z 60,926 sq. ft. Converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) 'Total floor area studied overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 "Proposed project requests a GPA to allow 329 of the 1,650 replacement dwelling units already allowed by the general plan in the MU -1-12 land use category. 10 TAZ 1377 TAZ 1378 Total Adjustment Proposed Studied for smaller Project (2006) project area: Studied 62.7%1 General 79,715 91,476 171,191 107,336 46,4102 Commercial General Office 1721715 198,198 370,913 232,562 232,562 Industrial 19,929 22,869 42,798 26,834 18,6003 Apartments 0 0 0 3294 (444 w/density bonus) ' Proposed project area is 62.7% (16.46 acres) of TAZs 1377 and 1378 combined (26.24 acres) Z 60,926 sq. ft. Converted into 329 dwelling units per Airport Area Conversion Rates (107,336-60,926 = 46,410) 'Total floor area studied overestimated allowed capacity so industrial was reduced by 8,234 "Proposed project requests a GPA to allow 329 of the 1,650 replacement dwelling units already allowed by the general plan in the MU -1-12 land use category. 10 TABLE 2: NBTM TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON NBTM Trip Generation Rates NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Units Daily Apartment (High -Rise) 3c DU 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.29 0.16 0.45 4.90 General Commercial 10a TSF 1.78 0.80 2.58 1.53 2.02 3.55 38.24 General Office 23a TSF 0.84 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 11.08 Industrial 1 26 1TSF 0.48 0.13 1 0.61 1 0.18 1 0.33 1 0.51 1 5.48 2006 General Plan Update (Approved General Plan) Trip Generation Results NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In NBTM Total In In Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Quantity' Daily General Commercial 10a 107.336 TSF 191 86 277 164 217 381 4,105 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 26.834 TSF 13 3 16 5 9 14 147 TOTAL 399 149 548 260 1 377 1 637 6,829 Proposed Project Trip Generation Results NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In I Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Quantity' Daily Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 329 DU 33 125 158 95 53 148 1,612 General Commercial 10a 46.41 TSF 83 37 120 71 94 165 1,775 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 18.6 TSF 9 2 1 11 3 1 6 9 102 TOTAL without Density Bonus 320 224 544 260 304 564 6,066 Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 115 DU 12 44 56 33 18 51 564 TOTAL with Density Bonus 332 268 600 293 322 615 6,630 1 DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = Thousand Square Feet Difference without Density Bonus -79 75 -4 0 -73 -73 -763 Difference with Density Bonus -67 119 52 33 -55 -22 -199 R:IUXRjobsL12600-130001129071Excel [Trip Gen.x1sxJNBTM-Rev(10200217) 11 TABLE 3: NBTM LAND USE ELEMENT (LUE) TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON NBTM Trip Generation Rates NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Units Daily Apartment (High -Rise) 3c DU 0.10 0.38 0.48 0.29 0.16 0.45 4.90 General Commercial 10a TSF 1.78 0.80 2.58 1.53 2.02 3.55 38.24 General Office 23a TSF 0.84 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 11.08 Industrial 1 26 1TSF 0.48 0.13 1 0.61 1 0.18 1 0.33 1 0.51 1 5.48 2014 LUE Update Trip Generation Results NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Quantity' Daily Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 444 DU 44 169 213 129 71 200 2,176 General Commercial 10a 107.336 TSF 191 86 277 164 217 381 4,105 General Office 23a 370.166 TSF 311 96 407 144 241 385 4,101 Industrial 1 26 126.834 TSF 13 3 1 16 1 5 1 9 1 14 147 TOTAL 559 1 354 1 913 1 442 1 538 1 980 1 10,529 Proposed Project Trip Generation Results NBTM AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Land Use Code Quantity' Daily Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 329 DU 33 125 158 95 53 148 1,612 General Commercial 10a 46.41 TSF 83 37 120 71 94 165 1,775 General Office 23a 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2,577 Industrial 26 18.6 TSF 9 2 1 11 3 1 6 9 102 TOTAL without Density Bonus 320 224 544 260 304 564 6,066 Apartment (High -Rise) 3c 115 DU 12 44 56 33 18 51 564 TOTAL with Density Bonus 332 268 600 293 322 615 6,630 1 DU = Dwelling Unit, TSF = Thousand Square Feet Difference without Density Bonus -239 -130 -369 -182 -234 -416 -4,463 Difference with Density Bonus -227 -86 -313 -149 -216 -365 -3,899 R:�UXRjobsL12600-13000�12907�Excel�(Trip Gen.x1sx1LUE-Rev (20200227) 12 TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Intersection Approved GP Approved GP with Project DB AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.58 A 0.67 B 0.58 A 0.67 B 10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.53 A 0.65 B 0.54 A 0.65 B 11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.69 B 0.74 C 0.69 B 0.74 C 12 MacArthur BI.& Von Karman Av. 0.64 B 0.56 A 0.64 B 0.56 A 15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N. 0.51 A 0.75 C 0.51 A 0.75 C 16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N. 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.63 B 0.64 B 17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S. 0.81 D 0.59 A 0.81 D 0.59 A 18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S. 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.50 A 0.53 A 29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.62 B 0.88 D 0.62 B 0.88 D 69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps 0.68 B 0.67 B 0.68 B 0.67 B 70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps 0.61 B 0.77 C 0.61 B 0.76 C 71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr. 0.68 B 0.88 D 0.69 B 0.88 D Intersection LUE Update LUE Update with Project DB AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 9 MacArthur BI. & Campus Dr. 0.62 B 0.70 B 0.62 B 0.70 B 10 MacArthur BI. & Birch St. 0.57 A 0.71 C 0.57 A 0.71 C 11 Von Karman Av. & Campus Dr. 0.66 B 0.74 C 0.66 B 0.73 C 12 MacArthur BI.& Von Karman Av. 0.62 B 0.58 A 0.62 B 0.57 A 15 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. N. 0.50 A 0.73 C 0.50 A 0.73 C 16 Birch St. & Bristol St. N. 0.60 A 0.64 B 0.60 A 0.64 B 17 Campus Dr. & Bristol St. S. 0.79 C 0.59 A 0.79 C 0.59 A 18 Birch St. & Bristol St. S. 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.49 A 0.53 A 29 MacArthur BI. & Jamboree Rd. 0.64 B 0.89 D 0.64 B 0.89 D 69 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 NB Ramps 0.69 B 0.66 B 0.69 B 0.66 B 70 MacArthur BI. & 1-405 SB Ramps 0.63 B 0.79 C 0.63 B 0.79 C 71 MacArthur BI. & Michelson Dr. 0.70 B 0.90 D 0.70 B 0.90 D R: �UXRjobsL12600-13000�12907�ExceA[ICU review.x1sxjSheet1 13 Attachment 1 14 Attachment 1, Item 1 Model Trip Generation for Approved General Plan NBTM Land Use Code NBTM Land Use Description Quantity Units In AM Peak Hour F Out Total Trips PM Peak Hour In Out Total Daily 1 a Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b Res -Low (SFD) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2a Res -Medium (SFA) -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2b Res -Medium (SFA) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3a Apartment -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3b Apartment 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3c Apartment (High -Rise) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3d Apartment (Res -over -Retail) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3e Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Elderly Residential 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5a Mobile Home -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b Mobile Home 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Motel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 Hotel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Regional Commercial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10a General Commercial 107.336 TSF 191 86 277 164 217 381 4105 10b Comm (Res -over -Retail) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Comm./Recreation 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Fast Food Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 jAuto Dealer/Sales 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Yacht Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Health Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Tennis Club 0 CRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Marina 0 SLIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Theater 0 SEAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Newport Dunes 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23a General Office 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2577 23b Office (>300K block Newport Center) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Medical/Government Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 R& D 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 Industrial 26.834 TSF 13 3 16 5 9 14 147 27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Pre-School/Day Care 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Elementary/Private School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Junior/High School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Cultural/Learning Center 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Library 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Post Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Hospital 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Nursing/Conv. Home 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Church 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Youth Ctr/Service 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Regional Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Resort Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 399 149 548 260 377 637 6829 \UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.xlsx]TG-Approved 15 Attachment 1, Item 2 Model Trip Generation with Proposed Project NBTM Land Use Code NBTM Land Use Description Quantity Units In AM Peak Hour F Out Total Trips PM Peak Hour In Out Total Daily 1 a Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b Res -Low (SFD) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2a Res -Medium (SFA) -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2b Res -Medium (SFA) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3a Apartment -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3b Apartment 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3c Apartment (High -Rise) 329 DU 33 125 158 95 53 148 1612 3d Apartment (Res -over -Retail) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3e Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Elderly Residential 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5a Mobile Home -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b Mobile Home 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Motel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 Hotel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Regional Commercial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10a General Commercial 46.41 TSF 83 37 120 71 94 165 1775 10b Comm (Res -over -Retail) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Comm./Recreation 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Fast Food Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 JAuto Dealer/Sales 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Yacht Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Health Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Tennis Club 0 CRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Marina 0 SLIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Theater 0 SEAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Newport Dunes 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23a General Office 232.562 TSF 195 60 255 91 151 242 2577 23b Office (>300K block Newport Center) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Medical/Government Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 R& D 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 1 Industrial 18.6 TSF 9 2 11 3 6 9 102 27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Pre-School/Day Care 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Elementary/Private School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Junior/High School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Cultural/Learning Center 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Library 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Post Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Hospital 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Nursing/Conv. Home 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Church 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Youth Ctr/Service 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Regional Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Resort Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total i 320 224 544 260 304 564 6066 \UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.XISX]TG-Proposed In Attachment 1, Item 3 Model Trip Generation for Density Bonus Units NBTM Land Use Code NBTM Land Use Description Quantity Units In AM Peak Hour 7 Out Total Trips PM Peak Hour In Out Total Daily 1a Res -Low (SFD)-Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b Res -Low (SFD) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2a Res -Medium (SFA) -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2b Res -Medium (SFA) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3a Apartment -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3b Apartment 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3c Apartment (High -Rise) 115 DU 12 44 55 33 18 52 564 3d Apartment (Res -over -Retail) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3e Apartment (Mid -Rise Newport Center) 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Elderly Residential 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5a Mobile Home -Balboa 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b Mobile Home 0 DU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Motel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Hotel 0 ROOM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Regional Commercial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10a General Commercial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10b Comm (Res -over -Retail) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Comm./Recreation 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Fast Food Restaurant 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Auto Dealer/Sales 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 Yacht Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Health Club 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 Tennis Club 0 CRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Marina 0 SLIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Theater 0 SEAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 Newport Dunes 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23a General Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23b Office (>300K block Newport Center) 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 Medical/Government Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 R&D 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 Industrial 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 Mini-Storage/Warehouse 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 Pre-School/Day Care 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Elementary/Private School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Junior/High School 0 STU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Cultural/Learning Center 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Library 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 Post Office 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Hospital 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 Nursing/Conv. Home 0 BEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 Church 0 TSF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 Youth Ctr/Service 0 TSF 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 38 Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Regional Park 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Resort Golf Course 0 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 12 44 55 33 18 52 564 \UXRjobs\_12600-13000\12907\Excel\[TG-Calculator.xlsx]DB Res 17 Attachment 2 18 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St GP Baseline 583 .669 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 220 .069 185 .058* NBT 4 6400 987 154* 1221 .191 NBR 1 1600 90 .056 46 .029 SBL 1 1600 193 .121* 143 .089 SBT 3.5 8000 925 .193 1106 .225* SBR 1.5 0 673 .210 697 EBL 2 3200 546 .171* 461 .144* EBT 3 4800 1057 .220 622 .130 EBR d 1600 128 .080 163 .102 WBL 2 3200 57 .018 83 .026 WBT 3 4800 638 .133* 1160 .242* WBR f 57 131 Right Turn Adjustment SBR 004* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St GP Baseline 583 .669 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 19 .533 .650 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 35 .022 142 .089* NBT 3 4800 878 .183* 854 .178 NBR 1 1600 81 .051 60 .038 SBL 1 1600 106 .C66* 114 .071 SBT 4 6400 726 .151 1138 .222* SBR 0 0 265 .166 280 EBL 1.5 190 314 EBT 1.5 4800 514 .165* 426 _161* EBR 0 87 34 WBL 1 1600 47 .029 108 .068 WBT 2 3200 380 .119* 569 .178* WBR f 162 202 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 19 .533 .650 11 . Von Karman Av at Campus GP Baseline AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR NBL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 39 .024 50 .031* NBT 2 3200 853 .292* 564 .223 NBR 0 0 82 .046* 148 .030 SBL 1 1600 93 .058* 224 .140 SBT 2 3200 641 .263 815 .370* SBR 0 0 201 .008* 368 .064 EBL 2 3200 274 .086* 234 .073* EBT 2 3200 526 .185 791 .272 EBR 0 0 66 .049 79 .207* WBL 1 1600 124 .078 78 .049 WBT 2 3200 703 .256* 745 .265* WBR 0 0 116 .289* 104 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 12 . MacArthur Bl at Von Karman GP Baseline 692 .739 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION +7i .641 .559 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 44 .028 40 .025* NBT 3 4800 915 191* 806 .168 NBR 1 1600 768 .480 191 .119 SBL 1 1600 74 .046* 48 .030 SBT 3 4800 573 .119 1248 .260* SBR 1 1600 135 .084 68 .043 EBL 1 1600 13 .008* 103 .064 EBT 2 3200 89 .028 213 .067* EBR f 19 135 WBL 2 3200 157 .049 663 .207* WBT 1 1600 171 .107* 102 .064 WBR f 52 143 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .289* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION +7i .641 .559 15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline .507 .748 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 518 .162 488 .153* NBT 4 6400 2110 .330* 1036 .162 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 547 .085 1317 .206* SBR 3 4800 229 .048 1191 .248 EBL a 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR a 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 283 .177* 303 .189 WBT 5 8000 1193 .168 2671 .347* WBR 0 0 150 376 104 194 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing SBR 042* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline .507 .748 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 21 .636 .636 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 85 .027 164 .051* NBT 2 3200 1214 .379* 466 .146 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1.5 6400 264 .083 562 .231* SBR 2.5 245 .077 918 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 376 578 WBT 3.5 8000 1300 .257* 2058 .354* WBR 0 376 194 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 21 .636 .636 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .811 .587 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1362 .206* 1002 _157* NBR 0 0 287 309 .193 SBL 1 1600 171 .107* 258 .161* SBT 3 4800 658 .137 1361 .284 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1272 518 .121 EBT 2.5 6400 1914 .498* 973 .233* EBR 2 3200 534 .167 569 .178 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing NBR _036* Note: Assumes E/W Sp7it Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .811 .587 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .494 .527 22 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2.5 6400 538 .156* 438 .097 NBR 1.5 462 182 SBL 2 3200 170 .053* 17D .053 SBT 2 3200 470 .147 973 .304* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 752 194 .121 EBT 3.5 8000 1378 .285* 1315 .223* EBR 0 150 110 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 D 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .494 .527 22 29 . MacArthur Bl at Jamboree Rd GP Baseline TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St{N GP Baseline PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 380 .119* 492 .077 336 .210 210 .044 1445 .301* 517 415 .130* 1085 .170 127 .079 638 .133 1572 .328* 213 .133 .620 .878 AM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 345 .108* NBT 4 6400 1136 .178 NBR 1 1600 385 .241 SBL 3 4800 54 .011 SBT 3 4800 523 .109* SBR f 0 196 EBL 2 3200 536 .168* EBT 4 6400 1361 .213 EBR 1 1600 497 311 WBL 3 4800 440 .092 WBT 3 4800 1089 .227* WBR 1 1600 88 .055 Right Turn Adjustment 0 EBR .008* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St{N GP Baseline PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 380 .119* 492 .077 336 .210 210 .044 1445 .301* 517 415 .130* 1085 .170 127 .079 638 .133 1572 .328* 213 .133 .620 .878 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 23 .483 .666 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 743 .232 803 .251* NBT 2.5 6400 2320 .483* 1510 .377 NBR 1.5 690 .431 900 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3.5 8000 1040 .203 1270 .265* SBR 1.5 587 1327 .415 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WK 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .150* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 23 .483 .666 69 . MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 2009 .30* 2177 .32* NBR 2 3400 358 .11 1115 33 SBL 2 3400 162 .05* 495 .15* SBT 4 6800 1431 .21 2042 .30 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 i WBL 2 3400 889 .26* 518 .15* WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3400 1091 .32 423 .12 Right Turn Adjustment WBR 02* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 68 .67 71 . MacArthur B1. at Michelson Dr. GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC) # AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I 1 I NBL 1 1700 254 .15 212 .12 NBT 4 6800 1319 .19* 1759 .26* J NBR 1 1700 300 .18 119 .07 SBL 2 3400 973 .29* 619 .18* SBT 4 6800 1590 .24 1520 .23 SBR 0 0 14 12 EBL 2 3400 347 .10* 385 .11 EBT 1 1700 78 .05 112 .07* EBR 1 1700 86 .05 134 .08 WBL 2 3400 95 .03 517 .15* WBT 1 1700 92 .05* 107 .06 WBR 1 1700 264 ,16 776 .46 � I Right Turn Adjustment WBR 17* Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR � TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 68 -88 24 70 . MacArthur B1. at I.405 SB Ramps GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 1499 .22* 2690 .43* NBR 1 1700 432 .25 676 .4C SBL 2 3400 160 .05* 477 .14* SBT 4 6800 1692 .25 1719 .25 SBR 1 1700 475 .28 384 .23 I EBL 0 0 0 0 LBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 994 .29* 507 .15* WBT 1 1700 138 .0B 157 .09 WBR f 809 369 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR j TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 .77 72 . Von Karman Av. at Barranca Pkwy. GP Baseline (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 183 .05* 319 .09 NBT 2 3400 576 ,17 1445 .43* N8R d 1700 152 .09 377 .22 SBL 2 3400 285 .08 441 .13* SBT 2 3400 1131 .33* 661 .19 SBR 2 3400 347 .10 388 .11 EBL 2 3400 224 .07* 507 .15 EBT 3 5100 552 -11 1193 .23* EBR 1 1700 235 .14 200 .12 WBL 2 3410 544 .16 159 .05* WBT 4 6800 1480 .22* 833 .12 WBR 1 1700 510 .30 408 .24 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* 05* Note. Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .90 Attachment 3 25 9 . MacArthur Bl at Campus Dr GP Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St GP Project .624 699 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 245 .077 189 .059* NBT 4 6400 1072 .168* 1268 .198 NBR 1 1600 83 .052 47 .029 SBL 1 1600 170 .106* 157 .098 SBT 3.5 8000 849 .177 1283 .254* SBR 1.5 0 718 .224 752 EBL 2 3200 610 .209* 482 .151* EBT 3 4800 1106 .230 646 .135 EBR d 1600 139 .087 180 .113 WBL 2 3200 42 .013 87 .027 WBT 3 4800 547 .114* 1129 .235* WBR f 47 130 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .027* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St GP Project .624 699 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 570 .710 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 34 .021 151 .094* NBT 3 4800 911 .190* 872 .182 NBR 1 1600 67 .042 63 .039 SBL 1 1600 85 .053* 136 .085 SBT 4 6400 687 .143 1249 .248* SBR 0 0 255 .159 336 EBL 1.5 261 338 EBT 1.5 4800 567 .196* 472 .176* EBR 0 112 34 WBL 1 1600 51 .032 107 067 WBT 2 3200 420 .131* 613 .192* WBR f 188 210 Note: Assumes E/W Sp1lt Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 570 .710 11 . Von Karman Av at Campus GP Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR NBL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 47 .029 50 .031* NBT 2 3200 885 .308* 567 .226 NBR 0 0 101 .040* 155 .031 SBL 1 1600 91 .057* 216 .135 SBT 2 3200 724 _288 845 .369* SBR 0 0 196 .014* 335 .064 EBL 2 3200 263 .082* 228 .071 EBT 2 3200 597 .214 809 .280* EBR 0 0 87 .056 87 .210* WBL 1 1600 120 .075 88 .055* WBT 2 3200 586 .209* 735 .262 WBR 0 0 82 .270* 104 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 12 . MacArthur B1 at Von Karman GP Project .656 735 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 27 623 ,575 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 46 .029 51 .032* NBT 3 4800 906 .189* 833 .174 NBR 1 1600 735 .459 201 .126 SBL 1 1600 64 .040* 49 .031 SBT 3 4800 601 .125 1282 .267* SBR 1 1600 128 .080 84 .053 EBL 1 1600 23 .014* 102 .064 EBT 2 3200 151 .047 212 .066* EBR f 40 137 WBL 2 3200 179 .056 672 .210* WBT 1 1600 176 .110* 125 .018 WBR f 51 141 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .270* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 27 623 ,575 15 . Campus Or at Bristol St(N) GP Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Project .499 .727 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 546 .171 467 .146* NBT 4 6400 2042 .319* 1060 .166 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 552 .086 1269 .198* SBR 3 4800 244 .051 1141 .238 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 288 .180* 301 .188 WBT 5 8000 1281 .179 2632 .343* WBR 0 0 148 353 110 195 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing SBR .040* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Project .499 .727 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 28 602 .636 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 84 .026 174 .054* NBT 2 3200 1111 347* 496 .155 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1.5 6400 315 .098 560 .225* SBR 2.5 314 .098 880 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 357 602 WBT 3.5 8000 1326 .255* 2062 .357* WBR 0 353 195 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 28 602 .636 17 . Carpus Dr at Bristol St(S) GP Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Project .789 .586 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1386 .210* 988 .154* NBR, 0 0 295 303 .189 SBL 1 1600 170 .106* 255 .159* SBT 3 4800 669 .139 1314 .274 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1204 532 .130 EBT 2.5 6400 1825 .473* 992 .238* EBR 2 3200 521 .163 566 .177 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing NBR .035* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Project .789 .586 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 29 .489 .529 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2.5 6400 524 .161* 462 .100 NBR 1.5 506 178 SBL 2 3200 170 .053* 177 .055 SBT 2 3200 501 .157 983 .307* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 666 208 .130 EBT 3.5 8000 1374 .275* 1315 .222* EBR 0 159 107 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 29 .489 .529 29 . MacArthur B1 at Jamboree Rd GP Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St(N GP Project PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 384 .120* 513 .080 352 .220 221 .046 1467 .306* 524 431 .135* 1138 .118 128 080 638 .133 1566 .326* 218 .136 .638 .887 AM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C NK 2 3200 365 .114* NBT 4 6400 1093 .171 NBR 1 1600 400 .250 SBL 3 4800 59 .012 SBT 3 4800 548 .174* SBR f 0 216 EBL 2 3200 524 .164* EBT 4 6400 1434 .224 EBR 1 1600 505 .316 WBL 3 4800 450 .094 WBT 3 4800 1173 .244* WBR 1 1600 86 .054 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .002* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 . Jamboree Rd at Bristol St(N GP Project PM PK HOUR VOL V/C 384 .120* 513 .080 352 .220 221 .046 1467 .306* 524 431 .135* 1138 .118 128 080 638 .133 1566 .326* 218 .136 .638 .887 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 .494 .672 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 730 .228 805 .252* NBT 2.5 6400 2370 .494* 1610 .392 NBR 1.5 690 .431 900 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 3.5 8000 1110 .218 1280 .267* SBR 1.5 630 1345 .420 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .153* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 30 .494 .672 69 . MacArthur B1. at I.405 NB Ramps GP Project (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I J NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 2105 .31* 2183 .32* NBR 2 3400 392 .12 1206 .35 � I SBL 2 3400 159 .05* 479 .14* SBT 4 6800 1386 .20 2105 .31 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 J EBT 0 0 0 0 j EBR 0 0 0 0 I � WBL 2 3400 914 .27* 517 .15* J WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 2 3400 1087 .32 428 .13 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* Clearance Interval .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .66 71 . MacArthur B1. at Michelson Dr. GP Project (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 275 .16 158 .09 NBT 4 6800 1427 .21* 1864 .27* NBR 1 1700 315 .19 122 .07 SBL 2 3400 1024 .30* 619 .18* SBT 4 6800 1631 .24 1626 _24 SBR 0 0 14 12 I EBL 2 3400 355 .10* 361 .11 EBT 1 1700 77 .05 83 .05* EBR 1 1700 85 .05 140 .08 WBL 2 3400 106 .03 550 .16* WBT 1 1700 69 .04* 91 .05 WBR 1 1700 263 .15 794 .47 I Right Turn Adjustment WBR .19* Clearance Interval 05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .90 31 70 . MacArthur B1. at I-405 SB Ramps GP Project (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 a 0 NBT 4 6800 1628 .24* 2990 .44* j NBR 1 1700 447 .26 682 .40 I SBL 2 3400 156 .05* 468 .14* SBT 4 6800 1764 .26 1788 .26 SBR 1 1700 387 .23 387 .23 I EBL 0 0 0 0 J EBT 0 0 0 0 J EBR 0 0 0 0 I WBL 2 3400 987 .29* 535 .16* WBT 1 1700 148 .09 158 .09 WBR f 810 366 I Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR + TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .79 72 . Von Karman Av. at Barranca Pkwy. GP Project (IRVINE ISEC) AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3400 177 .05* 332 .10 NBT 2 3400 571 .17 1463 .43* NBR d 1700 164 .10 376 .22 SBL 2 3400 225 .07 428 .13* SBT 2 3400 1133 .33* 678 .20 SBR 2 3400 341 .10 388 .11 EBL 2 3400 223 .07* 506 I .15 EBT 3 5100 578 ,11 1183 .23* EBR 1 1700 231 .14 186 .11 WBL 2 3400 539 16 162 .05* WBT 4 6800 1483 .22* 839 12 WBR 1 1700 532 .31 393 .23 Clearance Interval .05* I .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for SBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .72 .89 Attachment 4 32 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr GP Baseline wDB AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR NBL LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 220 .069 185 .058* NBT 4 6400 987 .154* 1221 .191 NBR 1 1600 90 .056 46 .029 SBL 1 1600 193 .121* 143 .089 SBT 3.5 8000 925 .193 1106 .226* SBR 1.5 660 .206 703 EBL 2 3200 570 .178* 450 .141* EBT 3 4800 1074 .224 613 .128 EBR d 1600 128 .080 163 .102 WBL 2 3200 57 .018 83 .026 WBT 3 4800 628 .131* 1165 .243* WBR f E/W Split 57 131 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur Bl at Birch St GP Baseline wDB .584 .668 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 33 537 .651 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 24 .015 147 .092* NBT 3 4800 878 .183* 854 .178 NBR 1 1600 81 .051 60 .038 SBL 1 1600 106 .066* 114 .071 SBT 4 6400 726 .151 1138 .222* SBR 0 0 265 .166 280 EBL 1.5 190 314 EBT 1.5 4800 532 .172* 417 .158* EBR 0 105 25 WBL 1 1600 47 .029 108 .068 WBT 2 3200 370 .116* 574 .179* WBR f 162 202 Note: ASSLImes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 33 537 .651 11 . Von Karman Av at Campos GP Baseline wDB AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 39 .024 50 .031* NBT 2 3200 859 .294* 561 .222 NBR 0 0 82 48 148 SBT SBL 1 1600 93 .058* 224 .140 SBT 2 3200 638 .293 817 .371* SBR 0 0 298 103 370 EBT EBL 2 3200 280 .088* 231 .072* EBT 2 3200 537 .188 785 .270 EBR 0 0 66 663 79 WBT WBL 1 1600 124 .078 78 .049 WBT 2 3200 696 .254* 748 .266* WBR 0 0 116 104 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 12 . MacArthur B1 at Von Karman GP Baseline wDB .694 740 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 34 .641 .557 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 44 .028 40 .025* NBT 3 4800 904 .188* 811 .169 NBR 1 1600 768 .480 191 .119 SBL 1 1600 74 .046* 48 .030 SBT 3 4800 591 .123 1239 .258* SBR 1 1600 135 .084 68 .043 EBL 1 1600 13 .008* 103 .064 EBT 2 3200 89 .028 213 .067* EBR f 19 135 WBL 2 3200 157 .049 663 .207* WBT 1 1600 171 .107* 102 .064 WBR f 52 143 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .292* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 34 .641 .557 15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .505 .747 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline wDB AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 518 .162 488 .153* NBT 4 6400 2100 .328* 1041 .163 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 559 .087 1313 .205* SBR 3 4800 241 .050 1186 .247 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 283 .177* 303 .189 WBT 5 8000 1199 .168 2668 .347* WBR 0 0 147 373 106 195 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing SBR 042* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .505 .747 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Baseline wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 35 .633 .635 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 85 .027 164 .051* NBT 2 3200 1207 .377* 469 .147 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1.5 6400 276 .086 558 .230* SBR 2.5 251 .078 915 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 376 578 WBT 3.5 8000 1297 .256* 2060 .354* WBR 0 373 195 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 35 .633 .635 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 813 .585 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline wDB AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1359 .206* 1006 .157* NBR 0 0 287 309 .193 SSL 1 1600 177 .111* 255 .159* SBT 3 4800 662 .138 1360 .283 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1265 517 .124 EBT 2.5 6400 1910 .496* 974 .233* EBR 2 3200 534 .167 570 .178 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing NBR .036* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 813 .585 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Baseline wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .496 .527 36 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LAMES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2.5 6400 535 .156* 439 .097 NBR 1.5 462 182 SBL 2 3200 176 .055* 167 .052 SBT 2 3200 476 .149 972 .304* SBR 0 0 0 0 ESL 1.5 748 198 .124 EBT 3.5 8000 1384 .285* 1317 .223* EBR 0 150 110 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .496 .527 36 29 . MacArthur Bl at Jamboree Rd GP Baseline wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .622 37 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 342 .107* 382 .119* NBT 4 6400 1136 .178 492 .077 NBR 1 1600 385 .241 336 .210 SBL 3 4800 54 .011 210 .044 SBT 3 4800 523 .109* 1445 .301* SBR f 196 517 EBL 2 3200 536 ,168* 415 .130* EBT 4 6400 1373 .215 1079 .169 EBR 1 1600 503 .314 124 .078 WBL 3 4800 440 .092 638 .133 WBT 3 4800 1080 .225* 1575 .328* WBR 1 1600 88 .055 213 .133 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .013* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .622 37 79 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 .15 0 .12 NBT 4 6800 2015 .30* 2174 .32* NBR 2 3400 371 .11 1111 .33 SBL 2 3400 162 .05* 495 .15* SBT 4 6800 1429 .21 2045 .30 SBR 0 0 0 .25 0 .25 EBL 0 0 0 .10* 0 .11 EBT 0 0 0 .05 0 .07* EBR 0 0 0 .05 0 .08 WBL 2 3400 886 .26* 519 .15* WBT 0 0 0 .05* 0 .06 WBR 2 3400 1088 .32 423 .12 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .02* WBR .17* Clearance Interval f .05* 809 .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .68 .67 82 MacArthur Bl. at Michelson Dr. GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 254 .15 212 .12 NBT 4 6800 1343 .20* 1749 .26* NBR 1 1700 300 .18 119 .07 SBL 2 3400 973 .29* 619 .18* SBT 4 6800 1577 .23 1528 .23 SBR 0 0 14 .25 12 .25 EBL 2 3400 347 .10* 385 .11 EBT 1 1700 78 .05 112 .07* EBR 1 1700 86 .05 134 .08 WBL 2 3400 95 .03 517 .15* WBT 1 1700 92 .05* 107 .06 WBR 1 1700 264 .16 776 .46 Right Turn Adjustment 138 .08 WBR .17* Clearance Interval f .05* 809 .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR .05* 80 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 SB Ramps GP Baseline wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 1518 .22* 2883 .42* NBR 1 1700 437 .26 673 .40 SBL 2 3400 160 .05* 477 .14* SBT 4 6800 1687 .25 1723 .25 SBR 1 1700 475 .28 384 .23 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 986 .29* 511 .15* WBT 1 1700 138 .08 157 .09 WBR f 809 369 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .61 76 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .88 Thursday, March 05, 2020 38 Page 1 Attachment 5 39 9 . MacArthur B1 at Campus Dr GP Project wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur B1 at Birch St GP Project wDB .623 .697 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 245 .077 189 .059* NBT 4 6400 1072 .168* 1268 .198 NBR 1 1600 83 .052 47 .029 SBL 1 1600 170 .106* 157 .098 SBT 3.5 8000 849 .177 1283 .255* SBR 1.5 0 705 .220 758 EBL 2 3200 684 .214* 471 .147* EBT 3 4800 1123 .234 637 .133 EBR d 1600 139 .087 180 .113 WBL 2 3200 42 .013 87 .027 WBT 3 4800 537 .112* 1134 .236* WBR f 47 130 Right Turn Adjustment SBR .023* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 10 . MacArthur B1 at Birch St GP Project wDB .623 .697 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 40 .574 .711 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 23 .014 156 .098* NBT 3 4800 911 .190* 872 .182 NBR 1 1600 67 .042 63 .039 SBL 1 1600 85 .053* 136 .085 SBT 4 6400 687 .143 1249 .248* SBR 0 0 255 .159 336 EBL 1.5 261 338 EBT 1.5 4800 585 .203* 463 .172* EBR 0 130 25 WBL 1 1600 51 .032 107 .067 WBT 2 3200 410 .128* 618 .193* WBR f 188 210 Nate: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 40 .574 .711 11 . Von Karman Av at Campus GP Project wDB AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR 1 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 47 .029 50 .031* NBT 2 3200 891 .310* 564 .225 NBR 0 0 101 49 155 SBT SBL 1 1600 88 .055* 216 .135 SBT 2 3200 721 .287 847 .370* SBR 0 0 196 102 337 EBT EBL 2 3200 269 .084 225 .070* EBT 2 3200 608 .217* 803 .278 EBR 0 0 87 672 87 WBT WBL 1 1600 120 .075* 88 .055 WBT 2 3200 579 .207 738 .263* WBR 0 0 82 104 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 12 . MacArthur Bl at Von Karman GP Project wDB 657 734 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 41 623 573 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 46 .029 51 .032* NBT 3 4800 895 .186* 838 .175 NBR 1 1600 735 .459 201 .126 SBL 1 1600 64 .040* 49 .031 SBT 3 4800 619 .129 1273 .265* SBR 1 1600 128 .080 84 .053 EBL 1 1600 23 .014* 102 .064 EBT 2 3200 151 .047 212 .066* EBR f 40 137 WBL 2 3200 179 .056 672 .210* WBT 1 1600 176 .110* 125 .078 WBR f 51 141 Right Turn Adjustment NBR .273* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 41 623 573 15 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(N) GP Project wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Project wDB Im 726 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 546 .171 467 .146* NBT 4 6400 2032 .318* 1065 .166 NBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBT 4 6400 564 .088 1265 .198* SBR 3 4800 256 .053 1136 .237 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 0 0 WBL 1 1600 288 .180* 301 .188 WBT 5 8000 1287 .179 2629 .343* WBR 0 0 145 350 112 197 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing SBR .039* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 16 . Birch St at Bristol St(N) GP Project wDB Im 726 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 42 599 .636 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 84 .026 174 .054* NBT 2 3200 1104 .345* 499 .156 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 1.5 6400 327 .102 556 .224* SBR 2.5 320 .100 877 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 1.5 357 602 WBT 3.5 8000 1323 .254* 2064 .358* WBR 0 350 197 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 42 599 .636 17 . Campus Dr at Bristol St(S) GP Project wpB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Project wOB .791 -M. AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 5 8000 1383 .210* 990 .155* NBR 0 0 295 303 .189 SBL 1 1600 176 .110* 252 .158* SBT 3 4800 673 .140 1313 .274 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 1193 535 .131 EBT 2.5 6400 1821 .471* 994 .239* EBR 2 3200 521 .163 566 .177 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment E/W Split Phasing NBR .034* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 18 . Birch St at Bristol St(S) GP Project wOB .791 -M. TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 43 .490 .529 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 2.5 6400 521 .160* 464 .100 NBR 1.5 506 177 SBL 2 3200 176 .055* 174 .054 SBT 2 3200 507 .158 982 .307* SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 1.5 663 210 .131 EBT 3.5 8000 1380 .275* 1312 .222* EBR 0 159 107 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 43 .490 .529 29 . MacArthur B1 at Jamboree Rd GP Project wDB TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .640 44 02 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3200 362 .113* 386 .121* NBT 4 6400 1093 .171 513 .080 NBR 1 1600 400 .250 352 .220 SBL 3 4800 59 .012 221 .046 SBT 3 4800 548 .114* 1467 .306* SBR f 216 524 EBL 2 3200 524 .164* 431 .135* EBT 4 6400 1446 .226 1132 .177 EBR 1 1600 511 .319 125 .078 WBL 3 4800 450 .094 638 .133 WBT 3 4800 1164 .243* 1569 .327* WBR 1 1600 86 .054 218 .136 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .006* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .640 44 02 79 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 NB Ramps GP Project LUE wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 .16 0 .09 NBT 4 6800 2111 .31* 2178 .32* NBR 2 3400 405 .12 1202 .35 SBL 2 3400 159 .05* 479 .14* SBT 4 6800 1384 .20 2107 .31 SBR 0 0 0 .23 0 .23 EBL 0 0 0 .10* 0 .11 EBT 0 0 0 .05 0 .05* EBR 0 0 0 .05 0 .08 WBL 2 3400 911 .27* 519 .15* WBT 0 0 0 .04* 0 .05 WBR 2 3400 1087 .32 428 .13 Right Turn Adjustment WBR .01* WBR .19* Clearance Interval for NBR .05* .05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .66 82 MacArthur Bl. at Michelson Dr. GP Project LUE wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1700 275 .16 158 .09 NBT 4 6800 1451 .21* 1853 .27* NBR 1 1700 315 .19 122 .07 SBL 2 3400 1024 .30* 619 .18* SBT 4 6800 1618 .24 1632 .24 SBR 0 0 14 .23 12 .23 EBL 2 3400 355 .10* 361 .11 EBT 1 1700 77 .05 83 .05* EBR 1 1700 85 .05 140 .08 WBL 2 3400 106 .03 550 .16* WBT 1 1700 69 .04* 91 .05 WBR 1 1700 263 .15 794 .47 Right Turn Adjustment .05* WBR .19* Clearance Interval for NBR .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for WBR 80 MacArthur Bl. at I-405 SB Ramps GP Project LUE wDB(IRVINE ISEC) 3 AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 4 6800 1647 .24* 2981 .44* NBR 1 1700 452 .27 680 .40 SBL 2 3400 156 .05* 468 .14* SBT 4 6800 1759 .26 1792 .26 SBR 1 1700 387 .23 387 .23 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 2 3400 979 .29* 537 .16* WBT 1 1700 148 .09 158 .09 WBR f 810 366 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Note: Assumes Right -Turn Overlap for NBR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 79 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .90 Thursday, March 05, 2020 45 Page 1 Exhibit "F" The 2008-2014 Housing Element Update Initial Study Available separately due to bulk at: www.newportbeachca.gov/cega Then click on Archived Environmental Documents Folder 10-28 P � CITY OF NEWPORT Oi♦ aie 1 3 3300 NewportBoulevard Box 1768 as _�,. A 92658-8915 •# •,�.,•, ,. aNewport.� (949) 644-3200 Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration To: From: Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department State Clearinghouse 3300 Newport Boulevard .O. BOX 3044 1 S .O. o # into� CA # If #/M . # 92658-8 915 Beach, County Clerk,Orange 1 I R1 Public Services Division 2011 Date. September 28, 1 Santa 92702 Public Review Period:. 30 days (September 30, 201 to October 31, 2011) r i ProjectName: Newport Beach E !i Element !r i (2008-2014) P ict 01i The proposed Beach Updated Housing Element t comprehensive ® a specific guide statement i City's housing policies and serves for implementation policies. Housing Update examines current i i future housing needs and establishes goals, policies, .. • housing iii estimates i on i programs ♦ i responsive programs pertaining to thoseneeds. i i current and future needs. They are also established within the context of available ci ! federal economic isocial resources, i realistic quantified i i objectives. � • � i # # i i i # ` • i # i ` # I # # # ` i # I i I i � � • # i i` I I r `! • iii ` # # i ` # # ` ` ` # f ` # i # i ` # # i ` # # • I ` I # I # - ` i i i i � i i ! i i"i i ®ice • � "i. i �" .. # � � i i i i l i i i i i# i ,.. . • " i i i i i" •" i ". i .. '` r ! �. i ,. i.... i. � • i. i " " i i "' i i " " . i • i ! '" � i t • 16 i . • i i i .► i i i•i ii i ■a i ♦ i .. i� i � � # I.. r I # _.. � I. s # r i r r #.. � ` i ` # ` i � ` # ♦ # i - r . � r r r. I i # • � � # � � # i # . i # # f r # i I # # ` ` # i r I # #i #`I .► #i #' I • #I #` #� � ## # f ` #i I ` I i ► r I # ` i ## af'I � # # •i s`I � • # f ! # I �� f if #if �i ` I • �� �` ! f#i 1 r r Updated 01-12-10 AProject Fi1es1-0141.N13 HOUSING ELEMENTMnit1a1 Study\NOI City of 118.9-30-11.docx w w v IV OF 0 Qg Contact No. Email Date f94 -32 9", jmurillo@new ortbeachca.gov September 28, 2011 Updated 01-12-9 0 CAProject Files \KKC-0141.NB HOUSING ELEMENTMnifial StudyXNOI Cfty of NB.9-30-1 l.docx INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update (2008-2014) LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Contacts: Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209 Ms, Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner (949) 644-3221 SEW Pp�� 011 i ^ r• � f t V �. PREPARED BY`. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 180 South Prospect Avenue, Suite 140A P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, California 92781-3905 Contact: Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665-8509 September 30, 2011 This pago intentionally left blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS....................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE........................................................................................................................................2 1.3 TIERING...........................................................................................................................................2 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE............................................................................................. 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................5 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................... 5 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................... 9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY...............................................................................................................15 3.1 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................. 15 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................................ 16 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS......................................................................... 16 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................................................19 4.1 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................................19 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES............................................................................. 22 4.3 AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................................. 23 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES......................................................................................................... 29 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES... ...................................... ........... - ...... -- ........... ............................... 34 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS................................................................................................................. 37 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS................................................................................................ 43 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS................................................................................46 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY......................................................................................... 54 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING......................................................................................................... 62 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES...............................................................................................................64 4.12 NOISE..........................................................................................................................................65 . 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING..................................................................................................... 68 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES....................................................................................................................... 70 4.15 RECREATION................................................................................................................................74 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC......................................................................................................75 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.......................................................................................... 78 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE... . ...................... .................................................. 84 4.19 REFERENCES ......................................................... 86 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL...................................................................................... 87 5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION..................................................................................................... 89 6.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION.........................................................................................................91 7.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES...................................................................... Included with Final IS/ND 8.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ..........................Included with Final IS/ND This page intentionally left blank City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element details the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities and services for all household types and income groups, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to housing. The Housing Element provides in-depth analysis of the City's population, economic, and housing stock characteristics as well as a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to housing. Through this evaluation and analysis, the City has identified priority goals, polices, and programs that directly address the housing needs of current and future City residents. The City completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2006, which is herein incorporated by reference. Through the General Plan update process, several key areas in the City were identified as ideal locations for future housing opportunities. Through this process, significant new areas for future housing development were identified that included the re -designation of some commercial/office/industrial areas for residential or mixed residential/commercial uses. As part of the comprehensive General Plan update, the existing 2000-2005 Housing Element was reviewed for consistency, updated, and adopted to reflect land use changes and new residential opportunities identified as part of the General Plan update. The 2008-2014 Housing Element is an update and revision to the 2006 Housing Element and consist of new technical data and updated policies and programs. The land use opportunities areas developed as part of the General Plan have remained the same. This Housing Element also addresses meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the planning period of January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014, and is consistent with recent revisions to State Housing Element Law. Following preliminary review of the proposed City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update (Project), the City has determined that the Project is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study addresses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project, as proposed. 1.1 STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177) and pursuant to Section 15063 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Newport Beach, acting in the capacity of Lead Agency, is required to undertake the preparation of an Initial Study to determine if the proposed Project would have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of the initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall further find that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted to analyze project -related and cumulative environmental impacts. Alternatively, if the Lead Agency finds that there is no evidence that the project, either as proposed or as modified to include the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall find that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment and shall prepare a Negative Declaration for that project. Such determination can be made only if "there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency" that such impacts may occur (Section 21080(c), Public Resources Code). The environmental documentation, which is ultimately selected by the City of Newport Beach in accordance with CEQA, is intended as an informational document undertaken to provide an environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions upon the project. The resulting documentation is not, however, a policy document and its approval and/or certification neither presupposes nor mandates any actions on the part of those agencies from whom permits and other discretionary approvals would be required. September 30, 2011 1 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW PART City of Newport Beach � m � Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration The environmental documentation and supporting analysis is subject to a public review period. Because at least one state agency (California Department of Housing and Community Development) is a responsible agency, the review period is determined to be 30 days. During this review, public agency comments on the document relative to environmental issues should be addressed to the City of Newport Beach. Following review of any comments received, the City of Newport Beach will consider these comments as a part of the project's environmental review and include them with the Initial Study documentation for consideration by the City of Newport Beach. 1.2 PURPOSE The purposes of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist are to: (1) identify environmental impacts; (2) provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration; (3) enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared; (4) facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project; (5) provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project would not have a significant environmental effect; (6) eliminate needless EIRs; (7) determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used for the project; and (8) assist in the preparation of an EIR, if required, by focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies specific disclosure requirements for inclusion in an Initial Study. Pursuant to those requirements, an Initial Study shall include: (1) a description of the project, including the location of the project; (2) an identification of the environmental setting; (3) an identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist, matrix or other method, provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries; (4) a discussion of ways to mitigate significant effects identified, if any; (5) an examination of whether the project is compatible with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use controls; and (6) the name of the person or persons who prepared or participated in the preparation of the Initial Study. 1.3 TIERING Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses, which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. According to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, Tiering) "tiering" refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. This approach is intended to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues pertinent to each level of environmental review. Consequently, because the Housing Element Update would not result in alterations of the land use opportunities evaluated in the 2006 General Plan EIR, but instead, merely addresses updated policies to meet the revised RHNA allocation, the tiering process is appropriate in this situation. 1.4 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE As permitted by Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this initial study incorporates several documents by reference. The reference documents identified below were utilized during the preparation of the Initial Study. The relevant information and/or analysis that has been incorporated by reference into this initial study has been summarized. Each of the documents identified below, which have been September 30, 2011 2 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach t Housing Element Update ?$ Initial Study/Negative Declaration gLlFO RN incorporated by reference, are available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. City of Newport Beach General Plan (adopted July 25, 2006). The purpose of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan) is to provide a general, comprehensive, and long-range guide for community decision-making. The Newport Beach General Plan is organized into ten elements. General Plan Elements have been re -organized by thematic topic for clarity and to avoid redundancy. The subjects of the Conservation and Open Space Element have been merged into the Natural Resources Element. The General Plan also includes Parks and Recreation, Historical Resources, Arts and Cultural and Harbor and Bay Elements. Each General Plan element presents an overview of its scope, summary of conditions and planning issues, goals, and policies. Goals and policies of the General Plan are applicable to all lands within the City's jurisdiction. Consistent with state statutes, it also specifies policies for the adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI), encompassing Banning Ranch. City of Newport Beach Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update (April 21, 2006) SCH No. 2006011119. The City of Newport Beach Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update (General Plan EIR) reviews the City's and Planning Area's existing conditions, analyzes potential environmental impacts from implementation of the General Plan Update, identifies policies from the proposed General Plan Update that serve to reduce and minimize impacts, and identifies additional mitigation measures, to reduce potentially significant impacts of the General Plan Update. The EIR presents a worst-case scenario based upon the City's and adjacent areas' maximum potential development from 2002 through 2030. The EIR was prepared as a Program EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Program EIR), and as such, was intended to serve as the environmental document for a series of actions contemplated by the General Plan, including amending the Zoning Ordinance to bring it into consistency with the General Plan. CEQA provides for using a Program EIR to ensure consideration of cumulative impacts, avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy issues, and allow early identification and evaluation of program wide mitigation measures. As discussed above in Section 1.4 (Tiering), agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analyses, which refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (i.e., General Pian) with later EIRs/negative declarations on narrower projects. The City is using the tiering concept, as permitted under the CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental analysis contained within this document for the Housing Element Update is being tiered with the General Plan Update EIR. This Housing Element Update IS/ND is incorporating by reference the environmental analysis from the broader General Plan Update EIR, which provides a description of the environmental setting and environmental impact conclusions. The baseline conditions for analysis are those identified within the General Plan Update EIR. Citv of Newport Beach Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Citv of Newport Beach Municipal Code Planning and Zonina) (adopted October 26. 2010 and as amended from time to time thereafter). The purpose of the Zoning Code is to promote growth in Newport Beach in an orderly manner, while promoting public health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare. The Zoning Code also establishes zoning districts and regulations for the use of land and development for properties within the City. The Zoning Code has been amended several times since 1997, but has not been comprehensively updated until this time. September 30, 2011 3 Initial Study/Negative Declaration wPO City of Newport Beach o' Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration ,FOP. This page left intentionally blank September 30, 2011 4 Initial Study/Negative Declaration AcaEW!'-ORT City of Newport Beach e Housing Element Update uki Initial Study/Negative Declaration 5l/Kpa 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2,1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The City of Newport Beach is located in Southern California, within the westernmost portion of Orange County, California; refer to Exhibit 2-1 (Regional Vicinity Map). Newport Beach is bordered by the cities of Costa Mesa to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, unincorporated Orange County to the southeast, and by the Pacific Ocean to the west; refer to Exhibit 2-2 Local Vicinity), ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Newport Beach has a current population of approximately 86,738 persons'. The Newport Beach planning area contains 26,676 acres, not including streets and roadways, which account for approximately 20 percent (5335 acres) of the gross land acreage. Approximately 42 percent (11,119 acres) of the planning area is water, which includes the Upper and Lower Newport Bay and its channels, and the Pacific Ocean. 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2006, which is herein incorporated by reference. Through the General Plan update process, several key areas in the City were identified as ideal locations for future housing opportunities. Through this process, significant new areas for future housing development were identified that included the re -designation of some commercial/office/industrial areas for residential or mixed residential/commercial uses. As part of the comprehensive General Plan update, the existing 2000-2005 Housing Element was reviewed for consistency, updated, and adopted to reflect land use changes and new residential opportunities identified as part of the General Plan update. The 2008-2014 Housing Element is an update and revision to the 2006 Housing Element and consist of new technical data and updated policies and programs. The land use opportunity areas developed as part of the General Plan have remained the same. The City of Newport Beach's Housing Element details the City's strategy for enhancing and preserving the community's character, identifies strategies for expanding housing opportunities and services for all household types and income groups, and provides the primary policy guidance for local decision-making related to housing. The Housing Element provides in-depth analysis of the City's population, economic, and housing stock characteristics as well as a comprehensive evaluation of programs and regulations related to housing. Through this evaluation and analysis, the City has identified priority goals, polices, and programs that directly address the housing needs of current and future City residents. Throughout the Housing Element update process, the City of Newport Beach posted Draft Housing Element documents and presentation materials on the website to facilitate the review by residents and interested parties. Hard copies of the Draft Housing Element were also made available at the Planning Division Counter. The City held three specialized workshops targeted for developers, housing service providers, and the public, and two public meetings with both the Planning Commission and City Council, to solicit input and comments on the development of the Housing Element and programs. As a result of the comments received at the three housing workshops, at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings, and during the public review period of the Housing Element, significant revisions have been made to the 2008-2014 Housing Element to address the comments, as appropriate, and comply with State housing element law. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. September 30, 2011 5 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update �4 Initial Study/Negative Declaration '9{FppN California state law requires that Housing Elements be updated at least every five years. The City of Newport Beach has prepared the 2008 — 2014 Housing Element in compliance with the established (extended) 2008 deadline for jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The Housing Element covers the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the planning period of January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2014, and is consistent with recent revisions to State Housing Element Law. The City has accepted, and is committed to meeting, its 2006-2014 RHNA allocation of 1,784 housing units. Achieving the remaining RHNA units is expected through the future redevelopment of several key housing opportunity areas identified through the General Plan update process, implementation of programs designed to encourage and facilitate residential development, and the affordable housing requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Program (1HP). The City's Inclusionary Housing Program requires a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or payment of an in -lieu fee. The City's goal is that an average of 16 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. The City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and determines the most appropriate use of in -lieu fee funds. The Task Force and staff continually investigate and research potential new affordable housing opportunities. September 30, 2011 6 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration i tf FpR ® m 1 ti llf+G+ arwMar Legend FMM1y�;✓M V .t9- hip vaf`.�w+ri nr�lle 11g1D p•YllF0.�TCl NI{rn1lT1 r1Y�\Yy IhaY 1 Swma C y vl IkwW Beam Gmiat Far 2" upUe Volume a Draft ESR 1. i Try SCALE Q11 INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVi DECLARATION Regional Vicinity Exhibit 2-1 JN 10-105583 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration f�fiF01t,. costa .11& Legend _ §r -rq DJ h SC31 � w �dakrx» ara S.m� tan= VA~— W t11.Pft SW"n [ri] io,3a (9 MWPWAM `.aW 1 . curry r - •.._ ti ter'. 6.�rn Source 'wily of Newport Beach Gerwal Pfau 2006 [{plate Wane I graft FiR NOT TO SCALE f.. INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION Local vicinity Exhibit 2-2 k j Rr City of Newport Beach o r Housing Element Update A /Ne Initial Stud ative Declaration Study/Negative Cf FO RN 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Newport Beach Updated Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the City's housing policies and serves as a specific guide for implementation of these policies. The Housing Element Update examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. Housing programs are responsive to current and future needs. They are also established within the context of available community, state, and federal economic and social resources, and realistic quantified housing objectives. State housing goals are as follows: Availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. Early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest order. • Early attainment of this goal requires cooperative participation of government with the private sector to expand housing opportunities and accommodate housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. • Provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households requires cooperation among all levels of government. • Local and state governments have a responsibility to use powers vested in them to facilitate improvement and development of housing to make adequate provision for housing needs of all economic segments of the community. • The Legislature recognizes in carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has a responsibility to consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, and community goals set forth in its general plan. Cities must cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs. The goals adopted in the 2006 Housing Element have not been revised; however, in order to more effectively achieve those long-range goals and objectives, meet the City's allocation of affordable housing in the region, and be consistent with State housing law, the Newport Beach Housing Element has been updated through the incorporation of several new housing programs as well as deletions and revisions to previously adopted housing programs. The most significant revisions to the Newport Beach Housing Element include: Consistent with Government Code Section 65584.09, the Housing Element addresses the unaccommodated portion of the 2000-2005 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). Combining the unaccommodated portion of the 2000-2005 RHNA allocation with the City's 2006-2014 RHNA allocation results in a total housing need of 1,914 dwellings, including 770 dwelling units affordable to lower-income households. The Housing Element has been revised to provide a detailed, parcel -specific inventory and analysis of land determined suitable for residential development (Sites Analysis and Inventory)_ The analysis demonstrates the sites are currently available and unconstrained so as to provide realistic development opportunities prior to June 30, 2014 (the end of the planning period). Based on comments received, a methodology for determining capacity assumptions has been included in the Sites Analysis and Inventory, which also demonstrates how the calculation accounts for land -use controls and site improvements using actual constructed or approved projects. JN 10-105583 9 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �W Pp R @ City of Newport Beach x rE Housing Element Update r Fn Initial Study/Negative Declaration qG! ro aN In addition to the information provided within the revised Sites Analysis and Inventory, a new section has been added to the Housing Element analyzing how the existing uses, land -use regulations, and parcel sizes impact the viability of the John Wayne Airport Area sites to accommodate the RHNA for lower-income households within the planning period. Given the allowed densities of between 30 and 50 dwelling units per acre, the John Wayne Airport Area has the greatest potential to accommodate the City's need for 770 dwelling units affordable to lower-income households. A detailed discussion of the City's recently adopted Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and In -Lieu Housing Fee has been added, including a constraints analysis on the development of market -rate housing. Pursuant to the requirements of SB2, the Housing Element includes a discussion identifying the appropriate zoning districts where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without the need for a use permit. As part of the Zoning Code Update, emergency shelters were added as a permitted use within the Private Institutions (PI) and Office -Airport (OA) zoning districts. A discussion has also been added clarifying the permitting requirements for transitional and supportive housing pursuant to SB2. Programs have been expanded and added within the Housing Plan to preserve and facilitate residential development in the City, to assist in the development of housing for extremely low-income households, to promote and encourage energy conservation with respect to residential development, and to remove constraints to development of affordable housing within the John Wayne Airport sites. The relevant changes to the housing programs included in the Housing Element Update are presented below. These changes include housing programs that have been deleted, new housing programs, and major revisions to housing programs. Deleted Housing Programs HP 2.2.6 Periodically contact known local developers and landowners to solicit new affordable housing construction. HP 3.2.1 Identify the following sites as adequate, which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage development of a variety of housing types to meet City housing goals as identified pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(b): Banning Ranch, Airport Area, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and the Balboa Peninsula. HP 3.2.2 Update Zoning Code to reflect housing opportunities provided in the Land Use Element. HP 4.2.5 Participate in a Joint Powers Authority of Orange County jurisdictions for the purpose of financing and administering a lease purchase program for first-time homebuyers. HP 5.1.4 Consistent with development standards in residential and commercial areas, permit emergency shelters and transitional housing under group housing provisions in its Zoning Code, HP 6.1.2 Support fair housing opportunities by using Community Development Block Grant funds whenever necessary to enact federal, state, and City fair housing policies. New Housing Programs HP 2.1.5 Provide entitlement assistance, expedited entitlement processing, and waive application processing fees for developments in which 5 percent of units are affordable to extremely low - JN 10-105583 10 Initial Study/Negative Declaration income households. To be eligible for a fee waiver, the units shall be subject to an affordability covenant for a minimum duration of 30 years. The affordable units provided shall be granted a waiver of park in -lieu fees (if applicable) and traffic fair share fees. HP 2.1.6 Affordable housing developments providing units affordable to extremely low-income households shall be given the highest priority for use of Affordable Housing Fund monies. HP 2.2.2 Periodically review the City's Inclusionary Housing In -lieu fees to ensure it is adequate to support the development of affordable projects. HP 2.2.3 Develop a brochure of incentives offered by the City for the development of affordable housing including fee waivers, expedited processing, Inclusionary Housing requirements, and density bonuses and other incentives. Provide a copy of this brochure at the Planning Counter, the website and also provide a copy to potential developers. HP 2.2.10 Implement Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Zoning Code and educate interested developers about the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and senior citizens. HP 2.2.11 Monitor the impact of Housing Program 2.2.1 and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on the overall production of housing within the City. Considerations shall include whether the inclusionary program results in cost shifting where the costs of subsiding the affordable units is underwritten by the purchasers of market -rate units in the form of higher prices. HP 3.1.4 The City will encourage and facilitate residential and mixed-use development on vacant and underdeveloped sites listed in Appendix H4 by providing technical assistance to interested developers with site identification and entitlement processing. The City will support developers funding applications from other agencies and programs. The City will post the Sites Analysis and Inventory on the City's webpage and marketing materials for residential and mixed-use opportunity sites, and will equally encourage and market the sites for both for - sale development and rental development. To encourage the development of affordable housing within residential and mixed-use developments, the City shall educate developers of the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives identify potential funding opportunities, offer expedited entitlement processing, and offer fee waivers and/or deferrals. HP 3.1.5 The City will monitor and evaluate the development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels on an annual basis and report the success of strategies to encourage residential development in its Annual Progress Reports required pursuant to Government Code 65400. If identified strategies are not successful in generating development interest, the City will respond to market conditions and will revise or add additional incentives. HP 3.2.2 Recognizing that General Plan Policy LU6.15.6 may result in a potential constraint to the development of affordable housing in the Airport Area, the City shall amend the General Plan and/or establish a waiver or exception to the minimum 10 -acre site requirement. It is recognized that allowing a smaller scale development within an established commercial and industrial area may result in land use compatibility problems and result in a residential development that does not provide sufficient amenities (i.e. parks) and/or necessary improvements (i.e. pedestrian walkways). Therefore, it is imperative that the proposed waiver include provisions for adequate amenities, design considerations for the future integration into a larger residential village, and a requirement to ensure collaboration with future developers in the area. HP 3.2.3 The City shall amend the Newport Place (PC 11) and Koll Center (PC 15) Planned Community texts to allow residential developments that include: 1) a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households; and 2) include densities between 30 JN 10-105583 11 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Q�jWpORT o'' \ Housing Element Update ' Initial Study/Negative Declaration income households. To be eligible for a fee waiver, the units shall be subject to an affordability covenant for a minimum duration of 30 years. The affordable units provided shall be granted a waiver of park in -lieu fees (if applicable) and traffic fair share fees. HP 2.1.6 Affordable housing developments providing units affordable to extremely low-income households shall be given the highest priority for use of Affordable Housing Fund monies. HP 2.2.2 Periodically review the City's Inclusionary Housing In -lieu fees to ensure it is adequate to support the development of affordable projects. HP 2.2.3 Develop a brochure of incentives offered by the City for the development of affordable housing including fee waivers, expedited processing, Inclusionary Housing requirements, and density bonuses and other incentives. Provide a copy of this brochure at the Planning Counter, the website and also provide a copy to potential developers. HP 2.2.10 Implement Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Zoning Code and educate interested developers about the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives for the development of housing that is affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and senior citizens. HP 2.2.11 Monitor the impact of Housing Program 2.2.1 and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance on the overall production of housing within the City. Considerations shall include whether the inclusionary program results in cost shifting where the costs of subsiding the affordable units is underwritten by the purchasers of market -rate units in the form of higher prices. HP 3.1.4 The City will encourage and facilitate residential and mixed-use development on vacant and underdeveloped sites listed in Appendix H4 by providing technical assistance to interested developers with site identification and entitlement processing. The City will support developers funding applications from other agencies and programs. The City will post the Sites Analysis and Inventory on the City's webpage and marketing materials for residential and mixed-use opportunity sites, and will equally encourage and market the sites for both for - sale development and rental development. To encourage the development of affordable housing within residential and mixed-use developments, the City shall educate developers of the benefits of density bonuses and related incentives identify potential funding opportunities, offer expedited entitlement processing, and offer fee waivers and/or deferrals. HP 3.1.5 The City will monitor and evaluate the development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels on an annual basis and report the success of strategies to encourage residential development in its Annual Progress Reports required pursuant to Government Code 65400. If identified strategies are not successful in generating development interest, the City will respond to market conditions and will revise or add additional incentives. HP 3.2.2 Recognizing that General Plan Policy LU6.15.6 may result in a potential constraint to the development of affordable housing in the Airport Area, the City shall amend the General Plan and/or establish a waiver or exception to the minimum 10 -acre site requirement. It is recognized that allowing a smaller scale development within an established commercial and industrial area may result in land use compatibility problems and result in a residential development that does not provide sufficient amenities (i.e. parks) and/or necessary improvements (i.e. pedestrian walkways). Therefore, it is imperative that the proposed waiver include provisions for adequate amenities, design considerations for the future integration into a larger residential village, and a requirement to ensure collaboration with future developers in the area. HP 3.2.3 The City shall amend the Newport Place (PC 11) and Koll Center (PC 15) Planned Community texts to allow residential developments that include: 1) a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower-income households; and 2) include densities between 30 JN 10-105583 11 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW PO City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 5n Initial Study/Negative Declaration du/acre and 50 du/acre consistent with the MU -H2 General Plan land use designation and policies for the Airport Area. It is recognized that adding residential as a permitted use where it was not allowed previously might require additional design attention to integrate uses. Therefore, the Planned Community Amendments will add residential uses as permitted by right subject to a site plan review to ensure integration within the existing area. The City will monitor commercial redevelopment within the Airport Area to ensure sufficient residential capacity remains to accommodate the City's RHNA for lower-income households. Should residential capacity be reduced to a level that cannot accommodate the City's remaining need for lower-income households citywide, the City will identify and zone, if necessary, sufficient sites in an alternative location to accommodate the City's RHNA. HP 4.1.5 The City shall inform and educate owners of affordable units of the State Preservation Notice Law (Government Code Section 65863.10-13), if applicable. Pursuant to the law, owners of government -assisted projects cannot terminate subsidy contract, prepay a federally -assisted mortgage, or discontinue use restrictions without first providing an exclusive Notice of Opportunity to Submit an Offer to Purchase. Owners proposing to sell or otherwise dispose of a property at any time during the five years prior to the expiration of restrictions must provide this Notice at least 12 months in advance unless such sale or disposition would result in preserving the restrictions. The intent of the law is to give tenants sufficient time to understand and prepare for potential rent increases, as well as to provide local governments and potential preservation buyers with an opportunity to develop a plan to preserve the property. This plan typically consists of convincing the owner to either (a) retain the rental restrictions in exchange for additional financial incentives or (b) sell to a preservation buyer at fair market value. HP 4.2.5 Developers that choose to meet the inclusionary housing requirements of Housing Program 2.2.1 through the renovation and conversion of existing off-site units in the City to affordable units shall be required to substantially renovate and improve the livability and aesthetics of the units for the duration of the affordability period and include energy conserving retrofits that will contribute to reduced housing costs for future occupants of the units. HP 4.2.6 Implement and enforce the recently adopted Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Landscape and Irrigation Design Standards in compliance with AB 1881 (2006). The ordinance establishes standards for planning, designing, installing, and maintaining and managing water -efficient landscapes in new construction and rehabilitated projects. HP 4.2.7 Affordable housing developments that receive City assistance from Community Development Block Grant funds or from the City's Affordable Housing Fund shall be required, to the extent feasible, include installation of energy efficient appliances and devices, and water conserving fixtures that will contribute to reduced housing costs for future occupants of the units. HP 4.2.8 Investigate the feasibility and benefits of using a portion of its Community Development Block Grant funds for the establishment and implementation of an energy conserving home improvements program for lower-income homeowners. HP 4.2.9 Establish a process for LEED certified staff members to provide development assistance to project proponents seeking LEED certification, which will in turn increase the LEED points granted to projects. HP 4.2.10 To encourage voluntary green building action, the City will institute a green recognition program that may include public recognition of LEED certified buildings, payment of a display advertisement in the local newspaper recognizing the achievements of a project, or developing a City plaque that will be granted to exceptional developments. JN 10-105583 12 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach °f D Housing Element Update 'r Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9Ci Fp Tk HP 5.1.6 Encourage the development of day care centers and community parks as a component of new affordable housing constructed as part of the requirements of the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. HP 5.1.7 Amend the Zoning Code to include a definition of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Residential Hotels and add provisions that would permit SROs within the commercial and office zoning districts with the approval of a use permit. No standard set of conditions or use restrictions on SROs shall be established; instead, each application should be evaluated individually and approved based upon its own merits and circumstances. Substantially Revised Housing Programs (Revisions in underline format) HP 4.1.1 Annually contact owners of affordable units for those developments listed in Table H12 as part of the City's annual monitoring of affordable housing agreements to obtain information regarding their plans for continuing affordability on their properties and to encourage the extension of the affordability agreements for the developments listed in Table H12 beyond the years noted. HP 4.1.2 The Citv shall resister as a Qualified Preservation Entitv with HCD to ensure that the City will receive notices from all owners intending to opt out of their Section 8 contracts and/or prepay their HUD insured mortgages. Upon receiving notice that a property owner of an existing affordable housing development intends to convert the units to a market -rate development. the City shall consult with the property owners and potential preservation organizations regarding the potential use of CDBG funds and/or Affordable Housing Fund monies to maintain affordable housing opportunities in those developments listed in Table H12 or assist in the non-profit acquisition of the units to ensure long-term affordability. In addition to these major revisions to the Housing Programs proposed by the City, several additional minor modifications have also been proposed, including those to adopted programs, policies and objectives (i.e., timelines and minor clarifications such as program numbers, etc.). A copy of the Housing Element is available for review at the Newport Beach Community Development Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA. In addition, the Housing Element Update can also be found on the City's website at: hfto://ne�,vDoribeachca.gov/Modules/ShovvDocument.aspx?documentid=10695 The City of Newport Beach believes that the programs now proposed would be the most effective in achieving the City's long-range housing goals. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has reviewed the Draft Housing Element as currently revised and has determined that it meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (refer to Appendix "A"). JN 10-105583 13 initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach 6 \A Housing Element Update u r Initial Study/Negative Declaration q�! FORN This page intentionally left blank JN 10-105583 14 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �,E.wP°RT City of Newport Beach m Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration �<t Fp pN 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY 3.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 2008 - 2014 Planning Period 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 3. Contact Persons and Phone Numbers: Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, (949) 644-3209 Ms. Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner, (949) 644-3221 4. Project Location: The City of Newport Beach is located in western Orange County, California. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 6. General Plan Designation: Residential and Mixed Use Land Use Designations, including: RS- D, RS -A, RT, RM, RM -D, RM/OS, MU -V, MU -H 7. Zoning: Residential and Mixed Use Zoning Districts, including: R -A, R-1, R -BI, R-2, RMD, MU -V, MU -MM, MU -DW, and MU-CV/15th Street 8. Description of the Project: Comprehensive revision/update of the Housing Element. Refer to Section 2.2 (Project Characteristics). 9. Surrounding Setting and Land Uses: Newport Beach is bordered by the cities of Costa Mesa to the northwest, Irvine to the northeast, unincorporated Orange County to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): California Department of Housing and Community Development JN 10-105583 15 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �,�RT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update u` 1z Initial Study/Negative Declaration q[/ pp AN 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forest Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: JN 10-105583 16 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Aesthetics Land Use and Planning Agriculture and Forest Resources Mineral Resources Air Quality Noise Biological Resources Population and Housing Cultural Resources Public Services Geology and Soils Recreation Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utilities and Service Systems Hydrology and Water Quality Mandatory Findings of Significance 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Housing Element Update. The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forest Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Newport Beach in its environmental review process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study's preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully analyze the development's impacts and to identify mitigation. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question, there are four possible responses: JN 10-105583 16 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW POST o� City of Newport Beach } Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration _..__ 'q Cl PO PL • No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are considered to be significant. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. • Potentially Significant Impact. The development could have impacts, which may be considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, such that impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. A 10-105583 17 Initial Study/Negative Declaration aEW DRi City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration JN 10-105583 18 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �ti�Rr City of Newport Beach °r Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration q�Fp RNA 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study. Explanations are provided for each item. 4.1 AESTHETICS a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? _ c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Analysis t,ltan ilAl:[ ��' of tltlriQFri ■ 4.1(a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ■ ■ "', Im Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Program (LCP) have identified several natural features, including the Pacific Ocean and bay that provide open coastal views. Other features include important view points and roadway segments that provide coastal views as well as parks and other public spaces that also allow visual access to important aesthetic features. As a result, the City's General Plan and LCP have developed policies to preserve these significant vistas and views. As reflected in the Newport Beach General Plan and LCP, infill development and redevelopment, including residential development, would be concentrated in several specified subareas of the City (e.g., Airport Area, Newport Center, Banning Ranch, West Newport Mesa, and the Balboa Peninsula area) as well as in a few smaller areas throughout the remainder of the City. Some of the identified subareas would not be considered areas with existing high visual or scenic quality. Examples of conditions that may currently detract from local visual character include: building facades that are faded and in poor repair, sparse or under -maintained landscaping, poorly maintained mobile homes, and dated or incongruent architecture (which could be historic, though not currently distinguished as such). However, the City adopted several policies intended to enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. In addition, other General Plan policies are intended to improve aesthetics in these areas through both redevelopment and incentives for others to improve maintenance, including those that provide for improved visual image and quality, the restoration and enhancement of visual quality in visually degraded areas, where feasible, and the provision of view easements or corridors designed to protect public views or to restore public views in developed areas, where appropriate. Other subareas are considered to have high existing visual quality. The architecture and landscaping is attractive, the area is visually diverse, and the different land uses in the area are harmoniously arranged so as to complement neighboring uses. Corona del Mar and Newport Center/Fashion Island are areas that might be considered to have high overall visual quality. In these areas, new development allowed under the September 30, 2011 19 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EyV Pp City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration NLIFOµ� General Plan Update would be done in such a way as to fit into and complement the existing visual setting. As indicated above, this would be accomplished through the implementation of adopted policies that require new development to "maintain and enhance" existing development. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific development projects. Rather, the Housing Element Update would provide a policy framework for the residential growth anticipated in the City over the next seven years. Although future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect views to the identified vistas and the visual landscape within the City, all new residential development or renovation projects that would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the City's General Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the programs included in the proposed Housing Element Update project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect scenic vistas within the City. Therefore, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.1(b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. Currently, there are no official state scenic highways within the City boundaries. However, SR - 1 is identified by the City as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. Projects that would impede visual access along this route may result in potential impacts to scenic resources. However, as previously indicated, the proposed Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, provides only a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth anticipated to accommodate the demand for housing in Newport Beach. The provision of such a framework to guide population growth in the City would not directly result in any physical changes to existing scenic resources identified in the City and, therefore, would not substantially affect scenic resources within a designated State scenic highway. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts to other important scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic buildings. As specified in the General Plan Update EIR, all new residential development anticipated to occur pursuant to the adopted long-range plans for City, including residential development associated with the Housing Element Update, would be subject to the adopted Land Use Element and Natural Resources Element policies developed to protect the City's visual resources, including SR -1. These policies would include the preparation of site-specific environmental analysis, which would include evaluations of potential impacts to scenic resources. Therefore, no potential visual/aesthetic impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the implementation of the Housing Element Update of the General Plan. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.1(c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Newport Beach is largely urbanized and the existing aesthetic character, which varies depending on geographic area (e.g., airport environs, Corona Del Mar, West Newport, etc.), has already been established. As previously discussed, the Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. The provision of such a framework to guide future housing development in the City would not result in any physical changes to existing structures. Consequently, adoption of the Housing Element Update would not directly result in the degradation of the existing aesthetic character or visual quality of development in the City. Although future development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update may alter the visual character of an existing site within the City, the future design, construction, and renovation of new residential uses would generally be compatible in scale, design, character, and quality to existing uses because such development and/or redevelopment September 30, 2011 20 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �� wPpRT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update ;r Initial Study/Negative Declaration cqU Fp p��¢ must comply with the City's existing land use development standards and architectural design guidelines and regulations. In addition, all future residential development must be consistent with the relevant goals and policies included in the General Plan. For example, residential neighborhoods must be well-planned and designed, must contribute to the livability and quality of life of residents, respect the natural environmental setting, and sustain the qualities of place that differentiate Newport Beach as a special place in the Southern California region. In addition, future residential projects would be evaluated to ensure compatibility with the existing character of the area. Finally, all new residential development that would occur pursuant to the proposed policies and programs included in the Housing Element Update would be subject to site-specific environmental review, including an analysis of potential impacts to the visual character of a particular area. Therefore, the implementation of the Housing Element Update of the General Plan would not result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.1(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two primary sources of light: light emanating from building interiors that pass through windows and light from exterior sources (i.e., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting and landscape lighting). Depending upon the location of the light source and its proximity to adjacent light sensitive uses, light introduction can be a nuisance, affecting adjacent areas and diminishing the view of the clear night sky. Newport Beach is primarily built -out; therefore, ambient light from urban uses currently exists. However, the GPEIR concluded new development could create new sources of light and glare that could affect day or nighttime views of adjacent sensitive land uses (i.e., undeveloped lands and residential uses adjacent to commercial or industrial areas). Additionally, the GPEIR concluded implementation of GP Policies would reduce impacts resulting from daytime glare, ambient nighttime lighting, and potential spillover from new development to a less -than -significant level.2 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are no proposed changes to land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts associated with light and glare from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future development would either undergo environmental and design review through the discretionary review process or be reviewed on a project -by -project basis for consistency with Newport Beach Zoning Code Outdoor Lighting section with the Zoning Clearance process in order to ensure that the project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare. Future discretionary development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that address the creation of light and glare from new developments. In particular, Policy LU 5.6.2 specifies the use of non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass. Policy LU 5.6.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. In addition, Policies LU 6.1.3 and 6.2.5 allow for the integration of uses to be designed specifically to assure development compatibility by addressing issues such as lighting. Therefore, since future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the adopted zoning district regulations, and subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts from daytime glare, ambient nighttime lighting, and potential spillover from new development would be less than significant. 2 Ibid., Pages 4.1-21 and 22. September 30, 2011 21 Initial Study/Negative Declaration o4aEwP�RT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration u?z Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES a, Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ■ Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), ■ or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ■ forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to ■ non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Impact Analysis 4.2(a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City. Therefore, project implementation would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Significant Impact. The Residential -Agricultural (R -A) District provides areas for single-family residential and light farming land uses. Given that the proposed Land Use Element Update does not anticipate future development of residential beyond that anticipated in the Newport Beach General Plan and September 30, 2011 22 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach o, Housing Element Update _ . Iz Initial Study/Negative Declaration u: P evaluated in the GPEIR within the R -A District. Since there are no agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts present in the City, Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to potential agricultural uses within the R -A District. Furthermore, there are no existing Williamson Act Contracts covering property within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. There is no zoning for forest land in the City. Additionally, the City is primarily a built -out area, and it is anticipated that future residential development permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan consistent with the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. There are no forest lands present in the City. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.2(e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. No farmland, agricultural activity, or forest lands exist within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project would not result in environmental changes that would convert farmland to non- agricultural use or forest land to non -forest use. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY a the sig dished by the Potentially Lm Tban maresr control di�Ct I� tirrt f �t to make �`►eVSignicaut # lrnpa ri1t tlarminaiions. ct impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? September 30, 2011 23 Initial Study/Negative Declaration aEW po'v 4 City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial StudylNegative Declaration u<,z 91(FppN The City of Newport Beach is part of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD's current guidelines and emission thresholds are established in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Air quality assessments estimate emissions of air pollutants associated with short-term construction and long-term operation of a proposed project. Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health -based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for the following six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO); ozone (03); nitrogen oxides (NOx); sulfur oxides (SOx); particulate matter up to 10 microns in diameter (PM10); and lead (Pb). 03 (smog) is formed by a photochemical reaction between NOx and reactive organic compounds (ROCs). Thus, evaluating impacts from NOx and ROCs assesses impacts from 03. The net increase in pollutant emissions determines the impact on regional air quality as a result of a proposed project. The results also allow the local government to determine whether a proposed project would deter the region from achieving the goal of reducing pollutants in accordance with the air quality management plan (AQMP) in order to comply with Federal and State AAQS. Construction Emission Thresholds The following CEQA significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established for the SCAB: • 75 pounds per day (lbs/day) or 2.5 tons per quarter -year of VOCs; • 100 lbs/day or 2.5 tons per quarter of NOx; • 550 lbs/day or 24.75 tons per quarter of CO; • 150 lbs/day or 6.75 tons per quarter of PM10; and • 150 lbs/day or 6.75 tons per quarter of SOx. In the SCAB, project construction -related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds are considered to be a significant impact under the SCAQMD guidelines. Operational Emission Thresholds Project operational emissions that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered to be a significant impact under the SCAQMD guidelines: • 55 lbs/day of VOCs; • 55 lbs/day of NOx; • 550 lbs/day of CO; • 150 lbs/day of PM10; and • 150 lbs/day of SOx. September 30, 2011 24 Initial StudylNegative Declaration t�E W PORT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update i g� Initial Study/Negative Declaration "�trFaaN Localized Thresholds of Significance Localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area. The cleaner the air is in a local area, the greater emissions increment it can afford without causing or contributing to an exceedance of the most stringent ambient air quality standard. If the existing air quality is not yet in compliance with the air quality standards, all areas are subject to generally equivalent LSTs. LSTs apply to projects that are less than five acres in size. Public agencies can use LST methodology and mass rate look -up tables by source receptor area (SRA) to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. LSTs are only applicable to the following criteria pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. For PM10 LSTs were derived based on requirements in SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Impact Analysis 4.3(a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Consistency with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin (2007 Air Quality Management Plan) means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the Federal and State air quality standards. Per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of a project's consistency with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan: Whether the project would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. • Whether the project would exceed the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan's assumptions for 2030 or yearly increments based on the year of project buildout and phasing. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, future development permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan in accordance with the Housing Element Update would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment. Construction activities would generate pollutant emissions, including but not limited to site grading, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle activities. Future development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update would also generate population growth with resultant pollutant emissions from stationary equipment, new vehicular trips, off-site power and natural gas generation, etc. The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin, which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This area has some of the highest concentrations of air pollutants in the nation and has been classified as a nonattainment area for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM10) by the federal government and the State of California. A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it results in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates in the applicable air quality plan. The new Housing Element of the General Plan could introduce new residential development to accommodate anticipated population growth under the RHNA allocation. In particular, implementation of the Housing Element update would provide a framework for the City to meet the 2008-2014 RHNA allocation of 1,784 housing units. Subsequent to the 2006 General Plan Update, the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan September 30, 2011 25 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EW Pp City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration cy ci F o w`'�P (AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Because the City's General Plan was adopted prior to the updated 2007 AQMP, the population projections included within the City's updated General Plan form the basis for the revised AQMP projections. Consequently, because the Housing Element update would not result in increased residential development beyond that already analyzed under the General Plan Update, and would merely accommodate known population growth, the proposed project is considered consistent with the 2007 AQMP. Additionally, new policies in the Housing Element Update encourage new housing development around activity centers, which would reduce vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, help to minimize air quality impacts. Implementation of the Housing Element Update of the General Plan would result in increased housing that is consistent with that analyzed in the 2007 AQMP, as well as result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and would not conflict with the adopted air quality plan. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. Future discretionary development pursuant to the proposed Housing Element Update would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the regulatory requirements established within the adopted zoning for a property in order to verify consistency with the AQMP. Additionally, the proposed Housing Element Update would promote consistency with the AQMP by allowing residential use densities that would be no greater than allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would promote consistency with the AQMP (i.e., use of transit, reduce the number of vehicle trips and miles traveled, and create opportunities to walk and bike to work or shop). In particular, Policy LU 3.3 identifies opportunities for mixed use development with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian -friendly environment. Policy LU 6.14.5 encourages improved pedestrian connections and streetscape amenities, and Policy LU 6.15.9 allows the development of multi -family residential units and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with commercial uses. Policies NR6.1, NR6.2, and NR6.3 would reduce vehicle trips through land use planning through mixed-use development or siting of amenities in proximity to residential or employment areas. Additionally, Policies NR 6.4 and NR 6.5 would promote Transportation Demand Management programs, which encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, and promote mass transit use. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the adopted zoning district regulations for the affected residential land use district, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving consistency with the AQMP would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update would primarily occur primarily as infill and redevelopment. However, construction activities would generate pollutant emissions, including but not limited to site grading, operation of construction equipment, and vehicle activities. Future development permitted that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update would also generate pollutant emissions from stationary equipment, new vehicular trips, off-site power and natural gas generation, etc. As the proposed Housing Element Update encompasses a programmatic project, no emission calculations are necessary in the preparation of this document. Notwithstanding, future development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The GPEIR concluded certain projects implemented under the General Plan could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds, and the total amount of construction under the General Plan could also exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds. This September 30, 2011 26 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration impact would remain significant and unavoidable, despite compliance with General Plan policies.3 The GPEIR concluded air emissions associated with General Plan implementation would also occur as a result of operation of new land uses. Given that the thresholds of significance for these new emissions were developed for individual development projects, the SCAQMD does not recommend calculation of operational emissions for a planning document, such as the General Plan or General Plan Element. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are no proposed changes to land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update involving potential violations of air quality standards were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established within the zoning district regulations in order to determine air emissions and potential violations of air quality standards. Additionally, the Housing Element Update proposes residential use densities within the various land use districts that would be no greater than allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element, thus, would not result in greater air emissions than identified and analyzed in the GPEIR. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would help reduce short- and long-term air pollutant emissions. General Plan Policies NR 6.1 through 6.9 are intended to reduce mobile source emissions, Policies NR 7.1 to 7.4 are intended to reduce air emissions from stationary sources, Policy NR 8.1 is intended to reduce air emissions from construction activities, and Policies LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, LU 6.14.5, and 6.15.9 are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting mixed-use districts, including within residential land use districts. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, would be regulated by the Newport Beach Zoning Code development standards, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts resulting from short- and long-term air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.3(b)_ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. Sensitive receptors are located throughout the City. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing localized significance thresholds for construction and operations impacts, as well as a carbon monoxide hot -spots analyses. 3 Ibid., Page 4.2-14. September 30, 2011 27 Initial Study/Negative Declaration PoRT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9C! FO R� The construction of individual projects could potentially lead to fugitive emissions and other pollutants affecting sensitive land uses. Increased traffic volumes on City streets could also lead to increases in traffic congestion and associated vehicle emissions, which could impact sensitive receptors. However, the GPEIR concluded sensitive receptors within the City would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the potential impacts of General Plan implementation would be less than significant .4 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update involving potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established within the GP and other adopted plans and programs in order to determine pollutant concentrations. More specifically, future development may be required to prepare an air quality analysis that evaluates the air emission impacts during construction. The SCAQMD requires a quantified assessment of a CO hot -spot when a project increases the volumes to capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (two percent) for any intersection with an existing level of service (LOS) D or worse. The project specific air quality analysis would provide mitigation measures to off -set impacts associated with that development. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, no potential impacts involving the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.3(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Odors are one of the most obvious forms of air pollution to the general public. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be a nuisance to the general public. Most people determine an odor to be offensive (objectionable) if it is sensed longer than the duration of a human breath, typically two to five seconds. The SCAQMD handbook states that land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Future discretionary development projects would be required to prepare a project specific air quality analysis. An odor assessment would be required as part of the air quality analysis should the proposed development have the potential to create objectionable odors. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. The construction activity from future residential development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. Construction -related odors would be short- term in nature and cease upon project completion. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant.5 Since future development in compliance with the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the General Plan, there are no impacts that were not evaluated within the program EIR. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted by the Ibid., Page 4.2-16. 5 Ibid., Page 4.2-17, September 30, 2011 28 Initial StudylNegative Declaration aEW PO 04e City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update } Initial Study/Negative Declaration CI FO RN Housing Element Update involving the creation of objectionable odors were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified and evaluated in that document. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, potential impacts involving the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES i q y� q €.ffi d, {A{! Rk 1 ..m ,p R;0-0-". a. Z •an ... a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or ■ regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ■ policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but ■ not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interni tion, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native ■ resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ■ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved ■ local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? Impact Analysis 4,4(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive habitat within the City consists of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Riparian Habitat, and Native Grasslands. According to the California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB) search conducted for the GPEIR, the City has the potential for 78 special status wildlife species and 33 plant species. However, not all of these species are found within the City due to the lack of suitable habitat. Since future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Moreover, implementation of the Housing September 30, 2011 29 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Element Update would not directly remove sensitive vegetation communities or species, because the Housing Element does not infer direct development rights. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development permitted by the Housing Element Update, the potential exists for adverse impacts to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status. Additionally, future development may result in the removal of mature trees that provide perching or nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors and may result in a "take" of one of the special status species. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in less than significant impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species.6 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than those previously identified and evaluated in that document. Future discretionary residential development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development requirements established within the Newport Beach Zoning Code and other long-range plans and programs in order to determine potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species. As prescribed in the GPEIR, future residential development may be required to comply with the NCCP/HCP, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and the California Endangered Species Act. Additionally, future development would also be required to comply with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on candidate, sensitive, and special status species. Namely, implementation of Policies NR10.1 to 10.13 provide protection to sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources from urban development (Policy NR 10.4 requires a site-specific survey and analysis), Policies NR 11.1 to 11.3 require protection of eelgrass meadows, and Policies 12.1 to 12.3 require protection of coastal dune habitats. Given that future development would undergo project -by - project review (a site-specific survey and analysis may be required), and be subject to compliance with Federal/State and General Plan policies, impacts to candidate, sensitive, and special status species would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Riparian habitat is known to occur throughout the City. Since future residential development permitted in accordance with the Housing Element Update would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat. Moreover, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly remove riparian or other sensitive habitats, because, as previously discussed, the Housing Element Update does not infer direct development rights. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future residential development permitted by the General Plan Update, the potential exists for adverse impacts to riparian habitats. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies would mitigate the potentially significant adverse impacts occurring to these resources, resulting in less than significant impacts to riparian habitats.' The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the 6 Ibid., Page 4.2-23. Ibid., Page 4.2-25. September 30, 2011 30 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ���`wPORT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration qta �o p.N GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to riparian habitats from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established in the long-range plans and programs adopted by the City of Newport Beach in order to determine potential impacts to riparian habitats. Future development would be subject to compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, which regulate the alteration of riparian vegetation. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on riparian habitats. Namely, Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.7 would require reduction or avoidance of impacts to riparian areas by ensuring cooperation with resource protection agencies, organizations, and conservation plans, and limiting or placing constraints on future development within identified ESAs or areas containing significant or rare biological resources. In addition, Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would require protection of existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs located within the Planning Area. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future General Plan development within a delineated wetland area. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review and be subject to compliance with Federal/State and General Plan policies, no impacts are anticipated to occur to riparian habitats as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. According to the GPEIR, wetlands are known to occur throughout the City. Since future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would occur primarily as infill and redevelopment, Project implementation is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on wetlands. Moreover, implementation of the Housing Element Update would not directly remove wetlands, because it does not infer direct development rights. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in no impacts to wetlands. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to wetlands from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were considered in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary residential development pursuant to the Housing Element Update would be required to undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City and regulatory and/or resource agencies in order to determine potential impacts to wetlands. Future development would be subject to compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that a permit be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) prior to discharge or dredged or fill material into any "waters of the United States" and/or California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) prior to similar activities into any "waters of the State." Should development occur within wetland areas, Federal and State regulations would be implemented to protect resources from development through the ACOE and/or CDFG permitting process. Additionally, future development would e Ibid., Page 4.2-27. September 30, 2011 31 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EVyPO k� R� City of Newport Beach . A Housing Element Update Q7, _ Initial Study/Negative Declaration qU FO RN be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would reduce potential impacts on wetlands. Namely, Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 to NR 14.4 would serve to maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 to NR 15.3 would serve to ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review and would be subject to compliance with Federal/State laws and regulations, including the "no net wetland loss" policy currently in place, as well as General Plan policies, project implementation would not result in potentially significant impacts to wetlands. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future residential development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded new urban uses within the City's developed areas would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors, and impacts on these areas would be less than significant.9 Development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and analyzed in the GPEIR analysis, since additional residential development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to migratory wildlife species or corridors from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City of Newport Beach in its adopted long- range plans and programs as well as by regulatory/resource agencies in order to ensure that migratory wildlife species or corridors are not adversely impacted. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would serve to protect migratory wildlife species or corridors. In particular, Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.2 would serve to ensure that all future development cooperates with the regulatory framework and complies with NCCP policies. Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would serve to protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require a site-specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would serve to prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats (movement corridors for coastal wildlife species). Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect, maintain, and enhance the Planning Area's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to migratory wildlife species or corridors would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 9 Ibid., Page 4.3-28. September 30, 2011 32 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Less Than Significant Impact. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to preservation of biological resources. Specific local regulations consist of Council Policy G-1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NEMC) Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl. Future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.3, which would serve to ensure that all future development cooperates with the regulatory framework and complies with NCCP policies, as well as all policies specified in GPEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which are intended to protect biological resources. That analysis concluded that potential impacts to such resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and the associated Implementation Agreement cover 13 cities, including Newport Beach. Therefore, the City is within jurisdiction of the NCCP/HCP. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species, multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in no impacts involving the NCCP/HCP.10 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential conflicts with the NCCP/HCP from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were considered in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City in adopted long-range plans and programs as well as by regulatory/resource agencies in order to determine potential conflicts with the NCCP/HCP. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure consistency with the NCCP/HCP. Namely, Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, conflicts with the NCCP/HCP would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 10 Ibid., Page 4.2-29. September 30, 2011 33 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update yn Initial Study/Negative Declaration 4�/KO RH Less Than Significant Impact. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and local policies and regulations related to preservation of biological resources. Specific local regulations consist of Council Policy G-1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NEMC) Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl. Future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies NR 10.1 and NR 10.3, which would serve to ensure that all future development cooperates with the regulatory framework and complies with NCCP policies, as well as all policies specified in GPEIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which are intended to protect biological resources. That analysis concluded that potential impacts to such resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.4(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) and the associated Implementation Agreement cover 13 cities, including Newport Beach. Therefore, the City is within jurisdiction of the NCCP/HCP. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species, multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would result in no impacts involving the NCCP/HCP.10 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential conflicts with the NCCP/HCP from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were considered in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City in adopted long-range plans and programs as well as by regulatory/resource agencies in order to determine potential conflicts with the NCCP/HCP. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure consistency with the NCCP/HCP. Namely, Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply with the policies contained within the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with state and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the Planning Area's biological resources. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, conflicts with the NCCP/HCP would not occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 10 Ibid., Page 4.2-29. September 30, 2011 33 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update �! y Initial Study/Negative Declaration �I?n q<1 FO RN 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines 15064:5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an M archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ■ formal cemeteries? Impact Analysis 4.5(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.4-1, Historic Resources, illustrates the locations of the 11 properties within the City that have been listed or designated eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR, or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Therefore, future development and/or redevelopment could cause a potentially substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded redevelopment of a site could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures, and infrastructure or other public works improvements could result in damage to or demolition of other historic features. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, despite compliance with General Plan policies." The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to historic resources from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City of Newport Beach in order to ensure that historic resources are not adversely impacted. Future development would be subject to Federal, State, and local regulations, and institutions in place to protect the City's historical resources. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would protect the City's historic resources. In particular, Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 are intended to provide protection of historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures by requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the " Ibid., Page 4.4-15, September 30, 2011 34 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EW Pp �? {?? City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update ;n Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9C/Fp F�\ incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. Specifically, Policy HR 1.2 focuses on preserving structures listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the List of California Historic Landmarks, and the Newport Beach Register of Historic Property by offering incentives. In addition to encouraging the placement of historical landmarks, photographs, markers, and plaques at areas of historical interest or value, Policy HR 1.3 would serve to create a Landmark Plan to recognize and designate culturally important heritage sites that are eligible for the placement of historical landmarks or plaques. Policy HR 1.4 encourages alternatives to demolition of historical sites through providing incentives. If preservation or adaptive reuse is not possible, Policy HR 1.5 requires that a project incorporate a physical link to the past within the site or structural design. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the Federal/State regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to historic resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact_ According to the GPEIR, Newport Beach has had a long cultural history and has been home to Native American groups, since before Euro -American settlement. Due to the historic nature of Newport Beach, archaeological materials have been found during ground -disturbing activities, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed. Moreover, archaeological resources may be present under existing buildings. According to the GPEIR, several locations within the City have known significant paleontological resources. These areas include areas underlain by the Vaqueros formation, such as the Newport Coast and the Newport Banning Ranch area, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area. Therefore, any ground -disturbing activities in these areas could potentially result in damage to or destruction of fossils in the formations. Project implementation is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological/paleontological resource. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Since, the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted in accordance with the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Future development sites have already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain artificial fill materials. As such, any archaeological/paleontological resources, which may have existed on the development sites, have likely been disturbed. Notwithstanding, due to the conceptual nature of the future development and the known existence of archaeological/paleontological resources in the area, future development permitted by the Housing Element Update could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological/paleontological resource. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would ensure impacts to archaeological and Native American cultural resources, and paleontological resources would be less than significant, by requiring the scientific recovery and evaluation of any resources that could be encountered during construction of future development. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to archaeological/paleontological resources from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. 12 Ibid., Pages 4.4-16 and 4.4-17. September 30, 2011 35 Initial StudylNegative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the permit requirements established by the City of Newport Beach in order to ensure that archaeological resources are not adversely impacted. Future development would be subject to compliance with "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" and "Paleontological Guidelines (K-4)," established by the Newport Beach City Council, in order to ensure the preservation of significant archeological/paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated with CEQA. Moreover, future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would protect the City's archaeological/paleontological resources. In particular, Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 serve to ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources; grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; cultural organizations are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. Policy HR 2.2 would serve to ensure that sources of information regarding paleontological and archeological sites and the names and addresses of responsible organizations and qualified individuals, who can analyze, classify, record, and preserve paleontological or archeological findings would continue to be maintained. A qualified paleontologist/archeologist would be required to monitor all grading/ excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the City's Archaeological Guidelines, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.5(b), Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.5(d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. Human burials have been found throughout the City. The burials outside of a formal cemetery have been found in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Project implementation is not anticipated to disturb any human remains. Since, the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. Future development sites have already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain artificial fill materials. Due to the level of past disturbance on the development sites, it is not anticipated that human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded compliance with existing Federal, State, and local policies would ensure that the General Plan's impact on human burial grounds would be reduced to a less than significant level by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, as required by law.13 Notwithstanding, ground -disturbing activities, such as grading or excavation, have the potential to disturb as yet unidentified human remains. If human remains were found, those remains would require proper treatment, in accordance with applicable laws. State of California Public Resources Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5-7055 describe the general provisions for human remains. Specifically, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 describes the requirements if any human remains are accidentally discovered during excavation of a site. As required by State law, the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources 13 Ibid., Page 4.4 -18 - September 30, 2011 36 Initial Study/Negative Declaration poR� City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 'r Initial Study/Negative Declaration C P 9�I FO Ftta� Code would be implemented, including notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, and consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overly adjacent remains until the County coroner has been called out, and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following compliance with State regulations, which detail the appropriate actions necessary in the event human remains are encountered, potential impacts would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ■ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2) Strong seismic ground shaking? ■ 3) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? ■ 4) Landslides? ■ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ■ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ■ on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or ■ property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers ■ are not available for the disposal of waste water? Impact Analysis 4.6(a)(1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent A/quist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as "Earthquake Fault Zones," around the surface traces of September 30, 2011 37 Initial Study/Negative Declaration .�EW�Rr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration S <1 Fp R� active faults and to issue appropriate maps. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within these zones. The City of Newport Beach does not have any State -designated Earthquake Fault Zones. 14 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 4.6(a)(2) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The City is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province. This is an area that is exposed to multiple fault zones, such as the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian park Fault zone. The City would also be subject to movement caused by the San Andreas Fault. Each of these zones has potential to cause ground shaking within the City. Due to the presence of several significant faults, the City is anticipated to experience strong seismic ground shaking. According to the City's General Plan, the City has a probability for ground motion values 43 to 50 percent the force of gravity once every 50 years. This is considered to be in the high to very high range for southern California. The intensity of ground shaking would depend upon the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the epicenter, and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the City. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. The future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could expose future residents and/or structures to adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. The possibility of moderate to high ground acceleration or shaking in the City may be considered as approximately similar to the Southern California region, as a whole. The GPEIR concluded compliance with applicable regulations and the General Plan policies would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level.15 As such, the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City in the State of California in order to ensure that the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking is minimized. Numerous controls would be imposed on future residential development through the permitting process. In general, the City regulates development (and reduces potential seismic hazards) under the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), which was adopted by the City and known as the Newport Beach Building Code (NBMC Section 15.04.010, Adoption of the California Building Code), the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, local land use policies, and zoning, and project specific mitigation measures. The effects of ground shaking would be sufficiently mitigated for structures designed and constructed in conformance with current building codes and engineering standards. Moreover, future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would serve to ensure geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Namely, Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 serve to ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by 14 California Department of Conservation official website, http://www_conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed May 18, 2010. 15 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.5-14. September 30, 2011 38 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of people/structures to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(a)(3) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction can occur in loose soils in response to severe ground shaking. Liquefaction susceptibility is based on both geologic and geotechnical data. According to the GPEIR, the City is susceptible to liquefaction and ground failure in the coastline areas, including Balboa Peninsula, Newport Bay, Upper Newport, the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. The majority of the City's mapped liquefiable area has been built upon. Earthquake -induced landslides of steep slopes occur in either bedrock or soils and can result in undermining of buildings, severe foundation damage and collapse. Hillside areas could pose a potential hazard from earthquake -induced landslides. The central and eastern areas of the City have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future development permitted pursuant to the Housing Element Update could expose people or structures to adverse effects involving seismic -related liquefaction and/or landslides. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulations, as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.'6 As such, the exposure of people/structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic - related liquefaction or landslides from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City and other regulatory agencies in order to ensure that the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic -related liquefaction and landslides is minimized. Numerous controls would be imposed on future development through the permitting process implemented by the City of Newport Beach. In general, the City regulates development (and reduces potential seismic hazards) under the requirements of the CBC, local land use policies, and zoning, and project specific mitigation measures. Compliance with the CBC standards would require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate these hazards. Site-specific geotechnical studies would be required prior to development, in order to determine the soil properties and specific potential for liquefaction. Additionally, development proposed on steep terrain would require site-specific slope stability design, in order to ensure adherence to the standards contained in City Building Code Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading. The effects of liquefaction and landslides would be sufficiently mitigated for structures designed and constructed in conformance with current CBC and engineering standards. Additionally, the proposed Newport Beach Zoning Code includes provisions that would avoid or minimize impacts of the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic -related landslides. More specifically, the Bluff Overlay District requires the implementation of specific General Plan policies that require limiting development to ensure safety. The Fences, Hedges, Walls and Retaining Walls section limits the height of retaining walls and require that they be terraced to help minimize alteration of slopes. Moreover, future development would also be required to comply with General Plan policies that would result in minimizing the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving seismic -related liquefaction and landslides. Specifically, Policies S 4.1 's Ibid., Page 4.5-15. September 30, 2011 39 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9 L! FO RN through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the CBC and Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), and be subject to compliance with all relevant General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of future residents/structures to seismic -related liquefaction and landslide would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(a)(4) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.6(x)(3), Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated previously, most of the City is built -out; therefore, topsoil erosion is not a significant issue in the areas where topsoil is not exposed. However, soil erosion is a concern along the shoreline and for undeveloped areas within the City. Clearing, grading, and excavation associated with future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could expose soils to minimal short-term erosion by wind and water, and loss of topsoil. Specific erosion impacts would depend largely on the areas affected and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable regulations, as well as General Plan policies, would ensure that impacts would be less than significant." As such, soil erosion impacts from future development permitted under the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards prescribed in the NBMC, Newport Beach General Plan and/or other related long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that substantial soil erosion would not occur. Compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, would be required. Chapter 15.10 sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, drainage conditions, erosion control, earthwork construction, and the use of earth materials as a structural component; and provides for the approval of plans and inspection of grading construction and drainage control. Additionally, the Newport Beach Zoning Code includes provisions intended to minimize soil erosion. In particular, the Landscaping Standards chapter of the Zoning Code provides landscape standards to control soil erosion. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be subject to compliance with the CBC, as follows: • CBC Chester 70. Standards that would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. • CBC Chapter 33. Regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations. • CBC Appendix Chapter 33. Regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. 17 Ibid., Page 4.5-16. September 30, 2011 40 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �E W Pp�T City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update u Initial Study/Negative Declaration ._ CgC1 F()RH`P Project sites encompassing an area of one or more acres would require compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and consequently the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)- refer to Response 4.9(a) below. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would ensure that new development would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. More specifically, Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or Federal laws, ensuring maximum practicable protection available for soils excavated during the construction and building associated with infrastructure. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the CBC, NBMC, and NPDES, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving soil erosion would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. The majority of the City is underlain by compressible soils. Other soils in the City are low-density and/or manmade. The low-density soils are susceptible to liquefaction if sandy in nature and saturated in water. Manmade fill areas can be expansive depending on the type of fill used. The City is also underlain by geologic units, both surficial soils and bedrock that have fine-grained components that are moderate to highly expansive. Fine-grained soils are susceptible to expansion due to the clay components. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future discretionary development permitted by the Housing Element Update could be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil, resulting in collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with Code requirements and General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.'$ As such, the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic units/soils from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the requirements established within the City's Zoning Code, CBC, and other regulatory requirements adopted by the City of Newport Beach in order to ensure that the exposure of future residents/structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic units is minimized. An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or compressible material through compliance with the CBC requirements. Also, a site-specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the City Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction design. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize the exposure of people/structures to potential adverse effects involving unstable geologic units/soils. Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards- More specifically, compliance with Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would serve to ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the 18 Ibid., Page 4.5-17. September 30, 2011 41 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW �aRr City of Newport Beach }< < Housing Element Update U U Initial Study/Negative Declaration � �z q�iFaa� CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the exposure of people/structures to unstable geologic units/soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-8 of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles that give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The City is underlain by materials that have a low to moderate expansion potential. The variation in expansion potential depends on the geologic or soil type present. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future development permitted pursuant to the proposed Housing Element Update could be located on expansive soils, creating substantial risk to life/property. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with Code requirements and General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would be less than significant.19 As such, the creation of substantial risk to life/property involving expansive soils from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards prescribed in the NBMC, Newport Beach General Plan and/or other related long-range plans and programs, including the requirements of the CBC and NBMC in order to ensure that risk to life/property from expansive soils is minimized. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions. The design of foundation support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in CBC Chapter 15. Moreover, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies S4.4 and S4.6, which would serve to ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the CBC and NBMC, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the creation of substantial risk to life/property from expansive soils would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.6(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. Any future residential development would connect to the City's existing waste disposal system. Therefore, future projects would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 19 Ibid., Page 4.5-18. September 30, 2011 42 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �W Ppm k� — City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update U, r Initial Study/Negative Declaration q'�/ FORN 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact Analysis 4.7(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases in the atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through the following three -fold process: short wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation and emit this long wave radiation into space and toward the Earth. This "trapping" of the long wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. The main GHGs in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CI -14), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (03), hydrofluorocarbons (HCFs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SFs). Direct GHG emissions include emissions from construction activities, area sources, and mobile (vehicle) sources. Typically, mobile sources make up the majority of direct emissions. Indirect GHG emissions are generated by incremental electricity consumption and waste generation. Electricity consumption is responsible for the majority of indirect emissions. Regulatory Environment In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: • GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; • GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and • GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California further solidified its dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels sold within the State in 2007 with Executive Order S-1-07. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2 equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California's CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State. Additionally, the California legislature enacted AB 32 (AB 32, Nunez) in 2006 to further the goals of Executive Order S-3-05. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries, with penalties for noncompliance. September 30, 2011 43 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ��W SRT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 13 5 ;�S Initial Study/Negative Declaration qi/ pp (iN CARB adopted the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in December 2008 to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California pursuant to the requirements of AB 32. The Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG emissions. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions by approximately 28 to 33 percent below business as usual. CARB has identified reduction measures to achieve this goal as set forth in the Scoping Plan. Per the Attorney General's Office, their recommended General Plan measures will reduce GHG emissions and the effects of climate change .20 Additionally, the Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger at the Legislature (CAT Report) provides "overarching recommendations considered essential by the (Climate Action Team) in meeting the statewide climate change emissions reduction targets" and "lays out a path forward to ensure that California's climate change emission reduction targets are met." The CAT Report identifies strategies designed to reduce California's GHG emissions and meet AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 goals. Therefore, compliance with all applicable CAT Report strategies and Attorney General's General Plan recommendations would ensure the proposed Project would help achieve the AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 goals to reduce GHG emissions for California. Construction Emissions CEQA does not require an agency to evaluate an impact that is "too speculative", provided that the agency identifies the impact, engages in a "thorough investigation" but is "unable to resolve an issue", and then discloses its conclusion that the impact is too speculative for evaluation. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, Office of Planning and Research Commentary). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15146(b): An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Construction of future residential development permitted under the proposed Housing Element Update would result in GHG emissions from the use of construction equipment. However, details of these future construction activities are unknown at this time, and therefore, cannot be quantified. Nonetheless, compliance with General Plan Policy NR 8.1 would serve to reduce air emissions from construction activities. Therefore, compliance with GP Policies and standard SCAQMD regulations would reduce construction -related GHG emissions associated with future development to a level below "business as usual." Operational Impacts Area sources include emissions from natural gas combustion, hearth (wood stove/fireplaces), landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Indirect sources include emissions from energy consumption and water conveyance. Mobile sources include emission from passenger vehicles and delivery trucks. Typically, mobile sources are the primary contributor of GHG emissions. However, consistent with the General Plan, the proposed Housing Element Update would discourage sprawl, promote mixed use development, and encourage public transportation. General Plan Policies NR 6.1 to 6.9, LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, 6.14.5, and 6.15.9, CE 5.1.1 to 5.1.16, and 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 are intended to reduce vehicle miles traveled and mobile source emissions by promoting mixed use development and encouraging alternative transportation modes (i.e., public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle). Also, General Plan Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5 address water conservation, and Policies NR 24.1 to 24.5 20 California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. September 30, 2011 44 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �EWa°R� City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Q Initial Study/Negative Declaration OF '2 9C/FO RN address energy efficiency and conservation. Additionally, the Housing Element Update does not propose to increase residential use densities within the various residential land use designations that would be greater than those allowed by the General Plan Land Use Element. Therefore, compliance with relevant General Plan policies and programs would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development allowed under the Housing Element to below "business as usual" levels. Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations The California Office of the Attorney General has established recommended measures for projects to mitigate GHG emissions at the plan level.' A list of the Attorney General's recommended measures and the project's compliance with each measure are listed in Table 4.7-1, Project Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations. As noted above, consistency of the Housing Element Update with GP Policies and existing regulations would reduce GHG emissions associated with future development permitted by the Housing Element Update to a level below "business as usual." General Plan Policies establish smart growth principles, which would allow for mixed-use development, and would serve to reduce mobile source GHG emissions by encouraging alternative transportation modes that would result in a decrease in auto dependency and vehicle miles traveled. GP Policies would also serve to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update through energy and water efficiency and conservation measures. The Housing Element Update would result in GHG emissions below "business as usual" levels. Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would not generate GHG emissions that would substantially impact the environment, and the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 would not be hindered. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4.7(b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach does not have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As stated in Response 4.7(a), the General Plan Natural Resources, Land Use, and Circulation Elements include goals and policies addressing smart land use decisions, the reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and energy efficiency and conservation. Although the City does not have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, the sustainable development goals and policies established within the GP would result in GHG emissions below "business as usual" levels. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. Table 4.7-1 Project Compliance with the Attorney General's Recommendations Attorney General's Recommended Measures Compliance 07 Smart growth, jobs/housing balance, transit -oriented Compliant. The proposed Housing Element Update development, and infill development through land use would be consistent with GP Policies LU 5.3.1 to 5.3.3, designations, incentives and fees, zoning, and public- 6.14.5, and 6.15.9, which address smart growth and private partnerships. mixed use developments. Create transit, bicycle, and pedestrian connections Compliant. The GP Land Use Policies referenced through planning, funding, development requirements, above would serve to create opportunities for pedestrian incentives and regional cooperation; create disincentives friendly developments that would result in a decrease in for auto use. auto dependency. Also, Policies CE 5.1.1 to 5.1.16 and 6.2.1 to 6.2.3 would encourage alternative modes of Z' [bid. September 30, 2011 45 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach m Housing Element Update lx Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9C/Fp SLN Attorney General's Recommended Measures Compliance transportation on the local and regional scale including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, which would reduce vehicle miles traveled. Energy- and water -efficient buildings and landscaping Compliant. The Housing Element Update would be through ordinances, development fees, incentives, consistent with GP Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5, which address project timing prioritization, and other implementing tools. energy and water conservation and efficient design features. Compliance with Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5 would result in reduced GHG emissions. Waste diversion, recycling, water efficiency, energy Compliant. Although the General Plan does not include efficiency and energy recovery in cooperation with public Policies regarding solid waste, the City maintains a 52 services districts and private entities. percent diversion rate from Orange County landfills. The City has one composting facility, five recycling programs, and six programs specializing in source reduction. Additionally, the General Plan states that the City recycles over 25 percent of its residential waste stream, as well as 100 percent of the concrete, asphalt, and green and brown wastes generated by City operations. Urban and rural forestry through tree planting Compliant. The Housing Element would be consistent requirements and programs; preservation of agricultural with Municipal Code Sections 13.08, Planting, and 13.09, land and resources that sequester carbon; heat island Parkway Trees, which include standards for tree reduction programs. planting, preservation, removal, and relocation. Also, the City's Street Trees Division is responsible for the maintenance and care of City trees, and the enforcement of the City's Tree Codes and Policies. Regional cooperation to find cross -regional efficiencies in Compliant. Refer to responses above. GHG reduction investments and to plan for regional transit, energy generation, and waste recovery facilities. Source: California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans: Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous ■ materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ■ involvinq the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile ■ of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such ■ September 30, 2011 46 Initial Study/Negative Declaration k� WP��� City of Newport Beach ``�� Housing Element Update fs Initial Study/Negative Declaration `\ J .4aa a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in ■ the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are M adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Analysis 4.8(a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. Secondary activities that would occur with residential, uses (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) may involve the use of hazardous materials. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could require or engage in operations that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, particularly during the construction phases of such future development, potentially creating a significant hazard to the public and/or environment. In addition, the use of household hazardous materials during the occupancy/life of such future residential development could also result in some potential impact in the event of accidents that may occur. However, the GPEIR concluded oversight by the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances, resulting in less than significant impacts.22 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City and other regulatory agencies having oversight (e.g., Orange County Health Care Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Environmental Protection Agency, etc.) in order to minimize risks involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with residential development, including during construction. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to acceptable levels. All future residential development within the City would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the Federal, State, and local agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Specifically, future development within the City would be subject to compliance with the environmental programs administered by the 22 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.6-19. September 30, 2011 47 Initial Study/Negative Declaration POr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update t �A, z Initial Study/Negative Declaration Orange County Health Care Agency or the Orange County Fire Authority. Compliance with these programs would assist in mitigating a release or threatened release of a hazardous material and minimize any potential harm or damage to human health or the environment. Compliance with the City's Emergency Operations Plan would also be required. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Namely, Policy S 7.3 would serve to educate residents and businesses about how to reduce or eliminate their use of hazardous materials. Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, County, State and Federal agencies in the event of a violation. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Human exposure to hazardous substance could occur through accidental release. Incidents that result in an accidental release of hazardous substance into the environment can cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, the hazardous substances can migrate into the soil or enter a local stream or channel causing contamination of soil and water. Human exposure of contaminated soil or water can have potential health effects on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure. Short -Term Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Short-term construction related activities associated with future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could result in the release hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, particularly during grading and construction. Hazardous material issues may exist on former commercial and/or industrial sites and old buildings where soil contamination, asbestos, and/or lead-based paint may exist. Demolition. Existing structures may need to be demolished prior to construction of new buildings. Demolition of structures could expose construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paints (LBP), depending on the age of the structure. Further, the potential exists that construction activities may release potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g., mold, lead, etc.). Federal and State regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where ACMs and LBPs are present. All demolition that could result in the release of ACMs or LBPs must be conducted according to Federal and State standards. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) mandates that building owners conduct an asbestos survey to determine the presence of ACMs prior to the commencement of any remedial work, including demolition. If ACM material is found, abatement of asbestos would be required prior to any demolition activities. Compliance with the recommended mitigation regarding the requirement for an asbestos survey and asbestos abatement, as well as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Soil and Groundwater Contamination in Unknown Contaminated Sites. Grading and excavation for future residential development could expose construction workers and the public to unidentified hazardous substances present in the soil or groundwater. Exposure to contaminants could occur if the contaminants September 30, 2011 48 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EW Pp City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update '=r Initial Study/Negative Declaration n c"�Cr- NSP FpR migrated to surrounding areas or if contaminated zones were disturbed at the contaminated location. Exposure to hazardous substances is considered potentially significant. Additionally, the potential exists for unidentified underground storage tanks (USTs) to be present on a development site. Removal activities could pose risks to workers and the public. Potential risks would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing Orange County Health Care Agency's standards. Potential impacts to groundwater would be dependant on the type of contaminant, the amount released, and depth to groundwater at the time of the release. Long -Term Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials Long-term operations of future residential development permitted pursuant to the Housing Element Update could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The specific potential future increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported within and through the City, as a result of future development cannot be predicted, since specific development projects are not identified. Although most typical of commercial and industrial project, incidents involving hazards and/or hazardous materials that could result in accidental release of hazardous materials that could affect residential development involve: • Leaking underground storage tanks; • Spills during transport; Inappropriate storage; Inappropriate use; and/or Natural disasters. If not cleaned up immediately and completely, these and other types of incidents could cause contamination of soil, surface water, and groundwater, in addition to any toxic fumes that might be generated. Depending on the nature and extent of the contamination, groundwater supplies could become unsuitable for use as a domestic water source. Human exposure to contaminated soil or water could have potential health effects depending on a variety of factors, including the nature of the contaminant and the degree of exposure_ Leaking Storage Tanks. Chemicals and wastes stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks would follow guidelines mandated by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Compliance with the Underground Storage Tank Inspection Program would ensure that hazardous materials stored in underground tanks are not released into the groundwater and/or the environment, and compliance with the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank (APST) Program would protect people and natural resources from aboveground petroleum storage tank spills or releases. Off -Site Transport. Transportation of hazardous materials during the construction phase of any future residential development can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. The potential exists for licensed vendors to transport hazardous materials to and from the City's new commercial sites. Accidental releases would most likely occur in the commercial areas/industrial areas and along transport routes leading to and from these areas. The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. Storage and Use/Handling. Hazardous materials must be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. California Building Code (CBC) requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that present a moderate explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws related to the storage of hazardous materials would be required to maximize containment and provide for prompt and effective clean-up, if an accidental release occurs. September 30, 2011 49 Initial Study/Negative Declaration @ ��W PORE o City of Newport Beach } Housing Element Update u1_ ix Initial Study/Negative Declaration 94 Fo a` Hazardous materials use/handling would present a slightly greater risk of accident than hazardous materials storage. However, for those employees who would work with hazardous materials, the amount of hazardous materials that are handled at any one time are generally relatively small, reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling. The GPEIR concluded compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies, and implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements, would ensure that construction workers and the general public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks related to hazardous materials during construction activities, and reduce the risk of upset involving routine hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling. Impacts were concluded as less than significant.23 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased den sities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts associated with the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update were anticipated and evaluated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements prescribed by the City and/or regulatory agencies having oversight of the project in order to minimize risks due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. While the risk of exposure to hazardous materials cannot be eliminated, measures can be implemented to maintain risk to acceptable levels. Oversight by the appropriate agencies and compliance with measures established by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies is considered adequate to offset the negative effects related to the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials in the City. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving hazardous materials; refer to Response 4.8(a). Given that future development would undergo project -by - project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts due to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. There are schools located throughout the City of Newport Beach. As discussed in Response 4.7.a, construction and operations of various uses permitted by the Housing Element Update could involve the routine use of hazardous materials, either during construction or for long- term maintenance of residential properties in the form of household hazardous materials. Hazardous materials could be used during construction of future residential development within the City, including the use of standard construction materials, cleaning and other maintenance products, and diesel and other fuels. The secondary activities that would occur with residential uses (e.g., building and landscape maintenance) would also involve the use of hazardous materials. Therefore, the possibility exists that future construction or routine operations associated with future residential development occurring in the City of Newport Beach could involve transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of an existing school. 23 ibid., Page 4.6-22 and 23. September 30, 2011 50 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW Pp�T City of Newport Beach °' l� Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cq�F'O w�`P The GPEIR concluded compliance with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and implementation of General Plan policies would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors (i.e., schools) to hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.24 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted pursuant to the Housing Element Update associated with hazardous emissions or hazardous materials in proximity to a school were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would not result in impacts greater than previously identified and evaluated in that document. Future discretionary residential development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City of Newport Beach and regulatory agencies with oversight, which could require the implementation of measures prescribed by Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies in order to adequately to offset the negative effects associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors (i.e., schools) to hazardous materials. Future residential development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize potential impacts involving hazardous materials; refer to Responses 4.8(a) and 4.8(b). Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving hazardous emissions or hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. According to GPEIR Section 4.6, there are various hazardous material sites located within the City. Most of these sites are existing and former industrial properties or sites that have supported some use that resulted in soils and/or groundwater contamination (e.g., gas stations, research and development, etc.). Potential hazards to construction workers and the public may occur from construction activities on existing sites that may be contaminated; refer to Response 4.8(b). Future development of any of these documented hazardous materials sites would require prior remediation and cleanup under the supervision of the DTSC, in order to meet Federal, State, and local standards. Since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include any specific development projects, future development would be evaluated on a project -by -project basis to determine if such sites are listed on a current regulatory hazardous materials site list. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the established regulations and implementation of General Plan policies would minimize the risks associated with development of contaminated site, and impact would be less than significant.25 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts from future development permitted under the Housing Element Update involving contaminated sites were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR and appropriate measures and/or compliance with Federal, State and/or local regulations has 24 Ibid., Page 4.6-26. 25 Ibid., Page 4.6-26. September 30, 2011 51 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �?�WPORr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update z Initial Study/Negative Declaration r' 40, 9��F0F� been identified. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements established by the City of Newport Beach and/or regulatory agencies having oversight in order to minimize risks involving development of a contaminated site. Development of these sites would be required to undergo remediation and cleanup under DTSC, OCHCA, and the SARWQCB before construction activities can begin, Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies. In particular, Policy S 7.1 requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards. Given that future residential development pursuant to the Housing Element Update would undergo project - by -project review, be regulated by the existing regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving residential development on a contaminated site would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport borders the City of Newport Beach. Additionally, the City lies under the arrival traffic pattern for the Long Beach Airport. While aviation accidents with one or more fatalities are rare events, residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update could expose people residing or working in the City to aviation hazards from local airports. The GPEIR concluded compliance with existing regulations and General Plan policies, and utilization of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook for new development within JWA land use boundaries would minimize impacts associated with JWA operations on surrounding land uses, and impacts would be less than significant .26 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to future development involving aviation hazards were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the permit requirements prescribed in the NBMC and related long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that potential impacts involving aviation hazards are minimized. All land uses surrounding JWA would be subject to the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) JWA "Airport Environs Land Use Plan" (AELUP). The AELUP vicinity height guidelines would protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft could fly safely in the airspace around the airport. Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would be utilized in the preparation of environmental documents for all new development located within the AELUP boundaries. The Handbook establishes statewide requirements for the conduct of airport land use compatibility planning, and provides compatibility planning guidance to ALUCs, their staffs and consultants, the counties and cities having jurisdiction over airport area land uses, and airport proprietors. The City's Emergency Management Plan also establishes safety procedures with respect to aviation hazards. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would minimize impacts involving aviation -related hazards. Namely, General Plan Policies S 8.1 though S 8.4 26 /bid., Page 4.6-29. September 30, 2011 52 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ��WRT k , City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update ji Initial Study/Negative Declaration q��Fon� would ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential uses be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with the established regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving aviation -related hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips located within the City of Newport Beach. Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update would not expose people residing or working in the City to aviation hazards from a private airstrip. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.8(g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could increase traffic volumes and may impede the rate of evacuation, in the event of an accident or natural disaster. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less than significant level .27 Residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update was considered and adequately evaluated in the GPEIR analysis because additional residential development in accordance to the Land Use Element was anticipated. The proposed Housing Element Update does not include changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to future development associated with emergency response and evacuation were anticipated and adequately evaluated in the GP/GPEIR. As a result, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update is consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would not result in greater impacts than previously identified. Furthermore, future discretionary residential development would also be subject to environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards and related requirements prescribed in the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance and other applicable long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that potential impacts involving aviation hazards are minimized. Additionally, the City would continue to implement its Emergency Management Plan (EMP), which guides the City's response to extraordinary emergency situations. Moreover, General Plan Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 would serve to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Given that future residential development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to the City's EMP and General Plan policies, impacts involving emergency response and evacuation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 27 Ibid., Page 4.6-29, September 30, 2011 53 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �,E�wP°RT City of Newport Beach 0 i Q �, ➢ Housing Element Update ut 'x Initial Study/Negative Declaration '9Ci FO RN 4.8(h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact. Areas susceptible to wildland fires are located in the eastern portions of the City, as well as surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast. As identified and described in the GPEIR, future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could increase residential development in areas susceptible to wildland fires, exposing people or structures to a significant risk. The GPEIR concluded compliance with the General Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with the exposure of people and structures to risk involving wildland fires to a less than significant leve 1.2" The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development proposed in accordance with the Housing Element Update was previously considered and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Since additional residential development was assumed and there are no changes to residential land use designations in the proposed Housing Element Update that would result in increased densities that were not included in the GP, potential impacts to future development associated with the exposure to wildland fires were anticipated and adequately addressed in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. As required by the City, future discretionary residential development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards and related requirements established within the City's Zoning Ordinance and other long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that potential impacts involving the exposure to wildland fires is minimized. In areas susceptible to wildland fires, land development is governed by special State and local codes, and property owners are required to follow maintenance guidelines aimed at reducing the amount and continuity of the fuel (vegetation) available. The City also maintains hazard reduction standards, which regulate landscaping, firewood storage, debris clearing from rooftops, and other fire hazard reduction techniques. Moreover, compliance with General Plan Policies S 6.1 to S 6.9 would serve to reduce the threat of fire hazards within the City. In particular, Policy S 6.2 would implement hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with the General Plan policies, potential impacts involving the exposure of people and structures to risk from wildland fires would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY September 30, 2011 54 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Would the pfgjM, POW., By giant tlVith man t Noi, Mitigation A OW Impact Ift god a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ■ requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be ■ a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 28 Ibid., Page 4.6-30. September 30, 2011 54 Initial Study/Negative Declaration k% W�Rr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration �P q<]FORN groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in ■ a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, ■ or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide ■ substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ■ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance gate Map or ■ other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would ■ impede or redirect flood flows? L Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure ■ of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ■ Impact Analysis 4.9(a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, which include construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The City of Newport Beach is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (SARWQCB)_ Short -Term Construction The SWRCB adopted NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated With Construction Activity (General Construction Permit). Construction sites with 1.0 acre or greater of soil disturbance or less than 1.0 acre, but part of a greater common plan of development, are required to apply for coverage for discharges under the General Construction Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for coverage, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address construction site pollutants. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities. September 30, 2011 55 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ��EWp�RT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 0.1' js Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9C/ FO The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Construction activities from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 14.36, Water Quality, NBMC Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, and NPDES requirements. Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building Permit, and as part of the future residential development's compliance with the NPDES requirements, a NOI would be prepared and submitted to the Santa Ana RWQCB providing notification and intent to comply with the General Construction Permit. Also, a SWPPP would be submitted and approved by the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer for water quality construction activities onsite. A copy of the SWPPP would be made available and implemented at the construction site at all times. The SWPPP is required to outline the source control and/or treatment control BMPs to avoid or mitigate runoff pollutants at the construction site to the "maximum extent practicable." Additionally, through the City's development review process, future projects would be evaluated for potential site-specific water quality impacts from construction activities. Compliance with NBMC Chapters 14.36 and 15.10, and NPDES requirements would reduce short-term construction -related impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Long -Term Operations The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)_ The RWQCBs have adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium and large municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co -permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. The SARWQCB issued the permit governing the public storm drain system discharges in northern Orange County from the storm drain systems owned and operated by the Orange County cities and Orange County (collectively "the Co -permittees"). This permit regulates storm water and urban runoff discharges from development to constructed and natural storm drain systems in the City of Newport Beach. Among other requirements, the NPDES permit specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects, including specific sizing criteria for treatment BMPs_ To implement the requirements of the NPDES permit, the Co -permittees have developed the Orange County Stormwater Program 2003 Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), which includes a New Development/ Significant Redevelopment Program. The New Development/Significant Redevelopment Program provides a framework and a process for following the NPDES permit requirements and incorporates watershed protection/storm water quality management principles into the Co -Permittees' General Plan process, environmental review process, and development permit approval process. Local jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, have adopted a Local Implementation Plan (LIP) based upon the County's DAMP, which includes a Model Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Using the local LIP (City of Newport Beach Stormwater LIP) as a guide, the City would review and approve project - specific WQMPs, as part of the development plan and entitlement approval process for discretionary projects, prior to issuing permits for ministerial projects. More specifically, prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, future development would be required to prepare a WQMP, which includes both Structural and Non - Structural BMPs in order to comply with the requirements of the current DAMP and NPDES. Compliance with NBMC Chapters 14.36 and 15.10, and NPDES requirements would reduce long-term impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. The GPEIR concluded compliance with NPDES requirements, the Orange County DAMP, the NBMC, and General Plan Policies would reduce the risk of water degradation within the City from the operation of new developments to the maximum extent practicable_ Therefore, since violation of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards would be minimized, this impact would be less than significant.29 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing 29 Ibid., Page 4.7-32. September 30, 2011 56 Initial Study/Negative Declaration r PARTCity of Newport Beach ' i,'''`a s Housing Element Update 13.II 1� Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cy`��Foa �r Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards prescribed in the NBMC, General Plan policies and relevant long-term plans and programs in order to ensure that impacts involving violations of waste discharge requirements or water quality standards would be minimized. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies. In particular, Policies NR 3.1 through NR 5.4 would serve to limit the use of landscape chemicals detrimental to water quality, require development to result in no degradation of natural water bodies, require new development applications to include a WOMP to minimize construction and post -construction runoff, implement and improve BMPs, require all street drainage systems to be designed to minimize adverse impacts on water quality, and require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion. Implementation of General Plan Policy NR 3.20 would serve to minimize the creation of impervious surfaces, while increasing the area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by the NPDES, DAMP, and the NBMC, and subject to compliance with General Plan policies impacts involving water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater within the City is shallow and can occur as shallow as 50 beneath ground surface. During construction, the groundwater table could be encountered during pile driving, dewatering, and other construction activities_ However, given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and that residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, the displaced/removed volume from these activities would not be substantial relative to the Orange County Groundwater Basin's water volume. Therefore, future residential development permitted by the proposed Housing Element Update would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Groundwater recharge is derived from percolation of Santa Ana River flow, injection into wells, and infiltration of precipitation. The City of Newport Beach is not located within an identified recharge area for groundwater. Future development would not interfere significantly with recharge as the City does not contribute a significant amount to the Santa Ana River flow, there are no injection wells in the City. As previously indicated, because the City is nearly fully built -out, future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. As a result, the amount of impervious surfaces would not change significantly. Water service is provided by the City of Newport Beach, Irvine Ranch Water District, and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Future residential development permitted pursuant to the Housing Element Update would increase the demand for groundwater. However, the GPEIR concluded groundwater supplies would meet projected demands throughout the City, and compliance with General Plan policies would reduce water consumption to ensure adequate groundwater supplies .30 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. 30 Ibid., Page 4.7-33. September 30, 2011 57 Initial Study/Negative Declaration P() 04, 4 1 City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration q�l FO KN` As such, potential impacts to groundwater supplies due to water consumption from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards and other requirements prescribed in the City's Zoning Ordinance and related long-range plans and programs in order to determine potential impacts on groundwater supplies. Additionally, future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies (refer to Response 4.17(b)) designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for not only existing uses but also future growth within the City. Given that future residential development would undergo project -by -project review and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant as concluded in the GPEIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities of future development could temporarily alter existing drainage patterns as a result of grading and related site preparation activities. Future residential development would also alter existing drainage patterns through changes in ground surface permeability and changes in topography. However, the GPEIR evaluated these potential impacts and concluded that compliance with NPDES and NBMC regulations, in addition to implementation of General Plan policies, would reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from landform alteration associated with new residential development that affect existing drainage patterns to a less than significant level.' The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update were anticipated and evaluated in the GP/GPEIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards and other requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and contained in the NBMC, CBC and other related policies, plans, and programs in order to minimize potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns resulting from future residential development. Additionally, future residential development would be subject to compliance with General Plan policies (i.e. Policies NR 3.10 to NR 3.12, NR 4.4, NR 3.16, NR 3.20, NR 3.21, and S 5.3), which would serve to minimize potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns. Given that future residential development would undergo project -by -project review and be subject to compliance with NPDES requirements and General Plan policies, potential impacts due to alterations of drainage patterns resulting from such development would be less than significant as concluded in the GPEIR. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 31 Ibid., Page 4.7-34, September 30, 2011 58 Initial Study/Negative Declaration 'k SPO City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration '9Ci F O RNP 4.9(d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. Given that the City is nearly built -out, it is anticipated that future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. As such, new residential development would not substantially alter drainage patterns, because these areas are already developed with existing uses and impervious surfaces. Similarly, since the increase in impervious surfaces would be limited, the potential increase stormwater runoff would not be substantial such that the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure would be exceeded, and flooding impacts would occur downstream. Therefore, Project implementation would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns, and would not result in flooding. Refer also to Response 4.8.c. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a) and 4.9(c). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(g) Place housing within a 900 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less Than Significant Impact. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares and maintains Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which show the extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and other thematic features related to flood risk, in participating jurisdictions. To receive insurance benefits in the event of flood, participating agencies must recognize these official flood boundaries and establish appropriate land use policy for the flood zones. GPEIR Figure 4.7-3, Flood Zones, illustrates the City's 100- and 500 -year flood Zones. As indicated by Figure 4.7-3, the City's coastline and areas of Newport Bay are located within a 100 -year flood zone, where the potential for private property flooding exists. The 100 -year flood (one percent annual chance flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This SFHA is the area subject to flooding by the one percent annual chance flood. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could place structures or housing within a 100 - year flood hazard area. Moreover, flood waters that exceed the capacities of existing and improved drainages would travel by overland flow on any available grounds. Building density permitted by the Housing Element Update is not anticipated to increase to such an extent that would substantially increase obstructions to flood flows. Furthermore residential development is not permitted within the limits of a 100 - year flood plain. The GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies and NBMC standards would sufficiently protect new structures from damage in the event of a 100 -year flood and would ensure flows are not substantially impeded or redirected. Therefore, impacts of flood hazards or impeding/redirecting flows September 30, 20111 59 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �c���'rPObT City of Newport Beach o, `m Housing Element Update }r Initial Study/Negative Declaration r, n 94kORN would be less than significant 32 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, exposure of residents and/or homes from future residential development in accordance with the Housing Element Update to potential substantial adverse effects involving flood hazards were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the development standards and other requirements prescribed in the City's Zoning Ordinance, General Plan polices, and related long-term plans and programs adopted by the City in order to ensure that future residential development is not adversely impacted. Further, NBMC Chapter 15.50 establishes methods and provisions that would minimize flood damage to residential development. A water displacement analysis would be required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Future development would also be subject to General Plan policies that would protect human life and public and private property from the risks of flooding. For example, Policy S 5.1 requires all new development within 100 -year flood zones to mitigate flood hazards by including onsite drainage systems that are connected to the City's storm drain system, grading of sites within the project area such that runoff does not impact adjacent properties, or elevating buildings above flood levels. If building pads are elevated out of the floodplain, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be required from FEMA that certifies the land has been elevated out of the floodplain. Flood proofing measures included in the General Plan and NBMC would be sufficient to protect new structures from damage in the event of a 100 -year flood. Given that future development would undergo project -by - project review, be regulated by the Federal/State regulatory framework, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to future residential development from potential flooding would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impacts. Refer to Response 4.9(g). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. There are several dams located in the City and environs that could affect future residential development within Newport Beach. Specifically, the City is located downstream of Prado Dam, Santiago Creek Reservoir, Villa Park Reservoir, San Joaquin Reservoir, Big Canyon Reservoir, and Harbor View Reservoir. The areas of the City that would be impacted to inundation include the areas near the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, Newport Bay, and Big Canyon Reservoir. As indicated in the GPEIR, the probability of dam failure is I0 w.33 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development in accordance with the Housing Element Update would not increase the risk of dam failure and flooding; however, the number of people exposed to this hazard would increase due to the residential development permitted in the adopted Land Use Element, which would be consistent with the Housing Element Update. However, compliance with the NBMC and 32 Ibid., Pages 4.7-38 and 39. 33 Ibid., Page 4.7-40. September 30, 2011 60 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration General Plan policies, which is intended to avoid the exposure of people or structures to risk due to failure of a dam, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.9(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the GPEIR, potential risks from seiche and tsunami exist along the coastal area and in areas of the City near inland water bodies. Seiches may occur in large, enclosed bodies of water, such as the reservoirs in the City and, to an extent, Newport Harbor and Newport Bay, which could inundate adjacent and nearby areas surrounding the body of water. Coastal flood hazards, such as tsunamis and rogue waves, would inundate primarily the low-lying areas of the City's coastline. Potential risks from mudflow (i.e., mudslide, debris flow) are also prevalent, as steep slopes exist throughout the City. Prolonged rainfall during certain storm events would saturate and could eventually loosen soil, resulting in slope failure. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development permitted in accordance with the proposed Housing Element Update would potentially increase the exposure of future residents to such low -probability but high-risk events as seiches, tsunamis, and mudflows by allowing residential development in certain areas of the City. However, the GPEIR concluded risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are considered to be less than significant following compliance with General Plan policies. Additional residential development was assumed to occur in the City, which was evaluated in the GPEIR. Therefore, because there are no proposed changes to the land use designations assigned to property within the City by the Land Use Element Update of the Newport Beach General Plan that would result in increased residential densities, no new or potentially significant risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow to the future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be expected. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the requirements and development standards prescribed in the NBMC, General Plan policies and other long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that future residential development is not adversely impacted by seiches, tsunamis and/or other adverse coastal phenomenon. For example, implementation of General Plan Policies S 1.1 through S 1.5 would serve to minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to tsunamis and rogue waves. In addition, Policies S 2.1 through S 2.7 would minimize adverse effects of coastal hazards related to storm surges and seiches. Because future residential development would be subject to review on a project -by -project basis, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 34 Ibid., Page 4.7-41. September 30, 2011 61 Initial Study/Negative Declaration 0-� EWgQRT City of Newport Beach V. } @ Mousing Element Update ~ Initial Study/Negative Declaration Cq`[� Fp g ¢ 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING dxid 3� �n P nt Less Than No I Would the project: Significant Impact 0 n Impact Incorporated a. Physically divide an established community? ■ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or ■ zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Impact Analysis 4.10(a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is nearly built -out. Implementation of the proposed project would provide the policy framework for residential growth anticipated between 2008 and 2014. The proposed Housing Element Update encourages future residential development to occur within identified subareas of the General Plan in order to maintain and conserve the City's existing residential neighborhoods. The proposed project would guide housing and population growth within the City to include a variety of housing types for all social and economic segments (Goal H2). One of the guiding principles of the proposed Housing Element Update is to ensure the continued maintenance and conservation of existing residential neighborhoods (Policy H1.1 and Policy H4.2). Consistency with these and other relevant policies will ensure that future residential development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update will not conflict with established development and/or create a physical division within an established (residential) neighborhood or community. It is anticipated that future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment in areas designated for such development as reflected in the adopted Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, future residential development pursuant to the Housing Element Update would not physically divide an established community. Development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis, since additional residential development was anticipated to occur as a result of buildout of the General Plan. Because the Housing Element Update does not propose to change existing land use designations that would result in increased densities, the analysis presented in the GPEIR adequately evaluates the potential effects of its implementation. Those potential impacts were determined to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.10(b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Development within the City of Newport Beach is required to comply with several regional and local land use plans, policies, and regulations. These include the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, 1999 Amendment for Ozone, SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Santa September 30, 2011 62 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach aHousing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9�4URN\ Ana River Basin Plan, City of Newport Beach Zoning Code, Newport Beach CLUP, specific plans adopted by the City, and the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The proposed Housing Element Update would neither change nor conflict with these adopted plans. Moreover, the proposed Housing Element Update would not supersede any other regulations or requirements adopted or imposed by the City, the State of California, or any federal agency that has jurisdiction by law over uses and development. There would be no impact in this regard. The Newport Beach General Plan is consistent with the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, with the exception of mitigating traffic volumes on freeway ramps. The General Plan is also consistent with the Santa Ana Basin Plan, since all future development is required to comply with all applicable water quality requirements established by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and State Water Resources Control Boards (SWRCB). The City completed a comprehensive update of its General Plan in 2006. As part of the comprehensive General Plan update, the existing 2000-2005 Housing Element was reviewed for consistency and updated to reflect land use changes and new residential opportunities identified as part of the General Plan update. The proposed Housing Element (2008 - 2014 Planning Period) is an update and revision of the 2006 Housing Element, which consists of new technical data and updated policies and programs. The land use opportunity areas developed as part of the General Plan have remained the same. This Housing Element also addresses meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the planning period of January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2014, and is consistent with recent revisions to State Housing Element Law. As a result, the Housing Element Update reflects the vision, goals and principles for the City through the planning period of 2014 and beyond, in concert with the twenty year horizon of the 2006 General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of implementing the proposed Housing Element Update. The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code (NBMC Title 20, Planning and Zoning) is the means by which the General Plan, including the Housing Element, is implemented. As a result of the General Plan Update in 2006, the City undertook a review of the Zoning Code, which resulted in modifications and changes to policies pertaining to land use, density/intensity, design and development, resource conservation, public safety, and other pertinent topics in an effort to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code Update was approved by the City of Newport Beach in 2010, and is the means by which the General Plan Land Use Element, including housing, is implemented. The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was prepared as required by the California Coastal Act of 1976. The CLUP sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach. The General Plan was prepared to comply and incorporate the CLUP. The AELUP for John Wayne Airport contains policies that govern the land uses surrounding the airport. These policies establish development criteria that protect sensitive receptors from airport noise, persons from risk of operations, and height guidelines to ensure aircraft safety. The AELUP establishes height restrictions for buildings surrounding John Wayne Airport and establishes a 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in which residential uses should be not be constructed. The Newport Beach General Plan was determined to be consistent with the AELUP. Because the Housing Element is consistent with the adopted General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur. Therefore, impacts associated with potential inconsistencies with all other applicable land use plans for the City would be less than significant.3 The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development permitted under the proposed Housing Element Update was considered and adequately evaluated in the GPEIR analysis because additional residential development was anticipated to occur. The proposed Housing Element Update does not propose any changes to 35 Ibid., Page 4.8-23. September 30, 2011 63 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ��W PoRT City of Newport Beach } Housing Element Update i Initial Study/Negative Declaration cy Ll FORK residential land use designations that would result in increased densities that were not included and analyzed in the GPEIR. As such, the potential impacts of future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update conflicting with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR, which concluded that no significant land use impacts, including conflicts with General Plan policies and programs, would occur. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified for the General Plan. As previously indicated, the proposed Housing Element Update includes only policy and program changes that are intended to facilitate meeting long-range local and regional housing goals; however, the proposed project would not result in any changes to the adopted Land Use Element that would result a potential conflict with any long-range plan and/or program that affects the development within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.10(c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.4(f . Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES Impact Analysis 4.11(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.54, Mineral Resource Areas, illustrates the City's mineral resource areas. As indicated by Figure 4.54, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, following compliance with General Plan policies and no impact would occur.36 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered 36 Ibid., Page 4.5-31. September 30, 2011 64 Initial Study/Negative Declaration wally $ 4nt"ant Less Than No Would the project: Sigtlanl Yuba , Significant Impact Ialpet mitigau n Impact Inco d a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ■ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific ■ plan or other land use an? Impact Analysis 4.11(a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.54, Mineral Resource Areas, illustrates the City's mineral resource areas. As indicated by Figure 4.54, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ-2; rather, it is classified by mineral resource zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could affect the availability of oil and gas produced in these areas. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would not result in the loss of the availability of known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State, following compliance with General Plan policies and no impact would occur.36 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered 36 Ibid., Page 4.5-31. September 30, 2011 64 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW Po�T o� d Q City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update initial Study/Negative Declaration �gc�FoaN r and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Because additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to zoning districts that would result in increased densities that were not previously evaluated in the GPEIR, the potential impacts of future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update resulting in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. To ensure that future discretionary residential development would not impact mineral resources, each project proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update will be subject to environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis and will be evaluated based on requirements prescribed in the NBMC as well as General Plan policies and related long-range plans and programs adopted by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no potentially significant impact will occur as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.11(b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.11(a). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12 NOISE u` sar E { A § t i a' y d a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, ■ or applicable standards of otheragencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome ■ vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ■ r 'ecr e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people ■ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ■ excessive noise levels? Impact Analysis 4.12(a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future development permitted under the proposed Housing Element Update would September 30, 2011 65 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration involve construction activities and operations that would generate both short-term and long-term noise impacts. Short-term noise impacts could occur during grading and construction of future residential development. Construction activities have the potential to expose adjacent land uses to noise levels between 70 and 90 decibels at 50 feet from the noise source. Construction activities associated with future development are anticipated to temporarily exceed the City's noise standards. The degree of noise impact would be dependent upon the distance between the construction activity and the noise sensitive receptor. Long-term noise impacts would be associated with vehicular traffic to/from the site (including residents, visitors, patrons), outdoor activities, and stationary mechanical equipment on site. However, the GPEIR concluded the exposure of existing land uses to noise levels in excess of Cit standards as a result of the future growth under the General Plan is considered a significant impact. 7 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was anticipated based on the potential for additional residential development to occur in accordance with the Land Use Element. Because there are no proposed changes to the residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, potential noise impacts from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were adequately evaluated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified in that document. As required by the City of Newport Beach, future discretionary residential development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the requirements prescribed in the NBMC, General Plan, and other relevant long-range plans and programs adopted by the City in order to ensure that noise standards are not exceeded. Furthermore, future residential development would be required to comply with City, State, and Federal guidelines regarding vehicle noise, roadway construction, and noise abatement and insulation standards. This would ensure that noise levels in Newport Beach are maintained within acceptable standards that prevent extensive disturbance, annoyance, or disruption. Individual assessments of potential impacts from project -related noise sources may be required. If necessary, mitigation would be required to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the City's Zoning Code was revised to include standards and requirements intended to avoid or mitigate noise impacts. Specifically, the NBMC now includes provisions for the review of proposed projects to avoid or mitigate impacts, establishes thresholds of significance pursuant to the Noise Element, and promotes compatibility between land uses. As a result of these revisions, future residential development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update must comply with the standards within NBMC Chapters 10.26. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies N 1.1 to N 1.8 and N 2.1 to N 2.6, which would serve to reduce noise impacts to future land uses. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, be regulated by NBMC requirements, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, potential impacts involving the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Construction activities associated with the future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration; refer also to GPEIR Table 4.9-7. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded when construction vibration occurs, impacts would be significant.38 Residential development permitted by the proposed Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis, since additional development was anticipated to occur based on the future buildout projections for the City. Because the proposed Housing Element Update does not propose 37 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft EIR, Page 4.9-22. 38 Ibid., Page 4.9-29. September 30, 2011 66 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update �° h Initial Study/Negative Declaration 9���onN changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, potential vibration impacts from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update were adequately evaluated in the GPEIR. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review and be regulated by NBMC, impacts involving the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive vibration would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.12(a). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. GPEIR Figure 4.9-6, Future Noise Contours — Northern Planning Area, indicates that the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for JWA extends into Newport Beach. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) of future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update occurring within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour could be exposed to noise levels in excess of allowable standards. Although the GPEIR concluded potential noise impacts to exterior noise levels at new residential land uses in the vicinity of the airport would be significant, compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that impacts on interior noise levels would be less than significant. 39 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis because additional development was anticipated to occur in the City based on the buildout of the Land Use Element. Because the Housing Element does not propose changes to the residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, potential airport -related noise impacts to future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. As previously indicated, consistency with General Plan policies and programs as well as compliance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance will ensure that potential noise impacts to future residential development would be less than significant. In addition, future discretionary residential development proposed pursuant to the Housing Element Update would also be subject to environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis. As indicated above, such projects would be subject to the policies adopted in the Noise Element of the General Plan as well as measures prescribed as a result of subsequent environmental analysis and other relevant long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that airport -related noise impacts are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. All land uses surrounding JWA would be subject to the land use standards 39 Ibid., Page 4.9-35. September 30, 2011 67 Initial Study/Negative Declaration k?EPORr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update �." Initial Study/Negative Declaration �r C9i/FU µl3P established in the NBMC and the AELUP addressing airport -related noise. Additionally, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook would be utilized in the preparation of environmental documents for all new residential development located within the AELUP boundaries. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy N 3.2, which requires that any residential or sensitive noise uses be located outside the 60 dBA or 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour and General Plan Policy N 1.1, which requires residential development to maintain an interior noise level of 40 dBA Leq or 45 dBA Leq, respectively, during the day time (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and night time (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) reflected in Table N3 in the Noise Element. Compliance with Policies N 1.1, N 3.1 and N 3.2 would serve to ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment by using the airport noise contour maps as guides to future planning and development decisions. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with the established regulations and General Plan policies, potential project -related impacts involving aviation -noise would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.12(f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING Impact Analysis 4.13(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The City's existing population, as of January 2010 is 86,738 persons .40 A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Although, the Housing Element Update does not infer direct development rights, future development permitted by the Housing Element 40 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. September 30, 2011 68 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Would the project Sig ilt €� Irrupt M, 00 Irrcor a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ■ for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure ? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ■ the construction of replacement housin elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ■ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Analysis 4.13(a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The City's existing population, as of January 2010 is 86,738 persons .40 A project could induce population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Although, the Housing Element Update does not infer direct development rights, future development permitted by the Housing Element 40 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. September 30, 2011 68 Initial Study/Negative Declaration , - ?I City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration "�[iFpnN Update in accordance with the adopted land use element designations could induce population growth in the City through the anticipated construction of housing. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (35 percent) over 2002 conditions, for a total of 54,394 units.41 As a result, the City's population could increase by 31,131 persons (43 percent), for a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. Additionally, because the General Plan implementation would substantially increase population growth within the City (approximately 37 percent over existing conditions and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), the GPEIR concluded impacts on population growth would be considered significant. Development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Because additional residential development was anticipated to occur based on General Plan buildout and, furthermore, because the Housing Element Update does not propose any changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, the proposed project would result in no greater impacts than previously identified in the GPEIR. Therefore, Project implementation would not induce substantial population growth in the City. As previously indicated, future residential development permitted in accordance with the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment served by existing roads and infrastructure. Project implementation would not require extension of public infrastructure (i.e., any major transportation facility or public utility), or provision of new public services. The roads providing access within the City of Newport Beach are fully improved. Public utilities would be extended to the future development from existing facilities. Public services, including police and fire protection, schools, public libraries, etc., are provided throughout the City and the establishment of new sources of service would not be required. Therefore, project implementation would not induce indirect population growth in the City through extension of roads or other infrastructure, or provision of new services. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.93(b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The City's existing housing stock, as of January 2010 is 43,515 units.42 Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and it is anticipated that future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment at site designed for residential throughout the City of Newport Beach, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing homes or residents as determined in the analysis of population and housing in the GPEIR .43 Because residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and, furthermore, because the proposed project does not include any changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, potential impacts involving the displacement of homes or residents from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be no greater than the impacts previously identified in the GPEIR. The proposed Housing Element Update would allow reuse of existing structures and construction of new ones. Goal H1 calls for the preservation, conservation, and appropriate redevelopment of housing stock. Although no specific projects are proposed under the Housing Element Update, future growth permitted under the project could result in the displacement of existing housing or residents, and necessitate the construction of replacement housing in the City. However, as required by law, proper relocation measures would be taken to assist any displaced residents if such actions were to occur. Furthermore, the proposed project is intended to provide affordable housing options throughout the City in order to accommodate the 41 Ibid., Page 4.10-6. 42 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2009-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. A3 EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Draft OR, Page 4.10-6. September 30, 2011 69 Initial Study/Negative Declaration 4� Wpo;v City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration expected population growth, and would not decrease housing availability. Goal 4 of the Housing Element Update incorporates assistance in housing for very low- , low- and moderate -income households, while Goal 5 encourages affordable housing assistance for the City's special needs population. The Housing Element Update is intended to provide a sound policy framework that would address the housing requirements of RHNA and provide increased assistance in the development of affordable housing. Therefore, Project implementation would not displace a substantial number of housing or persons and no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.13(c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to Response 4.13(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Analysis 4.14(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 4.14(a)(1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD's service goals are based on acceptable service levels, such as five- minute response times for fire engines at a fire or medical aid event and eight -minute response times for first -arriving fire engine for a paramedic unit. The NBFD is currently operating at an acceptable level. September 30, 2011 70 Initial Study/Negative Declaration a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire protection? ■ 2) Police protection? ■ 3) Schools? ■ 4) Parks? ■ 5) Other public facilities? ■ Impact Analysis 4.14(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 4.14(a)(1) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Fire protection services are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD's service goals are based on acceptable service levels, such as five- minute response times for fire engines at a fire or medical aid event and eight -minute response times for first -arriving fire engine for a paramedic unit. The NBFD is currently operating at an acceptable level. September 30, 2011 70 Initial Study/Negative Declaration The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would increase the demand for fire protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure potential impacts involving fire protection services would remain less than significant .44 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and adequately evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Because additional residential development was anticipated based on buildout of the General Plan and because the proposed project does not include changes to any of the residential land use designations that would result in increased densities. As such, potential impacts to fire protection services from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary residential development would be subject to environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis and must comply with requirements established within the Newport Beach Zoning Code and relevant plans and policies in order to ensure potential impacts to fire protection services are minimized. Additionally, future development permitted by the Housing Element Update must also comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services (i.e., fire access, fire flows, hydrants). The City adopted the International Fire Code (2006 Edition) and the California Fire Code (2007 Edition). These include construction standards for new structures and remodels that address road widths and configurations, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates. Future residential development must be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2, which requires that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs. Fire staffing and facilities would be expanded commensurately to serve the needs of new development to maintain the current response time. Policy S 6.8 ensures that building and fire codes will be continually updated to provide for fire safety design. Because future residential development would undergo project -by -project review and be subject to the established Fire Code regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving fire protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(2) Police protection? Less Than Significant impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD), and the Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) provide police protection services to the City of Newport Beach. Currently, the City does not have staffing standards. The NBPD provides a ratio of approximately 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio allows the NBPD to meet the needs of permanent and transient population, which can increase to 200,000 people in one day. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could increase the demand for police protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment_ The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. However, the GPEIR concluded maintaining the current service ratio and compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure " Ibid., Page 4.11-10. September 30, 2011 71 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ��-�W£PO?r J� City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update � Initial Study/Negative Declaration Fp0. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would increase the demand for fire protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment. The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure potential impacts involving fire protection services would remain less than significant .44 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and adequately evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Because additional residential development was anticipated based on buildout of the General Plan and because the proposed project does not include changes to any of the residential land use designations that would result in increased densities. As such, potential impacts to fire protection services from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary residential development would be subject to environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis and must comply with requirements established within the Newport Beach Zoning Code and relevant plans and policies in order to ensure potential impacts to fire protection services are minimized. Additionally, future development permitted by the Housing Element Update must also comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services (i.e., fire access, fire flows, hydrants). The City adopted the International Fire Code (2006 Edition) and the California Fire Code (2007 Edition). These include construction standards for new structures and remodels that address road widths and configurations, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates. Future residential development must be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2, which requires that adequate infrastructure be provided as new development occurs. Fire staffing and facilities would be expanded commensurately to serve the needs of new development to maintain the current response time. Policy S 6.8 ensures that building and fire codes will be continually updated to provide for fire safety design. Because future residential development would undergo project -by -project review and be subject to the established Fire Code regulations and General Plan policies, impacts involving fire protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(2) Police protection? Less Than Significant impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), Costa Mesa Police Department (CMPD), and the Orange County Sheriff Department (OCSD) provide police protection services to the City of Newport Beach. Currently, the City does not have staffing standards. The NBPD provides a ratio of approximately 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio allows the NBPD to meet the needs of permanent and transient population, which can increase to 200,000 people in one day. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update could increase the demand for police protection services in the City, and may require improvements to existing facilities or increases in staffing and equipment_ The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. However, the GPEIR concluded maintaining the current service ratio and compliance with applicable General Plan policies would ensure " Ibid., Page 4.11-10. September 30, 2011 71 Initial Study/Negative Declaration WPOV City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration qC� FOFZN impacts involving police protection services remain less than significant.45 Residential development permitted by the Housing Element Update was considered and evaluated in the GPEIR. Because additional residential development was anticipated to occur as a result of General Plan buildout and because the proposed project does not include changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased densities, potential impacts to police protection services from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. In addition, future discretionary residential development would be required to undergo subsequent environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis. As such, future projects would also be required to comply with development standards and requirements prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and relevant long-range plans and programs in order to ensure potential impacts to police protection services are minimized. Future development must be consistent with General Plan policies that would ensure adequate law enforcement is provided, as the City experiences future development. For example, compliance with Policy LU 2.8 would ensure that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's Public Services would be accommodated, and that adequate service ratios are maintained. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts involving police protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(3) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport -Mesa Unified School District provides educational services to the City of Newport Beach as well as the City of Costa Mesa and other unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Airport Area is served by the Santa Ana Unified School District. Although implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in any specific development projects, future development that would be guided by the proposed project would increase the number of residents in the City, which could subsequently increase demands upon existing schools. Compliance with the General Plan policies identified under XIII(a) would be required for any new development proposed under the Housing Element. Additional policies such as LU 2.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.4 would also encourage development of adequate schools to meet the needs of future residents. In general, payment of school impact fee requirement serves to mitigate project impacts upon schools. Future discretionary residential development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards prescribed in NEMC, General Plan policies and/or relevant long-term plans and programs in order to ensure potential impacts to school facilities are minimized. General Plan Policy LU 6.1.1 requires that adequate school facilities within Newport Beach be provided such that the residents' needs would be served, and Policy LU 6.1.2 allows for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and development facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. Therefore, because implementation of the Housing Element Update would not result in a direct increase in demand for school services, and because existing policies are in place to require payment of school impact fees by new development projects, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.14(a)(4) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. There are approximately 286 acres of parkland and approximately 90 acres of active recreational beach area within the City. Pursuant to NBMC Section 19.52.040, Parkland Standard, the City's park dedication standard for new residential subdivisions is 5.0 acres of parkland per 45 Ibid., Page 4.11-16. September 30, 2011 72 Initial Study/Negative Declaration `,Ev✓poRT City of Newport Beach ,y Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 1,000 residents. According to the GPEIR, a deficit of approximately 38.8 acres of combined park and beach acreage citywide, with seven of the 12 service areas experiencing a deficit in this combined recreation acreage. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future development permitted under the Housing Element Update in accordance with the densities prescribed in the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan would result in incremental increases in population, which would increase the demands for parkland and recreational facilities, and usage of existing facilities, such that deterioration of these facilities could be accelerated. Additionally, future housing development may require new parks or recreational facilities, and/or improvements to existing facilities_ The environmental impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks and recreational facilities would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The GPEIR concluded the construction and enhancement of park and recreational facilities, and compliance with General Plan policies would ensure that increased demand and use resulting from an increased population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.46 Development permitted in accordance with the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis, based on the densities and residential development potential at buildout of the General Plan. Because additional development was assumed and there are no proposed changes to residential land use designations that would result in increased residential densities, potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would, therefore, be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the NBMC in order to ensure potential impacts to parks and recreational facilities are minimized. Additionally, future residential development would be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 19.52, Park Dedications and Fees, which is intended to provide for the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof or a combination of both, for park or recreational purposes in conjunction with the approval of residential development. These provisions are in accordance with Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act (known as the Quimby Act). Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy R 1.1, which requires future development to dedicate land or pay in -lieu fees at a minimum of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (per NBMC Section 19.52.040). In addition, developers of new high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger are required to provide on-site recreational amenities, as required under Policy R 1.3. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant_ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.94(a)(5) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is serviced by four libraries: the Central Library, Mariner's Library, Balboa Branch Library, and Corona Del Mar Branch Library. The Newport Beach Public Library (NBPL) assesses their needs on a ratio of books per measure of population. The standard guidelines used for evaluating the acceptable level of service, which are set by the California State Library Office of Library Construction, the Public Library Association, and the American Library Association, are 0.5 sq. ft_ of library facility space and 2.0 volumes per capita. 46 Ibid., Page 4.12 -15 - September 30, 2011 73 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �,j vpo V r. City of Newport Beach �.� Housing Element Update u1 r Initial Study/Negative Declaration The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future development permitted by the Housing Element in accordance with the adopted residential land use designations would increase the demands for library facilities and resources caused by potential increases in population associated with the residential development. However, the GPEIR concluded compliance with General Plan policies would be less than significant.47 Development that would occur pursuant to the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis and there are not proposed changes to the land use designations that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP. As such, potential impacts to library facilities from future development permitted by the proposed project would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR. As a result, the implementation of the Housing Element Update as currently proposed would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts to library facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4,15 RECREATION Impact Analysis 4.15(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.15(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 47 Ibid., Page 4.11-29. September 30, 2011 74 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ENA Potentially Significant S at No Impact E€:lit M tncori a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might f have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Analysis 4.15(a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.15(b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.14(a)(4). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 47 Ibid., Page 4.11-29. September 30, 2011 74 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EpORT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration 141 FL 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a. Conflict with an applicable pian, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of ■ the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county ■ congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ■ substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., ■ farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the ■ performance or safeLof such facilities? Impact Analysis 4.16(a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, 17 roadway segments within the City operate at a level of service (LOS) that exceeds the City's Standard of LOS D. Five intersections citywide function at a deficient LOS. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element would increase vehicular movement in the vicinity of each future development site during AM and PM peak hour periods. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, it is anticipated that future development permitted by the General Plan Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment. As a result, the transportation infrastructure is largely already available to these areas. Impacts would result from the incremental traffic generation of redevelopment activities and new uses on vacant parcels. Depending on the specific site locations, intensity of development, and trip distribution characteristics, future increases in traffic volumes could aggravate existing deficiencies and/or cause an intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS. However, the GPEIR concluded General Plan buildout, including that associated with potential residential development, would not cause any intersection to fail to meet the City's LOS D standard. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.48 Because future development permitted 'a Ibid., Page 4.13.32. September 30, 2011 75 Initial Study/Negative Declaration EW Po City of Newport Beach 7 °Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration by the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis, potential impacts to intersection LOS from future development permitted under the Housing Element Update were also anticipated in the GP/GPEIR. As a result, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary development would undergo environmental and/or development review on a project - by -project basis based upon the permit requirements established within the Housing Element Update in order to ensure potential impacts to intersection LOS are minimized. Due to the conceptual nature of the future development, proposals would require individual assessments of potential impacts to traffic and transportation. If necessary, mitigation would be recommended to avoid or lessen potential impacts at the site specific level. Future development would also be subject to compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, which establishes a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit, Compliance with NBMC Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance, would ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Future residential development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan Policies identified in GPEIR Section 4.13, Transportation/Traffic. Given that future residential development would undergo project -by -project review, and would also be subject to compliance with NBMC standards and General Plan policies, impacts to intersection LOS would be less than significant as a result of the proposed Housing Element Update. Refer to Response 4.16(f) for discussions regarding potential impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The purpose of the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality planning programs throughout the County. The CMP program requires review of substantial individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. According to the CMP (Orange County Transportation Authority, 2001), those proposed projects, which meet the following criteria, shall be evaluated: • Development projects that generate more than 2,400 daily trips (the threshold is 1,600 or more trips per day for development projects that will directly access a CMP Highway System link). • Project with a potential to create an impact of more than three percent of level of service E capacity. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would occur in accordance with the densities permitted in the adopted Land Use Element. That development would result in increased vehicular movement in the vicinity of each future development site and potentially on roadway facilities subject to CMP. However, as discussed in Response 4.16(a) above, future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update was considered in the GPEIR analysis based on the residential densities permitted by the (adopted) Land Use Element. Therefore, because additional residential development was anticipated to occur and evaluated in the GPEIR, potential impacts to intersection LOS from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were adequately evaluated in the GP/GPEIR. September 30, 2011 76 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach o� e� � rnHousing Element Update \ = Initial Study/Negative Declaration q IF F� Given that future residential development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with NEMC standards and General Plan policies, impacts to CMP designated roads or highways caused by future residential development pursuant to the Housing Element Update would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The City is primarily a built -out area, and it is anticipated that future development permitted by the Housing Element in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element residential densities would generally consist of infill and redevelopment at sites designated for both residential and mixed uses (which allow also allow residential development). Where such potential residential and/or mixed use development is proposed within the limits of the JWA AELUP, it will comply with all relevant requirements, including those related to noise, building height, and related parameters established by the AELUP, Newport Beach General Plan, and NBCC. Therefore, future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the analysis conducted for the Newport Beach General Plan Update in the GPEIR, the circulation improvements identified in Table 4.13-10 of the GPEIR would be implemented as part of the long-range circulation improvement plans for the City. None of those improvements would introduce new safety hazards at intersections or along roadway segments, as most would increase capacity and flow. In addition, Policies within the Circulation and Land Use Elements (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. These policies of the adopted Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan Update would help reduce hazards due to design features. Currently, there are no site-specific development plans for development in accordance with the Housing Element Update. Therefore, future residential development proposals would be reviewed on a case-by- case basis. At the time of review, any hazardous designs shall be modified. Additionally, future residential development pursuant to the Housing Element Update would be required to comply with the General Plan policies, which would minimize potential impacts involving hazards due to a design feature. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the analysis conducted for the Newport Beach General Plan Update in the GPEIR, the project would be required to comply with applicable Municipal Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access. Also, as discussed in Section 4.6 Hazards (Impact 4.6-8), the adopted General Plan Safety Element also contains Policies S9.1, S9.2, and S9.4, which are intended to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Further, Policy S9.5 of the Safety Plan calls for the distribution of information about emergency planning to community groups, schools, religious institutions, business associations, and residents. Consequently, the project would provide adequate emergency access to the project area. All future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update September 30, 2011 77 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �� WP��''T City of Newport Beach O• }; � y Housing Element Update would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access; refer also to Response 4.8(g). Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.16(0 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently transit lines exist throughout the City. As illustrated in GPEIR Figure 4.13-7, Newport Beach Existing Bicycle Facilities, bikeways, bike paths, and bike trails exist throughout the City. Additionally, there are currently sidewalks along all roadways in the City_ There are also marked crosswalks or other pedestrian treatments at all intersections. Given that the City is primarily a built -out area, and future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would generally consist of infill and redevelopment, it is not anticipated that any incremental growth in transit trips produced by the future development would generate a demand beyond the capacity already provided. Additionally, it is not anticipated that future development would impact the effectiveness of the City's bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Future residential development would be subject to compliance with the General Plan policies pertaining to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities outlined in GPEIR Section 4.13, Transportation/Traffic. In particular, compliance with General Plan Policies CE5.1.1 to CE5.1.16 and CE6.2.1 to CE6.2.3 would encourage alternative modes of transportation on the local and regional scale including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit. Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ■ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ■ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of ■ which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded ■ entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ■ capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ■ accommodate the ro'ecfs solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ■ related to solid waste? September 30, 2011 78 Initial Study/Negative Declaration SEW PaRr City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Impact Analysis 4.17(a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. The City requires NPDES permits, as administered by the Santa Ana RWQCB, according to federal regulations for both point source discharges (a municipal or industrial discharge at a specific location or pipe) and nonpoint source discharges (diffuse runoff of water from adjacent land uses) to surface waters of the United States. For point source discharges, such as sewer outfalls, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element in accordance with the land use designations reflected in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. The GPEIR concluded General Plan implementation would result in no impact, because future development would be required to adhere to existing regulations and General Plan policies.49 Development permitted by the Housing Element Update based on the Land Use Element was considered in the GPEIR analysis, which assumed that additional residential development would occur; no proposed changes to residential land use designations and/or residential densities that would result in increased densities/intensities would occur as a result of the Housing Element Update. Therefore, potential impacts involving demands for wastewater treatment requirements from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element were also anticipated and adequately addressed in the GP/GPEIR. As a result, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Nonetheless, future discretionary residential development would be required to undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the permit requirements prescribed in the zoning district development regulations, General Plan policies, etc., in order to ensure future development would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Future development would continue to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program, as enforced by the RWQCB. Additionally, the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements would regulate discharge from construction sites. All future projects would be required to comply with the wastewater discharge requirements issued by the SWRCB and Santa Ana RWQCB. Therefore, the future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system or stormwater system within the City. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Water Conveyance and Treatment The City's water service is provided by the City, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), and Mesa Consolidated Water District (Mesa). GPEIR Figure 4.14-1, Water Infrastructure and Service Areas, 49 Ibid., Page 4.14-30. September 30, 2011 79 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �c��WPoRT City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update In Initial Study/Negative Declaration C"4C/ Fp FiT��P illustrates the City's water infrastructure and service boundaries of each provider. Moreover, the City's existing water system is described in GPEIR Section 4.14.1, Water Systems. The City's imported surface water supply is primarily treated at the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) Diemer Filtration Plant, with a treatment capacity of approximately 520 MGD, operating at 72 percent capacity during the summer. According to the GPEIR, MWD can meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. In addition, Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) also receives potable water from MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which operates at approximately 65 percent capacity during the summer. Currently, the City's groundwater supply is treated at the City's Utility Yard, which can accommodate up to 1.5 MG in each chamber reservoir. While it is anticipated that future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would increase water consumption, placing greater demands on water conveyance and treatment facilities, the GPEIR concluded adequate water infrastructure would be provided for all General Plan (i.e., buildout) development and. furthermore, impacts involving water conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant, following compliance with General Plan policies .50 As previously indicated, residential development occurring pursuant to the Housing Element Update and in accordance with the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan was previously considered and adequately evaluated in the GPEIR analysis for the General Plan Update in 2006, which anticipated that additional residential development would occur through General Plan buildout. Because the Housing Element Update does not propose changes to the adopted land use designations and/or residential densities that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not previously evaluated in the GP/GPEIR, the potential impacts to water conveyance and treatment facilities from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Future discretionary residential development would also be required to undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards and related requirements prescribed Newport Beach General Plan and zoning ordinance in order to ensure that adequate water conveyance and treatment infrastructure is provided. The environmental impacts associated with the construction of new water conveyance and treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (if required) would be dependent upon the location and nature of the future residential development, which would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Future development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies that would implement water conservation measures, thereby reducing the volume of water requiring conveyance and treatment. Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water conveyance and treatment facilities. Given that future development would undergo project - by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to water conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant. Wastewater Conveyance and Treatment Wastewater service within the City is provided by the City, IRWD, and Costa Mesa Sanitation District (CMSD). GPEIR Figure 4.14-2, Wastewater Infrastructure and Service Areas, illustrates the City's wastewater infrastructure and service boundaries of each provider. Moreover, the City's existing wastewater system is described in GPEI R Section 4.14.2, Wastewater Systems. Wastewater from the City's system and CMSD is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) at their two treatment plants. OCSD Treatment Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 mgd and is operating at 52 percent design capacity. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and is currently operating at 55 percent of design capacity. Wastewater flows from the IRWD wastewater system are treated at the OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1, Treatment Plant No. 2, or at the 50 Ibid., Page 4.14-17, September 30, 2011 80 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration Michelson Water Reclamation Plant (MWRP). Therefore, each of the treatment plants serving the City is operating below their design capacity. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update in accordance with the City's Land Use Element would be expected to generate increased wastewater flows, which would place greater demands on wastewater conveyance and treatment. However, the GPEIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies would ensure adequate wastewater facilities are available to City residents, and impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant.51 Because future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update was contemplated, such potential future development was considered and evaluated in the GPEIR analysis. Because additional development was anticipated to occur in the future and, furthermore, because there are no proposed changes to either the adopted General Plan land use designations or residential densities that would result in increased densities/intensities that were not included in the GP, potential impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. In addition, future discretionary development would be required to undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards, General Plan policies, and related requirements to ensure that adequate wastewater conveyance and treatment infrastructure is available and can be provided. The environmental impacts associated with the construction of new wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities (if required) would be dependent upon the location and nature of the proposed facilities, and would undergo separate environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Future development would also be subject to compliance with the City's Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan (Policy NR 5.1). Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Responses 4.9(a), 4.9(c), and 4.9(d). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than significant Impact. Water service is provided by the City, IRWD, and Mesa Consolidated Water District. Water supply is provided by groundwater and imported surface water. Approximately 75 percent of the water supply is provided by groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The remainder is provided by MWD, which delivers water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the proposed Housing Element Update would increase the City's water demands. Although the GPEIR concluded the 2030 projected availability of imported water supply exceeds the 2030 projected region -wide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 AF, 52 the analysis 5' Ibid., Page 4.14-32, 52 Ibid., Page 4.14-32. September 30, 2011 81 Initial Study/Negative Declaration k � W PORE City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration qL/ FpR� presented in the GPEIR concluded, because adequate existing and planned imported water supply to accommodate the increased demand associated with the General Plan would be available, impacts to the water supply would be less than significant. Because future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update was anticipated and considered in the GPEIR analysis for buildout of the adopted General Plan and, furthermore, since the proposed Housing Element Update does not include changes to either adopted land use designations or residential densities that would result in development not previously included in the GP and analyzed in the GPEIFR, potential impacts to water supply from future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. Nonetheless, future discretionary residential development would be required to undergo environmental and design review on a project -by -project basis, in order to ensure that adequate water supply is provided. In particular, future development would be subject to compliance with Senate Bills 221 and 610. The two bills amended State law to better link information on water supply availability to certain land use decisions by cities and counties. The two companion bills provide a regulatory forum that requires more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. All SB 610 and 221 reports are generated and adopted by the public water supplier. Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies that is included with the environmental document for specified projects. All "projects" meeting any of the following criteria require the assessment: • A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (DU); • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet (SF) of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 SF of floor space; • A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 SF of floor area; • A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 DU project. While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of SB 221 is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has "sufficient water supply" available to serve it. Any future development meeting SB 610 criteria would require a water supply assessment. Similarly, any residential project involving a subdivision pursuant to SB 221 would require verification of sufficient water supply from the water supplier. Additionally, the NBMC includes a Landscaping Standards chapter, which provides landscape standards to conserve water, among other objectives. All future residential development would also be subject to compliance with General Plan policies, which serve to minimize water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques (Policies NR 1.1 to 1.5), and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present uses and future growth (Policies NR 2.1 and 2.2). Given that future development would undergo project -by -project review, and be subject to compliance with existing legislation (SBs 610 and 221), NBMC standards, and General Plan policies, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant. September 30, 2011 82 Initial Study/Negative Declaration eg, . Y P Cit of Newport Beach .•,a Housing Element Update Wi n Initial Study/Negative Declaration q<<F00.T Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required 4.17(e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Response 4.17(b). Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City contracts with Waste Management of Orange County in Newport Beach to collect and dispose of the City's solid waste. The solid waste is disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine. The Bowerman Landfill, which is operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (OCIWMD), is a 725 -acre facility that is operating at a maximum daily permitting capacity of 8,500 tons per day. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 44.6 million tons and is expected to remain open until 2022. The Housing Element Update does not include specific development projects, but instead, only provides a framework for the City's anticipated future residential growth and housing demand. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update in accordance with the adopted Land Use Element would generate increased solid wastes, placing greater demands on solid waste disposal services, and ultimately on landfill disposal capacities. However, the GPEIR concluded impacts would be less than significant, since Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the increased General Plan development.53 Development permitted by the Housing Element Update was anticipated and, therefore, considered in the GPEIR analysis. Because the proposed project does not include changes to either residential land use designations or residential densities that would result in increased densities when compared to the adopted General Plan, potential impacts to landfill capacity from future development permitted by the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the analysis presented in the GPEIR, and would result in no greater impacts than previously identified. In addition, future discretionary residential development would also be required to undergo environmental and/or development review on a project -by -project basis based upon the development standards prescribed in the NBMC, Newport Beach General Plan and related long-range plans and programs in order to ensure that impacts to landfill capacities are minimized. Additionally, the Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage section of the NBMC was revised to include standards to ensure that adequate space is provided and trash storage areas are adequately screened. Given that future development would undergo project - by -project review, and be subject to compliance with NBMC standards, impacts to landfill capacity would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.17(8) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. The City consistently complies with AB 939 through diverting 50 percent or more of solid waste. The City also remains committed to continuing reducing and minimizing solid waste. Therefore, future development would not conflict with Federal, State, or local statues and regulations. 53 Ibid., Page 4.14-44. September 30, 2011 83 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach °k� �Housing Element Update $ Initial Study/Negative Declaration 94FURN Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Ij ! &'��il -: ..,.._._. _ ��.y#� d �d4` �s �4 'E�E �E iggSaE 1 E. 6 E gg g R f4 n 4i t -a n n LESS ThanNo 92 ' �e44 x £`} 5: Iftt Impact Im�t F a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ■ community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the majorperiods of California hist or rehisto ? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future rojects ? _ _ c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ■ indirectly? Impact Analysis 4.18(a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact_ As concluded in Responses 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts on biological resources and cultural resources (i.e. historic, archaeological, or paleontological). Therefore, the proposed Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts involving the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.18(b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant impact. As all impacts discussed in this Initial Study have been previously addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the proposed Housing Element Update includes only policy and program revisions and will not result in changes to the land use designations and/or residential September 30, 2011 84 Initial Study/Negative Declaration �g�rP°Rr City of Newport Beach i Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration R�`P densities reflected on the City's General Plan Land Use Element, all of the potential project -related impacts are determined to be less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant following compliance with General Plan policies, as revealed in the GPEIR. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update would not result in significant cumulative impacts. As indicated previously in this analysis, the proposed Housing Element Update is consistent with the City's GP/GPEIR. Through certification of the GPEIR in July 2006, the City Council found that the benefits of General Plan implementation outweighed its significant environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts on aesthetics, air quality, cultural, noise, population and housing, and traffic. Future residential development permitted under the Housing Element Update in accordance with the Land Use Element was considered in the GPEIR analysis that evaluated future buildout of the Newport Beach General Plan. Based on that analysis, which included additional residential development, potential cumulative impacts from such future development permitted by the Housing Element Update were anticipated and adequately analyzed in the GP/GPEIR, implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update is consistent with that analysis. Consequently, project implementation would result in no greater cumulative impacts than previously identified and no mitigation measures are required. 4.18(c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts involving each of the issues included in the environmental checklist. As concluded in these assessments, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to these issues. The GPEIR, which was certified by the Newport Beach City Council in July 2006, adequately analyzed each of the issues based on buildout of the adopted General Plan. Because the proposed Housing Element Update Project does not include any changes to either the residential land use designations or residential densities that would yield a greater number of dwelling units and/or residential development that that analyzed in the GPEIR, the proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. September 30, 2011 85 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Ui, $ Initial Study/Negative Declaration P cq<FonN 4.19 REFERENCES The following references were utilized during preparation of this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663. 1) California Department of Conservation official website, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed May 18, 2010. 2) California Office of the Attorney General, Sustainability and General Plans. Examples of Policies to Address Climate Change, updated January 22, 2010. 3) City of Newport Beach, City of Newport Beach General Plan, July 25, 2006. 4) City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Approved by Ordinance No. 97-09, Adopted March 24, 1997. 5) EIP Associates, City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update, Volume 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report, April 21, 2006. 6) Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1973. 7) South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2007 Air Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin, October 2003. 8) South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November 1993. 9) State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2009-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. September 30, 2011 86 Initial Study/Negative Declaration FWpO 0�a kr City of Newport Beach �� Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration qO F'o RN 4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 (949)644-3209 Mr. James Campbell, Principal Planner Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Ms. Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner Keeton Kreitzer Consulting (Environmental Analysis) 180 South Prospect Avenue, Suite 140A P. O. Box 3905 Tustin, CA 92781-3905 (714) 665-8509 Mr. Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal September 30, 2011 87 Initial Study/Negative Declaration r'�WpO�'T City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update 1 Initial Study/Negative Declaration FOR This This page intentionally left blank September 30, 2011 88 Initial Study/Negative Declaration k`a,Swpo City of Newport Beach m Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration c94 Fa u�'P 5.0 CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATION Based on the information and environmental analysis contained in Section 3.0, Initial Study Checklist, and Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, it is concluded that the proposed City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Update Project would not have a significant effect on the environmental issues analyzed. Accordingly, it is recommended that the first category be selected for the City's determination (refer to Section 6.0, Lead Agency Determination) and that the City of Newport Beach prepare a Negative Declaration for the Project. September 30, 2011 Date Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal Keeton Kreitzer Consulting September 30, 2011 89 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach °i � Housing Element Update J. )0 Initial Study/Negative Declaration r MM September 30, 2011 90 Initial Study/Negative Declaration City of Newport Beach Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Section 4.0 have been added. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Z ,,Anature Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Printed Name/Title City of Newport Beach Agency September 28, 2011 Date W� F] September 30, 2011 91 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Q���WgT City of Newport Beach e Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration R`MrATIMNM September 30, 2011 92 Initial Study/Negative Declaration Appendix A HCD Review of Housing Element Update STATE OF CALIFORNIA -AUSINESS TR6NSMIRTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY MMUND Q- RROWN JR, G rnor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 1800 Third Street, Suite 430 .;. P. o. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-31771 FAX (916) 327-2643 www.hcd.ca.gov ` September 8, 2011 Ms. Kimberly Brandt Community Development Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Brandt: RE: Review of the City of Newport Beach's Revised Draft Housing Element Update Thank you for submitting Newport Beach's revised draft housing element update received for review on August 9, 2011. The Department is required to review draft housing elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Telephone conversations with Messrs. Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner and Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner, facilitated the review. In addition, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c), the Department considered. comments from Mr. Cesar Covarrubias, of the Kennedy Commission. The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the Department's April 15, 2011 review. For example, the element now includes a complete analysis of governmental constraints. As a result, the revised element will comply with State housing element law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g). Successful implementation of Program 3.2.2, to remove the 10 -acre minimum site requirement and Program 3.2.3, to allow by -right development for multifamily housing affordable to lower-income households are critical to facilitate the development of the John Wayne Airport Area (PC 11 and PCI 5). The City must monitor and. report on the results of -these and other programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code Section 65400. The Department appreciates the hard work and dedication of Messrs. Murillo and Ramirez throughout the course of the review and looks forward to receiving Newport Beach's adopted housing element. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Melinda Coy, of our staff, at (916) 445-5307. Sincerely, ,,& / 'e, 'Glen A. Campora Assistant Deputy Director Exhibit "G" Addendum No. 4 (Residences at 4400 Von Karman — ER2020-003) Available separately due to bulk at: https://www. n ewportbeachca.gov/govern ment/departments/com m u n ity- development/planning-division/current-projects-and-cases/residences-at-4440-von- karman 10-29 RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 200601 1 1 1 9) PA2020-061 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date October 2020 Table of Contents Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act 1 1.3 Background 3 1.4 Conclusion 6 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 7 2.1 Project Location 7 2.2 Existing Land Uses 7 2.3 City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories 8 2.3.1 General Plan Designation 8 2.3.2 Zoning Designation 16 2.4 Project Characteristics 17 2.4.1 Residential Uses 17 2.4.2 Vehicular and Non -Vehicular Circulation 18 2.4.3 Parking 26 2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities 29 2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture 29 2.5 Utilities and Infrastructure 29 2.6 Construction Phasing 30 2.7 Intended Uses of the Addendum 31 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 33 3.1 Aesthetics 34 3.2 Air Quality 40 3.3 Biological Resources 51 3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 57 3.5 Energy 62 3.6 Geology and Soils 68 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 77 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 83 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 89 3.10 Land Use and Planning 97 3.11 Mineral Resources 123 3.12 Noise 125 3.13 Population and Housing 137 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum Table of Contents 3.14 Public Services 140 3.15 Recreation 150 3.16 Transportation 155 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems 176 3.18 Wildfire 186 4 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION 188 5 PREPARERS 191 6 REFERENCES 192 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location Map 9 Figure 2: Local Vicinity 11 Figure 3: Airport Area Planning Designations 13 Figure 4: Airport Business Area ICDP 19 Figure 5: Existing Zoning Designation 21 Figure 6: Site Plan 23 Figure 7: Vehicular Circulation 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation 16 Table 2-2. Residential Development Summary 18 Table 2-3. Parking Summary 26 Table 2-4. Parking Supply By Project Phase 32 Table 3.2-1. Construction -Related Emissions 43 Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions 43 Table 3.2-3. Equipment -Specific Grading Rates 45 Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance Of Construction Emissions 46 Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance Of Operational Emissions 47 Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity And Natural Gas Generation 64 Table 3-7.1. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78 Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions 78 Table 3.9-1. Runoff Volume Summary (2 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm Event) 92 Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis 99 Table 3.12-1. Incremental Noise Impact Criteria For Noise -Sensitive Uses (Dba Cnel) 125 Table 3.12-2. Existing And Project Traffic Noise 126 Table 3.12-3. Opening Year And Project Traffic Noise 127 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Table of Contents Table 3.12-4. Project Construction Noise Levels 130 Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels 133 Table 3.14-1. Student Generation 144 Table 3.16-1. Traffic Study Area Intersections 156 Table 3.16-2. Level Of Service Descriptions 157 Table 3.16-3. Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions 160 Table 3.16-4. Interstate Highway Intersection Operations 161 Table 3.16-5. Project Trip Generation 162 Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects 163 Table 3.16-7. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 Without Project 165 Table 3.16-8. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 167 Table 3.16-9. Post -2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions 169 Table 3.17-1. Projected Potable Water Supply And Demand (2005 UWMP) 176 Table 3.17-2. Irwd Current And Projected Water Supplies (Afy) 177 Table 3.17-3. Potable Water Demand 177 Table 3.17-4. Irwd Current And Projected Water Demand (Afy) 178 Table 3.17-5. Wastewater Generation 178 Table 3.17-6. Single Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af) 181 Table 3.17-7. Multiple Dry Year Supply And Demand (Af) 181 Table 3.17-8. Estimated Solid Waste Generation 183 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data Appendix B Geotechnical Report Appendix C Phase I Environmental Assessment Appendix D Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Appendix E Noise Data Appendix F Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix G Utility Will Serve Letters iii Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION The project applicant, The Picerne Group, is requesting the City of Newport Beach's consideration of the approval of a residential development at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach. The project includes a residential building with 5 -story, 312 multi -family rental units — 299 market -rate units and 13 very -low income affordable units— with structured parking; a 1.1 -acre public park, and a free- standing parking structure on an approximately 13 -acre site. 1.1 Project Location The proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13 -acre, irregularly-shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses with surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154 -acre mixed-use development area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. Regional access to the project site is from State Route 73 (SR -73) via Jamboree Road to the south and Interstate 405 (1-405) via Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. There are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. All driveways are currently unsignalized gated. The site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, 0.5 mile northwest of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI). 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of Newport Beach (City). Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, Newport Beach is the Lead Agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to approve the proposed Project. Section 15164(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that "the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166 and Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration is only required when: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As part of its decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider whether the proposed Project would create new significant impacts or significant impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program Environmental Impact Report and City of Newport Beach Housing Element Initial Study/Negative Declaration (herein referred to collectively as the General Plan Program EIR). Additional CEQA review beyond this Addendum would only be triggered if the proposed Project creates new significant impacts or impacts that are more severe than those disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR used to approve the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update in 2006 and the 2014-2021 Housing Element (Housing Element) in 2013 such that major revisions to the General Plan Program EIR would be required. The following describes the requirements of an addendum, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164: (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An Addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Final EIR. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. 2 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an Addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. If none of these circumstances are present, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to update the previously certified EIR, an addendum may be prepared, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. 1.3 Background On July 25, 2006, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (General Plan) was adopted and the Final Program EIR was certified by the Newport Beach City Council. At the General Municipal Election held on November 7, 2006, the City electorate approved increased density and intensity of development and associated increased peak hour traffic trips provided in the Land Use Element of the General Plan, pursuant to City Charter Section 423. On September 24, 2013, the City Council adopted the City of Newport Beach 2014-2021 Housing Element and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is an update and revision to the 2008-2014 Housing Element. The land use opportunity areas identified in the General Plan remain the same. The General Plan contains the following elements: Land Use; Harbor and Bay; Housing; Historical Resources; Circulation; Recreation; Arts and Cultural; Natural Resources; Safety; and Noise. The comprehensive General Plan Program EIR analyzed the potential impacts of a citywide comprehensive update to the land use plan, and goals and policies for General Plan elements. The following summarizes the findings of the General Plan Program EIR associated with the adoption and long-term implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation measures. Rather it relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented, including conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring. Less Than Significant: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations and Conditions ■ Aesthetics: Obstruction of scenic vistas; ■ Aesthetics: Changes to visual character; ■ Air Quality: Exposure of sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide concentrations; ■ Air Quality: Objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people; ■ Biological Resources: Direct or indirect effects to candidate, sensitive, or special status plant and wildlife species through habitat modification; ■ Biological Resources: Adverse effects on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; ■ Biological Resources: Wildlife movement and wildlife corridors; ■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of archaeological and/or Native American cultural resources; ■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources; ■ Cultural Resources: Damage to or destruction of human burial grounds; 3 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction ■ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking; ■ Geology and Soils: Exposure of people and structures to adverse effects from seismic -related ground failure or landslides; ■ Geology and Soils: Substantial soil erosion and loss of topsoil; ■ Geology and Soils: Hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving; ■ Geology and Soils: Substantial risk to people and structures caused by construction on expansive soils; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Release of hazardous materials, including lead and asbestos, during construction activities and operational activities; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Existing oil wells (Newport Oil Field and West Newport Oil Field) and the five methane gas mitigation districts; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Hazardous emission at schools within one-quarter mile of a project site; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Listed hazardous materials sites; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Interference with the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Fire risk associated with development near wildlands; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Violation of water quality standards and discharge requirements during construction activities and operations; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Interference with groundwater recharge or depletion of groundwater supplies; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in substantial erosion or siltation; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Alteration of drainage patterns resulting in flooding ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Exceedance of stormwater drainage infrastructure or require new infrastructure, or cause substantial polluted runoff; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Degradation of groundwater quality; ■ Hydrology and Water Quality: Development in 100 -year flood zones and exposure to flood risks; ■ Land Use and Planning: Physically divide an established community; ■ Land Use and Planning: Consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including habitat conservation plans; ■ Noise: Construction activities; ■ Public Services: Fire, Police, Schools, Libraries; 4 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction ■ Recreation and Open Space: Deterioration of park and recreational facilities, and park deficiencies; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Intersection operation's levels of service; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Impacts to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) arterials; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Air traffic patterns; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Roadway design features causing safety hazards; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Emergency access; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Inadequate parking accommodation; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Applicable policies; and ■ Utilities and Service Systems: Water Treatment, Water Supply, Wastewater Treatment and Facilities, Solid Waste Disposal, Energy Use. Significant Unavoidable Impacts: Compliance with General Plan Policies and Applicable Regulations and Conditions ■ Aesthetics — New sources of light and glare. Note: this finding only applies to new development in the Banning Ranch subarea and is therefore not applicable to the proposed Project; ■ Air Quality; Land Use and Planning: Conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); population levels exceeding 2003 AQMP (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level); ■ Air Quality: Construction emissions (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level); ■ Air Quality: Cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants within the nonattainment area (no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts to a less than significant level) ■ Cultural Resources: Demolition of historic structures (no feasible mitigation measures are identified to reduce impacts to a less than significant level). Note: the project site is a parking lot and does not contain any historic structures. Therefore, this finding is not applicable to the proposed Project; ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning: Residential development constructed in the Airport Area within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Land Use Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Note, the project site is not within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour; ■ Noise: Potential exposure of persons to roadway noise exceeding standards established in the General Plan and Municipal Code; ■ Noise: Vibration associated with specific construction activities. The General Plan Program EIR notes that these significant impacts are not citywide and instead take into consideration land uses, activities, and sensitive receptors; ■ Population and Housing: Exceedance of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population projections; ■ Transportation/Traffic: Deficient freeway mainline segments and ramps; 5 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 1 Introduction The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact to the remaining topical areas evaluated in accordance with CEQA Statutes and the State CEQA Guidelines. 1.4 Conclusion The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum finds that potential impacts associated with this proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. As discussed in this Addendum, these conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, including project -specific analyses of potential impacts. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR. No new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed for the General Plan Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For these reasons, an Addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed Project. In taking action on any of the approvals forthe proposed Project, the decision-making body must consider the whole of the data presented in the General Plan Program EIR, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the adoption of the General Plan; and the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as applicable to the proposed Project. 6 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT 2.1 Project Location The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project (proposed Project) would be developed at 4400 Von Karman Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California. The approximately 13.00 -acre, irregularly-shaped property is relatively flat at an approximate elevation of 46 to 52 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project site is generally bordered by Birch Street to the northeast, Von Karman Avenue to the west, and existing office uses and associated surface parking lots and parking structures to the east and south within Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport is an approximately 154 -acre mixed-use development area generally bordered on the northeast by Campus Drive, on the southeast by Jamboree Road, and on the west by MacArthur Boulevard. Figure 1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, depict the project site in a regional and local context, respectively. Regional access to the site is from State Route 73 (SR -73) via Jamboree Road to the south and 1-405 via Jamboree Road to the north. Vehicular access to the site is provided from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Currently, there are three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. The site is approximately 0.5 mile southwest of John Wayne Airport, 0.5 mile northwest of the San Joaquin Freshwater Marsh Reserve, and 1.5 miles northwest of the University of California, Irvine (UCI). 2.2 Existing Land Uses The project site is a part of Koll Center Newport, which includes low-rise, mid -rise, and high-rise office buildings, hotels, and a private club. The project site is currently developed with common area surface parking for office tenants in Koll Center Newport. There are three office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site, none of which are part of the proposed Project. ■ 4490 Von Karman Avenue is a two-story (33 feet) office building located southeast of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue. ■ 4440 Von Karman Avenue is a three-story (62 feet) office building located south of the 4490 Von Karman Avenue office building. ■ 4910 Birch Street is a four-story (60 feet) office building located adjacent to and east of the 4490 Von Karman building. Existing land uses adjacent and near the project site include the following: Northwest Extended Stay America Hotel (4 stories, 50 feet) is northwest of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue Marriott Renaissance Newport Beach Hotel (10 stories, 112 feet) is southwest of the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue Northeast Birch Street 7 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project Newport Corporate Plaza low-rise, office buildings (one story) and surface parking north of Birch Street South 4340 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet) 4350 Von Karman Avenue office building (4 stories, 63 feet) TowerJazz Semiconductor manufacturing facility (two to three stories, 88 feet) at 4321 Jamboree Road Uptown Newport mixed-use development: residential apartments, retail uses, and a park (up to 75 feet) Southeast Birch Street Center office building at 5000 Birch Street (10 stories, 154 feet) with an associated free-standing parking structure adjacent to and south of the office building. The office building is immediately adjacent to the project site. California Superior Court Harbor Justice Center — Newport Beach (two stories) is on the northwest corner of Birch Street at Jamboree Road. Low-rise office buildings (two stories) with surface parking are on the south side of Birch Street. The surface parking for the office buildings is adjacent to the Uptown Newport apartments. Fast-food restaurants along Jamboree Road in Koll Center Newport abut the Uptown Newport project site Southwest/West Von Karman Avenue West of Von Karman Avenue, land uses include but are not limited to a private club and an office building (9 story, 140 feet) 2.3 City of Newport Beach Land Use Categories 2.3.1 General Plan Designation The project site is in the Airport Area' planning subarea. As depicted on Figure 3, Airport Area Planning Designations, the Airport Area is approximately 360 acres bordered by Jamboree Road to the southeast, Campus Drive to the northeast and west, and Bristol Street to the southwest. The project site is in a Mixed - Use District, and the General Plan land use category for the project site is "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU - H2)" (see Figure 3). The MU -H2 category specifically applies to some properties in the Airport Area. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the category "provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses." No non-residential uses are proposed as a part of the Project. Project implementation does not require a change to the existing General Plan land use category. i "Airport area' means an area of the City that encompasses the properties adjacent to John Wayne Airport and that is in close proximity to the Irvine Business Complex and University of California, Irvine as depicted on General Plan Figure LU22 (Airport Area)." Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.70, Definitions. Accessed September 21, 2020. 8 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR � r -' — -- � � r. �' JOHN WAYNE :�' � • a#+L.1 1• * ' i AIRPORT ..� { � �' i .. �.u-sig,._._ � - '+ � .• r� � V{ � } x +r+� .:f. - , � � �. '` ��' `. .. - .�... . '�-•. -. -- fir' „ ,"- y "� - ♦`♦ HUNTINGTON _� #;:t` , ,2. BEACHff ' , , ♦�� COSTA MESA ,'� < UPPER Q NEWPORT i x ; - <♦ BAY > UC IRVINE IRVINE NEWPORT" BEACH IT 11TIN eEacn '� � inviNE cOSia rytESa '* �= NEWPORT CENTER lb !w- LEGEND: - - - - City Boundary 4 F+ ♦ f T Y • 1 \ ♦ _ _ I ` I •.Y tia UNINCORPORATED ORANGE COUNTY Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR :Xt1�♦ r y L;�=�i� �R ��� �i�:i[ � � 1 M[ e � j : � h • �.:n��<,Y� � 1. *,•< ;' � .f. > '� �t�. � tea► •fir s �. .,-..,,yam '�«»;;��� is• � .? '. ,>� � _ �}i �•�`' BIRCH STREET ? ;+e *, t• - ' 4490 Von i Karman 4910 Birch 4440 Von 5000 Birch n ' , Karman Existing Parking Structure D 4 O 'L,F m _ r aCd q,Q2i �.... . O 4350 Von 7° Karman gym" ,` LF 4340 Von o Karman o , i >� Uptown im-4" :: Newport ,..xa:•:. FIGURE 2: Local Vicinity The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Not to scale Kimley >> Horn } Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 12 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Source: City of Newport Beach, 2006 FIGURE 3: Airport Area Planning Designations Residences at 4400 Von Karman LEGEND: Commercial M CG - Commercial General Commercial Office M CO -G - Commercial Office General Airport Supporting Districts M AO - Airport Office Mixed -Use Districts W Mixed -Use Horizontal Public, Semi -Public and Institutional Public Facilities Sub -Area m Conceptual Development Plan Area '\.Land Use Delineator Line tiHighway 0%,.*65 CNEL Noise Contour Refer to anomaly table LAND USE POLICY (A) Underlying Uses: Office, Hotel, Supporting Retail, �� Residential Village: Housing and Mixed -Use (with Guidelines for Design and Development) © Airport -Supporting Businesses © Commercial and Office O0 250 500 1,000 Kimley>>> Horn Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 14 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project Although the adopted General Plan approved a maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units in the Airport Area at a maximum density of 50 units per net acre (du/ac), the General Plan Program EIR evaluated 4,300 multi -family residential units for the Airport Area. As set forth in the General Plan, of the 2,200 multi -family dwelling units, 1,650 units must replace existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses in order that there is no net gain in vehicular trips. A maximum of the remaining 550 units are "additive" units that "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on-site".Z General Plan Land Use Element policies for Mixed -Use Districts are included in the General Plan as Policy LU 6.15.4 through Policy 6.15-23. Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of a residential village. The net density for 260 "base" units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable housing density bonus. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.10 requires a regulatory plan for each ten -acre minimum residential village in order to coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways, and requires a strategy to accommodate neighborhood serving commercial uses and other amenities. General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 6.15.11 requires the preparation of one Conceptual Development Plan for the area depicted on Figure LU22 of the General Plan if residential units are proposed on any property within the area. The Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan is addressed in the following discussion. Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan As noted, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.11 requires a conceptual development plan when residential units are proposed in the defined area of the Airport Area. The approval of a conceptual development plan is a prerequisite to the consideration of development projects with residential uses within the Airport Area. In September 2010, the Newport Beach City Council approved the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan (ICDP) for that portion of the Airport Area generally bordered by MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Birch Street as depicted in Figure 4, Airport Business Area ICDP. The Airport Business Area ICDP is approximately 37.7 acres of which approximately 25 acres is the Uptown Newport site, and approximately 12.7 additional acres in Koll Center Newport. The project site is within this 12.7 -acre area of Koll Center Newport. The Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site and 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport Office Site B, where the Residences at 440 Von Karman Project is proposed. All of the 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. With respect to the 1,244 units on the Uptown Newport site, the Airport Business Area ICDP notes that 632 units would replace existing industrial and office uses; 290 units would be additive; and 322 units would be density bonus units. Together, the approved Uptown Newport Project and the proposed Project would use all of the 550 z Figure LU22 from the General Plan Land Use Element is depicted as Figure 4 in this Addendum. 15 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project additive units allocated to Airport Business Area ICDP. As proposed, the Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of 13 very -low-income affordable units. Table 2-1, Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation, provides a summary of residential unit allocation within the Airport Business Area ICDP. Table 0-1. Airport Business Area ICDP Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation Sites Additive Replacement Density Bonus Total Uptown Newport 290 632 322 1,244 Residences at 440 Von Karman (Proposed Project) 260 0 0 260 Total (du) 550 632 374 1,504 du =dwelling unit As noted, the adopted Airport Business Area ICDP does not provide project -specific approvals. The ICDP is a conceptual plan and its approval by the City did not convey any rights to develop. All proposed site- specific development, such as the proposed Project, must be in substantial compliance with the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP, and is subject to City approval. 2.3.2 Zoning Designation The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Chapter 20.56 allows a "Planned Community District" to address land use designation and regulations in the form of Planned Communities. A Planned Community (PC) District, as stated in Municipal Code Section 20.56.010, is intended to: A. Provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment which can result from large-scale community planning. B. Allow diversification of land uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this Zoning Code. C. Include various types of land uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated development standards. As depicted in Figure 5, Existing Zoning Designation, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)". Specifically, the site is within Professional and Business Offices Site B of PC -15 Koll Center (Site B). PC -15 Koll Center includes all parcels bordered by Campus Drive to the northeast, Jamboree Road to the southeast, and MacArthur Boulevard to the southwest. PC -15 zoning permits professional and business offices, hotels and motels, retail, restaurants and entertainment, a courthouse, private clubs, and auto detailing and service stations. Currently, Site B allows professional and business offices, restaurants, and support commercial uses; residential is not currently allowed. Zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 in 1972, as subsequently amended. As a part of the proposed Project, PC -15 Koll Center would be amended to create a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. 16 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project The amendment to PC -15 Koll Center would also include the identification of permitted uses and their development standards. 2.4 Project Characteristics The site plan for the proposed Project is depicted on Figure 6, Site Plan. As proposed, the Project would allow for the development of a residential building with structured parking, a public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. Implementation of the Project would require the demolition of existing surface parking and landscaping within the limits of disturbance. All residential parking would be provided in the residential building's parking structure. Office parking removed during construction and by the proposed development would be provided in a new free-standing parking structure, structured parking associated with the residential building, and surface parking areas. 2.4.1 Residential Uses As discussed, the Airport Business Area ICDP identifies 260 units on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Project is proposed. The 260 residential units were identified as "additive" units in the Airport Business Area ICDP because no existing development would be removed. As proposed, the Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units inclusive of 13 very -low-income affordable units. Very Low Income Households are defined as households whose gross income does not exceed 50 percent of area median income adjusted for household size. The 299 units are proposed as market -rate rental units. The Applicant is requesting a 20 percent density bonus to provide affordable housing as a part of the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code. The residential building is proposed as a five -story podium building with three levels of structured parking (one level on -grade and two levels below ground ). The majority of the residences would be on the second through fifth stories over the one level of on -grade parking. Five units are proposed on the ground level of the building. The building would be approximately 71 feet to the top of the rooftop parapet. The PC Text would allow for a maximum height of 75 feet. Table 0-2, Residential Development Summary identifies the type of residential units that would be provided. As proposed, the Project would include 55 studios (3 affordable), 149 one -bedroom units (9 affordable), and 108 two-bedroom units (1 affordable), for a total of 312 units. The studios would range in size from 515 to 628 sf; one -bedroom units would range from 665 to 1,025 sf; and two-bedroom units would range from 1,000 to 1,413 sf. All units would have balconies with decks ranging from 26 to 71 sf, with the exception of the studio units which would have Juliet balconies (no deck or seating area). 17 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project Table 0-0. Residential Development Summary Unit Type Total No. Units % of Unit Mix Net SF Balcony/ Deck (sf) Required Balcony (sf) Total Net Rentable SF Avg. SF Studio 5100 8 2.56 515 0 26 4,120 S400 40 12.82 575 0 29 23,000 ES400: Affordable 3 0.96 574 0 29 1,725 S500 4 1.28 628 0 31 2,512 Subtotal 55 17.6% N/A N/A N/A 31,357 570 1 Bedroom A111 36 11.54 665 57 33 23,940 A200 21 6.73 657 30 33 13,797 EA200: Affordable 9 2.88 657 30 33 5,913 A400 29 9.29 744 62 37 14,880 A501 27 8.65 848 148 42 22,896 A731 36 11.54 1,025 72 51 36,900 Subtotal 149 47.8% N/A N/A N/A 118,326 794 2 Bedroom 8101 11 3.53 1,000 60 50 11,000 EB101: Affordable 1 0.32 1,000 60 50 1,000 8400 22 7.05 1,106 56 55 24,332 8423 12 3.85 1,061 57 53 12,732 8500 12 3.85 1,061 43 53 12,732 8705 20 6.41 1,392 69 70 27,840 B935 30 9.61 1,413 65 71 42,390 Subtotal 108 34.6% N/A N/A N/A 132,026 1,222 Total 312 100% N/A N/A N/A 281,709 903 N/A = not applicable Source: TCA Architects, 2020. 2.4.2 Vehicular and Non -Vehicular Circulation Vehicular Access Vehicular access to office buildings Koll Center Newport near the project site is most directly provided by three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows motorists to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers enter either by key card or parking ticket. To exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the gate; others must have a validated ticket or pay at the gate. 18 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR ,f ❑ Existing Office Buildings F-1 Park.WW mmmam4mK-- A&AL Source: City of Newport Beach, 2010 FIGURE 4: Airport Business Area ICDP Residences at 4400 Von Karman + 0 125 250 500Feet Kimley>>> Horn Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 20 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR CG 0.5 i. 0.5 Source: City of Newport Beach, 2008 Project Site PC -15 LEGEND: �♦` Single -Unit Residential ❑ R -A �♦ R-1-6000 �♦ R-1-7200 ♦ R-1-10000 ♦ Commercial i E CG - Commercial General M CV - Commercial Visitor -Serving Commercial Office M OA - Office - Airport Special Purpose Zoning Districts CG OS - Open Space 0.5 PC - Planned Community Specific Plans SP -7 - Santa Ana Heights SAN DIEGO CREEK FIGURE 5: Existing Zoning Designations Residences at 4400 Von Karman 0 Not to scale Kimley >> Horn Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 22 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR FIGURE 6: Site Plan Kimley ))Horn Residences at 4400 Von Karman NEW �9 u I u SIFT=.�- �,!I�s�olaellls:a��slal�rlurr�l,lalll�lel� I �I i I I �� �� I i ��!^I i �`- � I tit_ I I � °L �. 1 5• 1 r :h e� �• ��� IIII'I r �I r ��IIIIIIIrs"I I iln' SI�i��. j r ' '� e �1 I I G � s _N NUI � � � 119 n il' Irl�ir9 rr�r���►.r� �®� mv FIGURE 6: Site Plan Kimley ))Horn Residences at 4400 Von Karman NEW Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 24 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project Existing gates along the primary internal access street crosses the property from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue would be relocated as necessary to facilitate efficient site circulation. Gates would be removed at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. Vehicular circulation is depicted on Figure 7, Vehicular Circulation. Driveway 1: The westernmost driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in the residential building's parking structure, in a new, free-standing parking structure, and in surface parking areas. An entry to the residential parking structure for office parking would be provided near the 4910 Birch Street office building using Driveway 1. Driveway 2: The middle driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. As noted, the entry gate into the site from Birch Street would be removed. A gated entry into the residential parking structure from the drive aisle off of Birch Street would be provided. From Driveway 2, motorists can either continue to the internal access road to Von Karman Avenue where there is an entrance to the residential parking structure (access for resident and office parking), or access gated parking on both sides of the internal street. Driveway 2 would be widened to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left - turn and one right -turn lane. Driveway 3: The easternmost driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. Existing entry gates to the internal access road and parking areas would remain in their existing locations. From Driveway 3, motorists would have access to the parking areas on either side of the internal access road, including surface parking east of the 5000 Birch Street office building and the proposed free-standing office parking structure. No changes to the ingress/egress are proposed. Driveway 4: The northernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is an exit -only driveway. Motorists can make both right and left turns from Driveway 4. No changes would be made at this location. Driveway 5: The southernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is a full -movement driveway. This driveway is the southwestern access point of the internal street that connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street through the site. The entry gate from Von Karman Avenue would be removed and replaced with a parking gate on the east side of the internal street to provide access to the surface parking areas and the existing parking structure and new free-standing parking structure. Gated access into the residential parking structure would be provided from the internal street for residential and office parking. Driveway 5 would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left - turn and one right -turn lane. Gated access is also provided further south of the project site on Von Karman between the office buildings at 4220 and 4300 Von Karman Avenue. Access to parking areas east of the internal street would be available. Pedestrian There are existing sidewalks along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Additionally, there is a sidewalk along one side of Driveways 2 and 3 at Birch Street and Driveway 5 on Von Karman Avenue. The sidewalk at Driveway 5 extends to and fronts onto the 5000 Birch Street office building. As a part of the Project, walkways would be provided within the site, including along the internal street residential building 25 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project frontage and within the proposed park and open space areas, connecting to existing sidewalks. Access to the park and the existing office buildings north of the residential building would be available via the parking garage and pedestrian access into the residential building off of the internal street. Additionally, pedestrian connections would be provided to the Uptown Newport planned community, which is to the east of the project site. These connections are to be provided from the project site and through and adjacent to areas. The connections would include landscaping, pavers, and benches. 2.4.3 Parking Table 2-3, Parking Summary identifies the parking assumptions for the proposed Project. All residential parking would be provided in the residential building's parking structure. Office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in a new, free-standing parking structure, the residential building's parking structure, and surface parking areas. Visitors to the public park can use surface parking east of the residential building. Table 0-3. Parking Summary Residential Building Parking Garage Level Office EV Stalls Office Accessible Resident EV Stalls Resident Accessible Total Ground Level 135 17 3 5 0 5 165 Subterranean Level 1 117 0 4 160 29 9 319 Subterranean Level 2 0 0 0 313 28 0 341 Garage Total 252 17 7 478 57 14 825 Surface Parking Parallel 75 0 0 0 0 10 85 Free -Standing Office Parking Structure 3 levels 284 284 Total Office 635 Total Residential 559 Total Parking 1,194 Source: TCA Architects, 2020. Free -Standing Office Parking Structure A new free-standing office parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces east of the internal street. The 284 -stall parking structure would have four levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking. The height of the parking structure would be 40 feet. Residential Building Parking Structure The Project requires 420 residential parking spaces and would provide 559 residential parking spaces, inclusive of guest spaces. All residential parking would be provided in the building's parking structure and along the internal street. Office parking would also be provided in the structure. 26 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR 0 0 LEGEND •............ ), 4.••••••• • F ' ' EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO REMAIN .............. . J- "' EXISTING TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH TO BE RELOCATED Y RELOCATED TICKET KIOSK WITH MAN BOOTH NEW GARAGE TICKET KIOSK �' IL �xa X411 `, I VEHICLE TRAFFIC OUTSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM .•...> VEHICLE TRAFFIC INSIDE OF GATING SYSTEM ,, k S ---� VEHICLE TRAFFIC WITHIN NEW STRUCTURES 4*. � � NEW FIRE ACCESS ONLY LANE FIGURE 7: Vehicular Circulation Residences at 4400 Von Karman Kimley >> Horn Section 2 Description of Proposed Project This page intentionally left blank. 28 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project 2.4.4 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Amenities Public Park The Project includes a 1.1 -acre park to be dedicated to the City and that would be accessible to the public during daytime hours. The ground level park would be located between and north of the proposed residential building and the existing office buildings located at 4910 Birch Street and 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and extend from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. The proposed park would be improved and maintained by the Applicant, and accessible to the residents and public during daylight hours. The park would have active and passive uses which may include a multi-purpose lawn for recreation and bocce court, and shade pavilion, lounge areas with seating, and tables for group gatherings. The park would be landscaped with grasses, groundcover, trees, shrubs, and succulents. Walkways would be provided connecting the residential building, existing sidewalks on Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue, and to existing office buildings. On -Site Recreational Amenities The Project would provide on-site recreational amenities as a part of the residential development. General Plan Policy 6.15.16 requires developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels that are 8 acres or larger to provide 44 sf of on-site recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. The Project would be required to provide a minimum of 13,728 sf. The Project would provide 44,757 sf of on-site recreational amenities (an average of 143 sf per unit), inclusive of a clubroom, dog wash, fitness center, podium courtyards and roof deck, bike shop and private balconies for most of the residential units. In addition to the public park, the Project includes approximately 0.6 acre of open space areas and walkways. 2.4.5 Landscaping and Architecture Landscaping would be provided bordering and within the project site, including the surface parking areas. The park would be landscaped with a variety of grasses, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and succulents. Landscaping would also be provided along the perimeter of the site, within the surface parking areas, and bordering the free-standing parking structure. Landscaping materials would include a mix of trees, vines, shrubs, and groundcover. Two landscape areas would be provided on the podium level. One area is landscaping around the recreational uses, including the swimming pool. This area would include trees and shrubs with hardscape areas for seating, barbeques, and fire pits. The other podium level area includes outdoor dining with a barbeque and fire pit. Landscaping would include trees, shrubs, and ground cover, as well as hardscape areas for seating with seating and dining. The residential building's architecture is proposed to be complementary to both the non-residential and residential land uses proximate to the project site. The contemporary, articulated facades would include a mix of stucco and cement siding with stone or tile veneer fa4ade accents. The color pallet is proposed to be tans, dark greys, beige, white, and blues. All paint, coating and building materials would comply with regulatory requirements with respect to hazardous materials. 2.5 Utilities and Infrastructure Implementation of the proposed Project would require the construction of new on-site utility infrastructure to serve the residences and related uses. These utilities would be connected to existing 29 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project utility infrastructure in adjacent roadways, with the final sizing and design of on-site facilities to occur during final building design and plan check. The Project would connect to existing utility systems. Water Service The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) which provides both potable and non -potable water to its customers. IRWD has existing potable distribution lines adjacent to and within the site. The Project would construct a new water system with connections to an existing 10 - inch IRWD main in Von Karman Avenue and a 10 -inch main in Birch Street to provide potable and fire flow water service to the project site. IRWD maintains a non -potable water main immediately adjacent to the project site in Von Karman Avenue. Wastewater Collection and Disposal The City would provide sanitary sewer service to the project site. There are three, 8 -inch service connections in Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to existing service connections through sanitary sewer lines or laterals. Discharge from the sewer system would be directed to the Orange County Sanitation District's treatment plants. Drainage and Water Quality Treatment The site currently drains toward Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street and connects to the City's stormwater system. With buildout of the project site, the Project would continue to connect to the City's stormwater system through an on-site storm drain system. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. The site's runoff would be collected and treated through a proprietary biotreatment system, including a Modular Wetlands System as a part of the landscape treatment for the project site. Dry Utilities and Services Public infrastructure and utility buildings, structures, and facilities including, but not limited to, electrical, gas, telephone, and cable television would be extended to the proposed land uses. All new public utilities would be placed underground within the development area. Utilities would be principally located in road rights-of-way. 2.6 Construction Phasing Implementation of the proposed Project occur over an approximately 2.7 -year period with demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three phases. 30 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project The proposed Project's site grading, foundation excavation, and on-site infrastructure improvements would require the export of removal of approximately 114,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. Grading assumptions for each phase of development is provided in the subsequent discussion. Phase 1: Free -Standing Parking Structure Construction of the free-standing parking structure requires the demolition of 106 surface parking spaces and associated landscaping, as well as the reconstruction of a segment of the storm drain. A 284 -stall parking structure would be constructed prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the proposed Project in order to replace surface parking temporarily or permanently displaced by site development. The parking structure would have four levels of above -ground parking, inclusive of rooftop parking. At the completion of Phase 1, there would be a net increase of 178 parking spaces from 1,643 existing spaces to 1,821 spaces. Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately six months. Phase 2A: Residential Building Upon completion of the free-standing parking structure, approximately 443 surface parking spaces would be demolished to allow for the construction of the Project. At the completion of Phase 2A, there would be 559 parking spaces for the Project residences and guests and 1,579 spaces for office uses (includes existing parking, the free-standing parking structure, and parking in the residential building). Construction activities are anticipated to occur over approximately 24 months. Phase 2113: Completion Activities Phase 2B includes the demolition of 75 surface parking spaces to allow for the reconfiguration of on-site surface parking and access. No additional grading is assumed. Phase 2B construction activities would be concurrent with Phase 2A and are anticipated to occur over approximately three months. Table 2-4, Parking Supply by Project Phase, identifies the number of parking spaces that would be provided during each phase of the Project; both during the construction of the phase when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. During the construction of the new free-standing parking structure (Phase 1) and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use of office employees of and visitors to the office buildings. 2.7 Intended Uses of the Addendum The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency as set forth in CEQA Section 21067 and is responsible for reviewing and approving the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the 2006 General Plan Program EIR. The City will consider the following discretionary approvals for the project: ■ Planned Community Development Plan Amendment: An amendment to the Koll Center Newport Planned Community Development Plan 15 (Koll Center Newport Planned Community) for the creation of a residential overlay zone to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business Offices Site B. ■ Lot Line Adjustment. A lot line adjustment to reconfigure the underlying parcels that comprise the site pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.76 (Lot Line Adjustments) in order to facilitate the development of the proposed project. 31 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 2 Description of Proposed Project Table 2-4. Parking Supply by Project Phase Starting Parking Supply Parking Loss /Gain Ending Parking Supply Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Phase Office Residences Office Residences Office Residences Existing 1,643` 0 N/A N/A 1,643 0 Phase 1 - During Construction 1,643 0 -106b 0 1,537 0 Phase 1 - At Phase 1 Completion 1,537 0 284` 0 1,821 0 Phase 2A - During Construction 1,812 0 -443b 0 1,378 0 Phase 2A - At Phase 2A Completion 1,378 0 276` 559 1,654 559 Phase 2B - During Construction 1,654 559 -75b 0 1,579 559 Phase 26 - At Phase 213 Completion 1,579 559 75 0 1,654 559 Net Change +11 n/a N/A = not applicable a. Refers to the office building parking supply for the portion of the Koll Center Newport that will be impacted by the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. b. Removed parking spaces. C. Added or replaced parking spaces. Source: The Picerne Group, 2020. ■ Affordable Housing Implementation Plan. A program specifying how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, in exchange for a request of 20 percent density bonus and includes a request for one development concession related to the bedroom mix of the affordable units. ■ Development Agreement: A Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City describing development rights and public benefits for the residential development pursuant to Newport Municipal Code Section 15.45.020.A.2.a (development of 50 or more residential units). ■ Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study: A traffic study pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). ■ Site Development Review: Site development must be in accordance with applicable Planned Community, as amended, and Municipal Code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.80 (Site Development Reviews) for the construction of the Project. In addition to the approvals identified above, the proposed Project would be subject to other approvals and ministerial actions by the City as part of project implementation. Additional approvals include but are not limited to grading permits, sign permits, and building permits. 32 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The scope of the City's review of the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project is limited by provisions set forth in CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, CCR §§15000 et seq.). This review is limited to evaluating the environmental effects associated with the proposed Project to the environmental effects of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update as set forth in the General Plan Update EIR. This Addendum also reviews new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified. This evaluation includes a determination as to whether the changes proposed for the project would result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. Although State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 does not stipulate the format or content of an Addendum, the topical areas addressed in the General Plan Program EIR were used as guidance for this Addendum. This comparative analysis provides the City with the factual basis for determining whether any changes in the project, any changes in circumstances, or any new information since the General Plan Program EIR was certified would require additional environmental review or preparation of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. As previously discussed, pursuant to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an EIR has been previously certified for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following three conditions are met: changes in the proposed Project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; changes in the circumstances surrounding the project result in new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR; or new information has come to light showing that new or substantially more severe impacts than were disclosed in the previous EIR. With respect to cumulative impacts, the General Plan Program EIR states "In many cases, development under the General Plan Update serves as the context for cumulative analysis, as it includes all development within the Planning Area over the next 25 years. For some environmental resource areas, however, the cumulative context extends beyond the borders of the Planning Area and may be the boundaries of a particular service provider (such as the Irvine Ranch Water District) or the entire County." This methodology is appropriate for the Addendum analysis. Where a specific cumulative study area is assumed, it is addressed in the respective sections of this Addendum. The General Plan Program EIR does not identify mitigation measures. Rather it relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. As applicable, in addition to General Plan policies, this Addendum documents required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that reduce potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all measures will be implemented, including but not limited to permit conditions, plan check, and site inspections. 33 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.1 Aesthetics Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are no officially designated scenic vistas in the City but that natural features such as the Pacific Ocean and the bay provide coastal views. It is also noted that coast views are provided from identified roadway segments. The General Plan Program EIR also notes that parks and viewing areas throughout the City can provide significant views. The General Plan Program EIR identifies that development projects would undergo a subsequent environmental review on a project -specific basis to "ensure that scenic vistas and resources are not adversely affected." With respect to scenic vistas, the General Plan Program EIR findings that potential impacts would be less than significant with compliance with applicable General Plan policies, the City's Municipal Code, and the Local Coastal Plan. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is generally flat and is bordered by office buildings and roadways. The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or view points in the Airport Area, including or proximate to the site. The nearest public view point to the project site identified in the General Plan is approximately 1.1 miles south of State Route (SR) 73 at Bayview Park. The nearest coastal view designated portion of Jamboree Road to the project site is south of SR -73; it is approximately 0.6 mile south of the site. Due to the distance, intervening development, and highly urbanized nature of the project area, public coastal views along this view corridor would not be impacted by the proposed Project. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on a scenic vista or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact. Threshold (b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that there are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in the City. State Route 1, also known as Coast Highway, is identified as eligible for State Scenic Highway designation, but the City would need to adopt a scenic corridor protection program and apply for scenic approval from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to officially designate the highway. Because there are no designated State Scenic Highways in the City, the General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would have no impact. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There are no State scenic highways adjacent to or proximate to the project site. The site is not within a State scenic highway, nor is it visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. Additionally, 34 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis there are no rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or any other scenic resources on the project site. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas, but the trees are not considered scenic resources. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects on State scenic highways or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known atthe time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact. Threshold (c) Would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that development of new residential and mixed-use developments in the Newport Center/Fashion Island area, the Airport Area, and West Newport Mesa would alter the visual characteristics of the City. City-wide and area -specific policies would reinforce design standards, protect visual character and views, and enhance the City's existing aesthetic qualities while simultaneously accommodating projected growth. The City's planning process includes the review of developments for conformance with the General Plan standards, the City's Municipal Code, and as applicable, the Local Coastal Plan. General Plan Policy NR 22.1 regulates the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Therefore, the visual character and scenic quality would change as development intensity increased but the impact would not be considered significantly adverse. Conflicts with regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the project site. As a part of the proposed project, the zoning text would be amended so that the PC -15 Koll Center Site B would include a Residential overlay zone, allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. Project implementation would change the visual character of the site from a parking lot to a multi -family residential development. The overall character of the surrounding environment is urbanized with office buildings and the Uptown Newport Mixed -Use development to the southeast along Jamboree Road. The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.52.080, Site Development Review, which requires specific development projects to be reviewed to ensure consistency with the General Plan policies related to the preservation of established community character and expectations of high-quality development, and to ensure that the Project respects the physical and environmental characteristics of the site. The proposed Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires that new buildings be designed to "avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open space, or adversely modify wind patterns." The residential building is proposed to have a contemporary architectural style complementary to both surrounding office developments. The articulated facades would include a mix of stucco and cement siding 35 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis with stone or tile veneer fat ade accents. The color pallet is proposed to be tans, dark greys, beige, white, and blues. The proposed residential building would be five stories (71 feet to the top of the parapet) and the proposed free-standing parking structure would be four levels inclusive of the rooftop parking (40 feet). The three office buildings within the project site boundaries that are not a part of the proposed Project are two to four stories (33 to 62 feet). Accordingly, no new impacts relative to applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Threshold (d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, impacts related to light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, were considered less than significant. New development would introduce new sources of light and glare from these commercial, business park and residential uses. General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 would require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as the use of reflective surfaces that increase heat gain of adjoining buildings and ambient glare. LU Policy 5.6.3 requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. General Update Policies LU 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 would ensure that lighting impacts associated with the buildout of the General Plan land uses would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is an existing surface parking lot with light standards in an urbanized area with both non- residential and residential land uses that have various sources of lighting. Project implementation would result in additional lighting at the project site for the residential building, the free-standing parking structure, the park and common areas, and walkways. The recreational and landscaped areas of the site would have lighting to allow for nighttime use; lighting for security; and landscape accent lighting. The free-standing parking structure would be constructed in the southeast portion of the project site, proximate to the future Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. To minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. The design of the structure would be subject to the review and approval of the City. With respect to the upper (roof) level of the free- standing parking structure, light standards not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. The Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2 by incorporating non -reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass. Additionally, the Project would comply with Municipal Code Chapter 20.30.070 "Outdoor Lighting" that requires that light be shielded and confined within site boundaries to prevent spillage. Since the project site and surrounding area are largely developed, and with the anticipation of Uptown Newport phase 2 development, the 36 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis lighting associated with the proposed Project would not substantially increase light and glare within the site or surroundings. Compliance with General Plan policies and Municipal Code 20.30.070 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Cumulative Impacts While impacts are minimized with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to aesthetics were considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would change the visual aspect of and views from, to, and across the City, add new development to viewsheds, bring urban development to previously undeveloped areas resulting in a less than significant on scenic vistas, scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and visual character. However, the project site is urbanized with existing development and was already envisioned with residential use as part of the General Plan. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new significant aesthetic impact to occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative aesthetic impact than those already analyzed. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would "directly or indirectly minimize the visual quality effects of prospective growth within the City." The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment: Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. ■ LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting: Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. ■ LU 6.15.1- Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods: Provide for the development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport serving districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation 37 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. ■ LU 6.15.7 - Overall Density and Housing Types: Require that residential units be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high-rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to promote diversity of building masses and scales. ■ LU 6.15.8 - First Phase Development Density: Require a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase development area whether developed exclusively for residential or integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. ■ LU 6.15.22 - Building Massing: Require that high-rise structures be surrounded with low- and mid - rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. ■ NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass: Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC AESTH-1 The following City -adopted standard operating conditions of approval would be made conditions of the Site Development Review and would apply to the Project as follows: a. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero -cut-off fixtures and light standards shall be the minimum height required to effectively illuminate the parking area and eliminate spillover of light and glare to the adjacent property. b. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. c. To minimize the visibility of lighting on each floor of the free-standing structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. Rooftop parking lot light standards would not to exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. 38 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Community Development Department. e. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the Applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. f. Public areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 -foot candle on the driving or walking surface during hours of operation and one hour thereafter. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse aesthetic impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to aesthetics. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 39 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.2 Air Quality Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in new emissions that may exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because growth projection were accounted for in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. General Plan implementation estimated a net increase of 14,215 residential units and a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents, resulting a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. The SCAG-projected population for Newport Beach was 94,167 by 2030. This represents a 43 percent increase in population over prior SCAG assumptions for the City. Therefore, General Plan implementation would result in approximately ten percent higher growth projections than what was accounted for in SCAG's projections or the AQMP. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan would not be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and attainment of the standards could be delayed. The General Plan Program EIR identified this inconsistency as a significant and unavoidable impact. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact; change from previous analysis. AQMPs use regional growth projections that are based on the land use designations in the local General Plans. Therefore, the land uses assumed and the growth anticipated in the General Plan Program EIR are incorporated into the current 2016 AQMP, which supersedes the prior AQMP. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined by the following indicators: 1. Whether a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. Whether a project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the year of project buildout and phase. With respect to the first criterion, based on the air quality modeling analysis conducted for the proposed Project summarized later in this Addendum section, the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds for construction. Operation of the Project would not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project would not increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. The proposed Project would be consistent with the first criterion and would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. 40 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Concerning the second criterion, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG's latest growth forecasts, and SCAG's growth forecasts are defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Therefore, the SCAQMD's second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the proposed Project exceeds the assumptions used in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2016 AQMP. With respect to SCAQMD's 2016 AQMP, several sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions including the General Plan, SCAG's Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), and SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG's RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. The project is consistent with the City's land use designations and no change would be required. The Project would construct an infill residential development with a total of 312 multi -family apartment units inclusive of a 20 percent density bonus, a structured parking garage, and a 1.1 -acre public park. The Project is consistent with the MU -H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses, as well as a park into Koll Center Newport to allow for a greater diversity of land uses. As a part of the proposed Project, the PC Text would be amended so that PC -15 Koll Center would include a Residential Overlay zone in Professional and Business Office Site B allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The amendment to PC -15 Koll Center would include development standards and the identification of permitted uses and parking standards. No change to the existing General Plan land use designation is required as a part of the City's consideration of the proposed Project. The Project is generally consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the area in the RCP. The population, housing, and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the cities; these are used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. Additionally, as SCAQMD incorporated these same projections into the 2016 AQMP, it can be concluded that the Project would be consistent with the projections. As a result, the Project would not exceed growth assumptions in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would not conflict with the second criterion. The proposed residential development would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR, and therefore implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. The proposed Project would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP compared to the General Plan Program EIR's finding of significant and unavoidable. Project implementation is not anticipated to result in new or increase the severity of impacts as it pertains to consistency with the AQMP when compared to the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 41 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Threshold (b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that some projects that would be implemented under the General Plan could individually exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and that the total amount of construction assumed in the General Plan could also exceed the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance. Impacts were considered significant. General Plan Policies NR 8.1 through NR 8.5 were identified to reduce air pollutant emissions from construction activities. These policies call for the maintenance of construction equipment, the use of non-polluting and non-toxic building equipment, and minimizing fugitive dust. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Construction associated with the proposed Project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. Construction -generated emissions are relatively short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur. They are considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from demolition, site grading and excavation, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. The duration of construction activities for the Project is estimated to be approximately 2.7 years with demolition and construction activities anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three continuous phases. Phase 1 includes the demolition of some surface parking and landscaping and the construction of a free-standing parking structure; Phase 2A includes the construction of the 312 unit residential building; and Phase 2B includes the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Phases 2A and 2B would overlap. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately 114,000 cubic yards (cy) of material. Construction -generated emissions were calculated using CaIEEMod, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects based on typical construction requirements. Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the proposed Project are identified in Table 3.2-1, Construction - Related Emissions. As shown, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain below their respective thresholds for all construction years. While PMlo and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed thresholds, the proposed Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113, as set forth in Standard Condition (SC) AQ -1 and SC AQ -2 to further reduce specific construction -related emissions. 42 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.2-1. Construction -Related Emissions Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)',' ROG NOx CO SO2 PMio PM2.5 Construction Year 2021 (Parking Structure) 2.21 25.45 16.49 0.04 4.18 1.60 2022 (Parking Structure) 4.89 22.33 25.61 0.05 1.82 1.19 2022 (Residential Structure) 4.11 52.74 33.88 0.11 8.50 5.21 2023 (Residential Structure) 39.06 43.36 51.34 0.14 16.30 5.55 2024 (Residential Structure) 38.80 34.00 50.16 0.14 8.28 3.02 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55 150 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI -E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Regional Operational Emissions Project -generated emissions would be associated with mobile source emissions from motor vehicle use, energy emissions from energy consumption, and area sources generated by the use of natural -gas-fired appliances, landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings. Operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 3.2-2, Operational Emissions. Table 3.2-2. Operational Emissions Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)' ROG NOx CO SO2 PMio PM2.5 Parking Structure Area Source Emissions 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Structure Area Source Emissions 13.71 4.70 27.63 0.03 0.50 0.50 Energy Emissions 0.11 0.90 0.38 0.01 0.07 0.07 Mobile Emissions 2.17 8.05 28.90 0.12 12.38 3.37 Total Emissions 16.03 13.65 56.92 0.16 12.95 3.94 SCAQMD Threshold 1 55 1 55 1 550 1 150 1 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No ROG: reactive organic gases; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; S02 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. 43 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant, the potential air quality impact may be of regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOx, SOx, PMlo, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOx and ROG react with sunlight to form 03 [photochemical smog], and wind currents readily transport SOx, PMlo, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. Project -generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CaIEEMod. This model predicts ROG, NOx, PMlo, and PM2.5 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses. The Traffic Impact Study (Kimley-Horn, 2020) notes that the proposed Project would generate approximately 1,697 daily trips, with 112 morning peak hour trips (29 inbound and 83 outbound) and 138 evening peak hour trips (84 inbound and 54 outbound) at buildout. Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for consumer products, use of architectural coatings, and landscaping. Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions would be generated as a result of electricity and natural gas use associated with the proposed Project. The primary use of electricity and natural gas by the Project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. The Project's net emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants. Therefore, regional operations emissions would result in a less than significant long-term regional air quality impact. As discussed above, the proposed Project's construction and operational activities would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed Project would result in a less significant impact compared to the regional air quality impacts as identified in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that implementation of the General Plan would not expose existing or future sensitive uses within the City to substantial CO concentrations. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations during construction activities if it would cause or contribute significantly to elevated levels. Unlike the construction emissions shown in the regional emissions analysis, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects. Exposure to pollutant concentrations in exceedance of the NAAQS or CAAQS are generally considered substantial. Carbon Monoxide Hotspots. A CO hot spot is an area of localized carbon monoxide pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. The purpose of the analysis is to verify that a project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard at intersections 44 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis for which a significant impact would occur. It should be noted that the air basin is designated as an attainment area for State and federal CO standards; and that there has been a decline in CO emissions even though vehicle miles traveled on urban and rural roads have increased. The SCAQMD studied the four most congested intersections within the Air Basin in 2003 in order to support their CO "attainment" demonstration to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The modeled intersections experienced more than 100,000 average daily trips, and SCAQMD found that even these highly -congested intersections would not cause a CO hot spot to result. Therefore, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hot spots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections as a result of 1,697 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Localized Construction Emissions. The SCAQMD developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO2, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 generated at new development sites (off-site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project site without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or State ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the Project source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. An LST analysis is applicable for all projects that disturb 5.0 acres or less on a single day. The City of Newport Beach is within SCAQMD SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County). The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi -family residences in Uptown Newport, located approximately 1,410 feet southeast of the site. These receptors would be adjacent to the construction area. The SCAQMD LST methodology states that "off-site mobile emissions from the project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs." Therefore, for purposes of the construction LST analysis, only emissions included in the CaIEEMod "on-site" emissions outputs were considered. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. In order to be conservative, LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters were used (according to the SCAQMD LST guidance, the 25 -meter threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The construction acreage is determined based daily acreage disturbed and the LSTs increase as acreages increase. Table 3.2-3, Equipment -Specific Grading Rates, shows that the grading rates used for the LST analysis assumed 3.5 acres graded per day. Table 3.2-3. Equipment -Specific Grading Rates Construction Phase Equipment Type Equipment Quantity Acres Graded per 8 -Hour Day Operating Hours per Day Acres Graded per Day Rubber Tired Dozers 3 0.5 8 1.5 Site Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 0.5 8 2 Preparation Graders 0 0.5 8 0 Scrapers 0 1 8 0 Total Acres Graded per Day 3.5 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Table 3.2-4, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during construction activity. The LSTs reflect a maximum disturbance of 3.5 acres daily assumed for the 45 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis proposed Project. Using a 3.5 -acre LST threshold (Table 3.2-3) is conservative as it discounts the dispersion factor inherent with a bigger site. Table 3.2-4 shows that the emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be significant. Table 3.2-4. Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity Emissions (pounds per day)',' NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Parking Structure Demolition (2021) 19.70 14.49 2.82 1.24 Grading (2021) 14.33 6.33 2.46 1.52 Building Construction (2021) 13.64 12.90 0.60 0.16 Building Construction (2022) 12.50 12.73 0.59 0.57 Paving (2022) 6.77 8.81 0.35 0.32 Architectural Coating (2022) 1.41 1.81 0.08 0.08 Residential Structure Demolition (2022) 25.72 20.59 4.75 1.69 Site Preparation (2022) 33.08 19.70 8.31 5.16 Grading (2022) 38.84 29.04 4.87 2.84 Grading (2023) 34.52 28.05 4.66 2.65 Building Construction (2023) 14.38 16.24 0.70 0.66 Building Construction (2024) 13.44 16.17 0.61 0.06 Paving (2023) 10.19 14.58 0.51 0.47 Paving (2024) 9.52 14.63 0.47 0.43 Architectural Coating (2023) 1.30 1.18 0.07 0.07 Architectural Coating (2024) 1.22 1.81 0.06 0.06 Maximum Daily Emissions 38.84 29.04 8.31 5.16 SCAQMD LST Screening Threshold (adjusted for 3.5 acres at 25 meters) 164 1,328 11 7 Maximum Daily Emissions Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No ROG: reactive organic gases; NOX: nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PMlo = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. b. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied for construction emissions. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; replace ground cover of area disturbed; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI -E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Localized Operational Emissions. As noted above, the Project is located in SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) and the 25 -meter threshold is used (according to the SCAQMD LST guidance, the 25 -meter threshold should be used for receptors located 25 meters away or less). The operational LST acreage is 46 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis based on the total area of the project site. Although the project site is greater than five acres, the 5 -acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project as the LSTs increase as acreages increase. Table 3.2-5, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions, presents the results of localized emissions during Project operations. The table shows that the emissions of these pollutants during Project operations would not exceed any thresholds. Therefore, localized impacts would not be significant. Table 3.2-5. Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Source Emissions (pounds per day)a NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 On -Site Emissions (Area and Energy Sources) Parking Structure 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Residential Structure 5.60 28.01 0.57 0.57 Total 5.60 28.02 0.57 0.57 SCAQMD LST Analysis Screening Threshold (5 acres at 25 meters) 197 1,711 4 2 Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No a. Emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod), as recommended by the SCAQMD. Worst-case seasonal maximum daily emissions are reported. Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Diesel Particulate Matter. Construction would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Health-related risks associated with diesel -exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be temporary and episodic. The duration of exposure would be short and exhaust from construction equipment dissipates rapidly. Current models and methodologies for conducting health risk assessments are associated with chronic exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Construction would be subject to and would comply with California regulations (e.g., CCR Title 13, Division 3, Article 1, Chapter 10, Sections 2485 and 2449), which reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in -use off-road diesel -fueled vehicles and limit the idling of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than five minutes. These regulations further reduce nearby sensitive receptors' exposure to temporary and variable diesel particulate matter emissions. Given the temporary and intermittent nature of construction activities likely to occur within specific locations in the project site (i.e., construction is not likely to occur in any one location for an extended time), the dose of DPM of any one receptor is exposed to would be limited. Therefore, considering the relatively short duration of DPM -emitting construction activity at any one location of the plan area and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of construction -related TAC emissions. Therefore, the Project would not cause nor expose persons to significant levels of toxic air contaminants. Impacts are less than significant. This would not be 47 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. Threshold (d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that constructions odors are limited to the number of people living and working nearby the source and due to the temporary nature of such odors, impacts were considered less than significant. Trash receptacles would be stored in areas and in containers as required by City and Health Department regulations, and be emptied on a regular basis, before potentially substantial odors have a chance to develop. General Plan implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people within the City and potential impacts would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project is a residential development, and which is not land uses typically associated with the generation of highly objectionable odors. In addition, the Project would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 402, which would contribute to minimizing odor -related nuisances, as set forth in SC AQ -1. In addition to operation -related generation of odors, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and from volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities, may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary and intermittent, and are not expected to affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, implementation of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant odors impact. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would introduce or require any new construction processes that would generate substantial odors compared with what was previously considered in the General EIR. Overall, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would "address issues related to existing and future air quality within the City of Newport Beach." The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.4—Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. 48 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ NR 7.1— Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel efficient heating equipment and other appliances. ■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. ■ NR 24.1— Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. Standard Conditions and Reauirements SC AQ -1 Dust Control. During construction, the Applicant shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible beyond the property line of the emission source. This rule is intended to reduce PMlo emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized. c) All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 49 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface. SC AQ -2 Architectural Coatings. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCQMQD) Rule 1113 requires manufacturers, distributors, and end-users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on contractor specifications. Cumulative Impacts The Project would not result in significant operational air quality impacts including nonattainment criteria pollutants. The Project would not exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. The Project would be consistent with the General Plan and not required any land use designation changes, and would therefore comply with the 2016 AQMP, which is intended to bring the air basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, the Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new air quality impact to occur. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative air quality impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to adverse air quality impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts, with respect to air quality. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 50 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.3 Biological Resources Threshold (a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified citywide biological resources, including habitat types; sensitive biological resources, including special status species; marine resources; and sensitive marine sources. Development could also result in the removal of mature trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds and raptors in both developed and undeveloped areas. Federal and State regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and California Endangered Species Act, restrict activities that may result in the "take" (kill, harm, harass, etc.) of certain species, including active nests. Actions, such as pre - construction surveys, may be necessary to ensure General Plan implementation does not result in the "take" of such species as a result of vegetation removal. General Plan Goal NR 10 and Policies NR 10.1 through NR 10.13 identify the actions that may be necessary during project -specific analysis and development. The General Plan Program EIR determined that compliance with these policies and federal and State laws would mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is an existing surface parking with ornamental landscape areas; there are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The site is bordered on all sides by developed urban uses. Project implementation would require the demolition of the surface parking areas including the existing ornamental landscaping in the parking areas. The proposed Project includes site landscaping including groundcover, shrubs, vines, succulents, grasses, and trees. The existing parking area does not provide habitat for any known special -status species or listed plants. Given the site's and surrounding area developed nature, no new impacts to special species are expected. General Plan policies would further restrict development within wetland areas and environmentally sensitive areas (ESA). The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA, and therefore these policies would not be applicable to the Project. While there is no suitable habitat for any special -status wildlife species on the project site, some of the existing trees could provide nesting habitat for native birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. The Project would comply with federal and State regulations as set forth in SC 13I0-1. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Threshold (b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 51 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted several General Plan goals which would protect wetlands and riparian vegetation. Policies NR 10.9 and NR 10.10 would specifically protect the existing or potential riparian habitats, and encourage restoration of the ESAs. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would serve to protect wetlands and their riparian habitat, and require a survey and analysis of future development within a delineated wetland area under the General Plan. The California Department of Fish and Game, under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code of California, regulate impacts to lakes, streams, and associated riparian (streamside or lakeside) vegetation through the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. The General Plan policies would serve to regulate indirect impacts future development could have on riparian habitats. Therefore, the impacts associated with riparian habitats would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The project site is not within a wetland area or ESA. The only potential riparian habitat near the project site is the Upper Newport Bay, approximately one mile south. Because there is no riparian habitat on the project site, the proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community than what was previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This finding is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new project -specific impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. No impact would occur. Threshold (c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified several wetland habitats include Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hardscape of Lower Newport Bay (Newport Harbor), and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach between the Santa Ana River and the boundary between the City and unincorporated Orange County. The General Plan Program EIR notes that development would be confined to previously developed areas and would not be located near wetland areas. However, should development be proposed within or adjacent to wetland areas, the project would be required to comply with State and federal laws and regulations to protect wetland resources. General Plan Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 were proposed to protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands. Policies NR 14.1 through NR 14.4 would maintain and enhance deep water channels and ensure they remain navigable by boats through the management of dredging and maintaining the capacity of wetlands and estuaries. Policies NR 15.1 through NR 15.3 would ensure the proper disposal of dredge spoils to avoid disruption to natural habitats through monitoring and management of sediment. Adherence to the identified State and federal laws and regulations would result in mitigate impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. 52 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The project site does not include any jurisdictional wetlands. No federal waters under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are on or proximate to the project site. The proposed Project would redevelop an existing urbanized property in the City. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect jurisdictional wetlands. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Threshold (d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? General Plan Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to wildlife nursery sites and corridors would be less than significant. General Plan Policies NR 10.3 and NR 10.4 would protect and prohibit development in nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas, and would require a site-specific study be prepared where development would occur within or contiguous to such areas. General Plan Policies NR 10.5, NR 10.7, and NR 10.8 would prevent disruption, and ensure protection of sensitive habitat though siting and design requirements, along with sufficient buffer sizes and shielding from direct exterior lighting. Policies NR 12.1 through NR 12.3 would serve to protect coastal dune habitats, which serve as movement corridor for coastal wildlife species. Policies NR 13.1 and NR 13.2 would protect, maintain, and enhance the City's wetlands, another movement corridor for a variety of aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species. With implementation of the policies, new urban uses within the developed areas of the City would not have a substantial effect on the movement of native resident of migratory wildlife species or corridors. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is a surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping that does not support State or federally -listed flora or fauna. The site is bordered by existing urban development and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. This determination is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not impact to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. City Council Policy G-1 establishes and maintains appropriate diversity in tree species and age classes to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest with an inventory that the City can reasonably maintain in a healthy and non -hazardous condition. Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code recognizes and strives to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. In addition, General Plan Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations in the protection of the City's biological resources, and Policy NR 10.3 is intended to protect, and prohibit development in, nature preserves, conservation areas, and designated open space areas in order to minimize urban impacts upon 53 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis resources in identified ESAs. The General Plan policies and City Council Policy G-1 would ensure that future development within the City would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and therefore no impact would occur. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The City does not have a tree preservation ordinance applicable to trees on private property. Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees) of the City's Municipal Code requires new developments to plant trees in the parkway abutting the building site. The trees are to be at least 36 -inch -box trees of the type, variety, and/or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. The Project would be required to comply with SC BIO -2 which requires compliance with Municipal Code 13.09. No new impacts relative to adverse effects on local policies protecting biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Threshold (f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The City is a signatory agency of the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) Habitat Conservation Plan. The NCCP is included as part of the General Plan policies. Policy NR 10.2 states that future development must comply with the policies of the Orange County NCCP. In addition, Policy NR 10.1 states that future development shall cooperate with State and federal agencies, and private organizations, in the protection of the City's biological resources. This includes local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. The General Plan Program EIR concluded no impacts to provisions to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is an existing surface parking lot in Koll Center Newport. Because the project site contains no sensitive biological resources, Policies NR 10.1 and 10.2 are not applicable to the Project. The proposed Project would not change or contradict any policies within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies General Plan policies related to biological resources identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential impacts to biological resources are not applicable to the Project. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC 13I0-1 Prior to the commencement of any proposed actions (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) during the breeding/nesting season (September 1 through February 15), a qualified biologist contracted by the Applicant shall conduct a preconstruction survey(s) 54 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the project site no more than three days prior to initiation of the action. If the biologist does not find any active nests that would be potentially impacted, the proposed action may proceed. However, if the biologist finds an active nest within or directly adjacent to the action area (within 100 feet) and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest using temporary plastic fencing or other suitable materials, such as barricade tape and traffic cones. The buffer zone shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with applicable resource agencies and in consideration of species sensitivity and existing nest site conditions, and in coordination with the construction contractor. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Only specified construction activities (if any) approved by the qualified biologist shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. At the discretion of the qualified biologist, activities that may be prohibited within the buffer zone include but not be limited to grading and tree clearing. Once the nest is no longer active and upon final determination by the biologist, the proposed action may proceed within the buffer zone. The qualified biologist shall prepare a survey report/memorandum summarizing his/her findings and recommendations of the preconstruction survey. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on a current aerial photograph, including documentation of GPS coordinates, and included in the survey report/memorandum. The completed survey report/memorandum shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department prior to construction -related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season. SC 113I0-2 The Applicant shall be responsible for planting trees in the parkway abutting the building site in accordance with City rules, regulations and policies in compliance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 13.09 (Parkway Trees). The parkway trees shall be at least a 36 -inch box of the type, variety and/or species determined by the City in accordance with the City Street Tree Designation List. If the City determines that because of the location, terrain, or condition of the property that required tree planting is impractical at the abutting parkway, the Applicant shall plant the 36 -inch box tree at a location designated by the City. Cumulative Impacts Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance, project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation measures. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources. Additionally, the site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The site is not located within a designated ESA, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on biological 55 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. The proposed Project would not cause a new biological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a biological impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative biological resources impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to biological resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 56 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that the City has 11 properties listed or designated eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or otherwise listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation. The City Historical Register also recognizes five structures or properties of local historical or architectural significance, most of which are not listed in the NRHP and CRHR. In addition to the formally recognized resources, the City's Historic Resource Inventory includes 61 properties, while not officially adopted, which serves as a guide to potentially historic properties that may have historic or cultural significance to the City. General Plan build out could result in the demolition of historic or potentially historic structures. General Plan Policies HR 1.1 through HR 1.5 protect historically significant landmarks, sites, and structures through requiring that the Historical Resources Inventory be maintained and updated, encouraging the preservation and adaptive reuse of historic structures, promoting the placement of historical landmarks throughout the City, encouraging adaptive reuse, and mandating the incorporation of historical elements in new redevelopment projects in the City. The Airport Area, Newport Center, West Newport Mesa and Mariners' Mile do not have historic resources. Since General Plan policies offer only limited protection to historic structures and would not ultimately prevent the demolition of a historic structure, and that demolition of a historic structure constitutes a physical effect on the environment, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to historical resources were significant and unavoidable. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Reduced impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There are no historical resources on or near the project site that have been listed or are eligible for listing on the NRHP, the CRHR, California landmarks, or local registers. The office buildings located within the boundaries of the project site (4490 Von Karman Avenue and 4910 Birch Street), or immediately contiguous to the site (5000 Birch Street, 4340 Von Karman Avenue, 4350 Von Karman Avenue) are not a part of the proposed development and were constructed between the 1970s and 2000s. Consequently, the surrounding buildings do not meet the criteria of a historical resource under CEQA and would not be impacted. Therefore, no impacts would occur. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on historical resources. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Threshold (b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. General Plan Goal HR 2 and NR 18 would protect archaeological resources by requiring that any new development protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. The Newport Beach City Council 57 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis also established "Archaeological Guidelines (K-5)" requiring the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding archaeological sites. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Although the project site has been disturbed, the area is potentially sensitive for archaeological and tribal cultural resources; three archaeological resources have been recorded within a half -mile of the project site. The Project would be required to comply with the City Council Policy K-5 which requires preservation of significant archeological and tribal cultural resources, as set forth in SC CULT -1. Compliance with General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 would require that any new development protect and preserve archaeological and tribal resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Therefore, compliance with these regulations would ensure impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in any new adverse impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts on archaeological resources. No new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified that would impact the prior finding under this threshold. Threshold (c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code. Disturbing human remains would destroy the resources and could potentially violate the health code. The California Health and Safety Code (§§7050.5, 7051, and 7054) contain specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. PRC Section 5097.98 addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes. General Plan Policies HR 2.1 and NR 18.1 require that any new development under the General Plan protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources, such that all grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist; that cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, are notified of all developments that have the potential to adversely impact these resources; and that any new development donates scientifically valuable archaeological resources to a responsible public or private institution. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to human remains would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site has been previously disturbed and currently is developed with surface parking and landscape areas. There is no indication that there are burials present at the project site and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during project development. In the event that human remains 58 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis are discovered during grading activities, the Project would adhere to all State and local regulations and policies, such as California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 5097.98, to addresses procedures to follow the discovery of suspected human remains (SC CULT -2). Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human resources would not occur. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ HR 2.1 - New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ HR 2.3 - Cultural Organizations: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. ■ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. ■ NR 18.1- New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Development to Impact Resources: Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. 59 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on-site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC CULT -1 In compliance with City Council Policy K-5, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. The archaeologist shall train project construction workers on the types of archaeological resources that could be found in site soils. The archaeologist shall periodically monitor project ground -disturbing activities. During construction activities, if Native American resources (i.e., Tribal Cultural Resources) are encountered, a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Discovery Plan (CRMDP) shall be created and implemented to lay out the proposed personnel, methods, and avoidance/recovery framework for tribal cultural resources monitoring and evaluation activities within the project area. A consulting Native American tribe shall be retained and compensated as a consultant/monitor for the project site from the time of discovery to the completion of ground disturbing activities to monitor grading and excavation activities. If archaeological resources are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the archaeologist shall assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City and affected Native American tribe (as deemed necessary), the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource that is not Native American in origin and that cannot be preserved in place shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. SC CULT -2 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. 60 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new cultural resources impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cultural resources impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with adherence to State and local regulations and General Plan policies discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative cultural resources impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to cultural resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 61 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.5 Energy Impacts related to energy were not analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR because they were not on the State CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of the General Plan Program EIR in 2006. Therefore, the analysis of energy is new in this Addendum. However, the General Plan Program EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services and utilities, which included electricity and natural gas. Specifically, the analysis was in General Plan Program EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems. As concluded in the General Plan Program EIR, impacts to electricity and natural gas services were found to be less than significant. The electricity and natural gas analysis in the General Plan Program EIR did not respond to the specific questions in the new energy section, which are provided below. However, the analysis, as applicable, is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes. Threshold (a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Although a stand-alone Energy analysis was not included in the General Plan Program EIR, as previously noted, it did analyze impacts related to public services and utilities. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts related to the relocation or construction of new electrical power or natural gas facilities would have no impact. Additional energy demands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year as well as compliance with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for the operation of any buildings. The projected electrical demand for buildout under the General Plan was expected to be within Southern California Edison's (SCE's) then -current ten-year load forecasts. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas was available to serve additional development, and that the natural gas service provided to the City would not be impaired by buildout under the General Plan. Any expansion of service necessitated by the General Plan implementation would be in accordance with SoCalGas policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. Natural gas demand projected for the General Plan would not exceed available or planned supply and no new infrastructure would be required. Therefore, no impact would result. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Fuel During construction, transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Most construction equipment during demolition and grading would be gas -powered or diesel - powered, and the later construction phases would require electricity -powered equipment. Idling of in -use 62 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California are limited to five minutes per Title 13, CCR Section 2449(d)(3). Project construction equipment would also be required to comply with the latest U.S. EPA and CARB engine emissions standards. These engines use highly efficient combustion engines to minimize unnecessary fuel use. The Project would have construction activities that use energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment) and electricity (e.g., power tools). Contractors would be required to monitor air quality emissions of construction activities using applicable regulatory guidance such from SCAQMD CEQA Guidelines. This requirement indirectly relates to construction energy conservation because when air pollutant emissions are reduced from the monitoring and the efficient use of equipment and materials, energy use is reduced. There are no aspects of the Project that would foreseeably result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy during construction activities. Due to increasing transportation costs and fuel prices, contractors and owners have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. There is growing recognition among developers and retailers that sustainable construction is not prohibitively expensive and that there is a significant cost -savings potential in green building practices. The use of battery -powered tools and equipment that do not rely on gas to operate are also becoming more common.3 Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure; impacts would not be significant. During operations, energy consumption would be associated with resident and visitor trips; delivery and supply trucks; and trips by maintenance and repair crews. The Project is an infill residential development within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas, such as the Irvine Business Center and Newport Center, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents.' The project site is also near public transportation (bus routes) access, further reducing the need to drive. The City and surrounding areas are highly urbanized with numerous gasoline fuel facilities and infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial demand for energy that would require expanded supplies or the construction of other infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities. The gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road vehicular trips is calculated based on total VMT. The total gasoline and diesel fuel associated with on -road trips would be approximately 146,621 gallons per year and 20,108 gallons per year, respectively. Orange County's annual gasoline fuel use in 2020 was 1,180,213,295 gallons and diesel fuel use was 144,020,787 gallons.' Expected Project operational use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.012 percent of current gasoline use and 0.014 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the Project energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Fuel 3 Jobsite, Construction's Electric Future, June 11, 2018, available at https://jobsite.procore.com/construction-s-electric-future, accessed October 2, 2020. 4 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association document, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010), identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 5 California Air Resources Board, EIVFAC2017. 63 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Electricity and Natural Gas Project implementation would increase demand for electricity and natural gas services provided by SCE and SoCalGas. Table 3.5-1, Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation identifies the Project's total estimated electricity and natural gas generation. As shown in the table, the Project would use approximately 1,624,857 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. In comparison, the project site uses very little electricity as it is currently used for surface parking. The proposed Project would represent an increase in electricity usage over existing uses. Table 3.5-1. Estimated Project Electricity and Natural Gas Generation Units/Square Feet Generation Rate Total Generation Electricity 312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents) 2,379 kWh/capita/year 1,624,857 kWh/year Natural Gas 312 units MFR (approx. 683 residents) 13,700 kBTU/capita/year 4,274,400 kBTU/year MFR = multi -family residential; sf = square feet; BTU: British Thermal Unit Sources: California Energy Commission (CEC) 2006; CEC 2011. The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SCE electrical facilities on the project site currently serving Koll Center Newport. SCE forecasts that it would have adequate electricity to meet the expected growth in its service area through 2026. Using SCE's anticipated consumption in 2026 in a high -demand consumption scenario, electricity demand is expected to be 123,828 gigawatt- hours.6 The increase in electricity demand from the Project would be 0.0008 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service. Project design features include high -efficiency wall assemblies and windows to reduce heating and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high -efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency domestic hot water systems; and high -efficiency light -emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units, common areas, and landscape design. Impacts to electrical service would be less than significant. Based on California Energy Commission assumptions, residential land uses generate the need for approximately 13,700 kBTU (kilo -British thermal unit) of natural gas per capita per year.' Therefore, as shown in Table 3.5-1, the Project would use approximately 4,274,400 kWh per year. The proposed Project would represent an increase in natural gas usage over existing uses. The increased demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing SoCalGas facilities. Total supplies of natural gas available to SoCalGas are expected to remain stable at 3.875 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (bcfd), that is, 1,414,375 billion BTU per year, between 2023 and 2035.8 Total natural 6 California Energy Commission, 2018, Electricity and Natural Gas Demand Forecast Figure 49, Available at: http://caIenergycommission.blogspot.com/2019/01/caIifornias-economic-growth-outpaces.htm 1, Accessed Sept. 22, 2020. Ibid. 8 California Gas and Electric Utilities (CGEU), 2019, 2019 California Gas Report. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2019_CGR_Su pplement_7-1-19.pdf. 64 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis gas consumption in SoCalGas' service area is forecast to be 2.647 bcfd (966,155 billion BTU per year) in 2035. Therefore, the natural gas demand from the proposed Project would represent a nominal percentage of overall demand in SoCalGas' service area. SoCalGas facilities that currently provide natural gas to Koll Center Newport can also serve the proposed Project. SoCalGas can provide additional connections if necessary once utility plans are finalized for the Project and are required to do so by the California Public Utilities Commission to meet additional demand. Impacts to natural gas service would be less than significant. It should also be noted that the Project design and materials would comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which took effect on January 1, 2020. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Newport Beach Building Division would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required adhere to the provisions of CALGreen, which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. Project development would not interfere with achievement of the 60 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 100 for 2030 or the 100 percent standard for 2045. These goals apply to SCE and other electricity retailers. As electricity retailers reach these goals, emissions from end-user electricity use would decrease from current emission estimates. This would not be a new impact, nor would it increase the severity of the impact previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? General Plan Significance Determination: The previous General Plan Program EIR did not discuss compliance with state or local renewable energy plans or energy efficiency. This discussion is new as part of this Addendum. Less than Significant/No Changes or New Information Requiring Preparation of an EIR. Project design and operation would comply with State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, appliance efficiency regulations, and green building standards. Project development would not cause inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption, and no adverse impact would occur. The City of Newport Beach adopted an Energy Action Plan in 2013 in order to help reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet the goals of AB 32. The Energy Action Plan outlines various measures and strategizes numerous methods on how the City's long-term vision to conserve energy at government facilities can be achieved. The Plan does not have project -specific requirements but focuses on demonstrating leadership through the implementation of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in their own facilities, minimizing costs associated with energy and utilities, and protecting the environment. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the City's Energy Action Plan. SCAG's 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) (RTP/SCS) establishes GHG emissions reduction goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks for 2020 and 65 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 2035. The project is consistent with regional strategies to reduce passenger VMT. The project site is in a major employment center and is proximate to several major employers. Orange County is traditionally jobs -rich. Transit stops along Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street connect the project site to the rest of the City as well as the cities of Irvine and Tustin. Increasing residential land uses near major employment centers is a key strategy to reducing regional VMT, which also reduces transportation fuel consumption. Therefore, in addition to being an efficient infill development, the Project would be consistent with regional goals to reduce trips and VMT by locating the residential development adjacent to business uses, which reduces vehicle trip lengths and transportation fuel use. The Project would not conflict with the stated goals of the RTP/SCS. Therefore, the Project would not interfere with SCAG's RTP/SCS. The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) was established in 2002 under SB 1078 and was amended in 2006 and 2011. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase the use of eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total procurement by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Executive Order 5-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State's RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2). SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and established tiered increases to renewable energy resources of 40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy - efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy -efficiency and -conservation measures. As noted above, SB 100 increased California's RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also established a State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end- use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon -free electricity target. Electrical service is provided to the project site and surrounding area by SCE, which obtains electricity from conventional and renewable sources. In 2018, 36 percent of SCE's electricity was generated from eligible renewables; 6 percent from nuclear power; 4 percent from large hydroelectric generators; and 37 percent from unspecified sources.' SCE is scheduled to reach California's 2020 renewable energy as mandated. The net increase in power demand associated with the proposed Project, similar to the projects pursuant to the General Plan, is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SCE and would not impede SCE's ability to implement California's renewable energy goals. Therefore, the proposed Project would not obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 9 Southern California Edison. 2019, July. 2018 Power Content Label. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline- fi les/2018SCEPCL.pdf. 66 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to energy use. The following policy is applicable to the proposed Project and would be made a condition of approval. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features. Standard Conditions and Reauirements No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause an energy impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative energy impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to energy or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 67 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.6 Geology and Soils Threshold (a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the : i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would not expose people or structures to adverse effects involving rupture of a fault located in an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, all have potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. However, none of these faults has been zoned under the guidelines of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. There are no Alquist-Priolo zones in the City and no impact would result. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. According to the Geotechnical report prepared for the proposed Project, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the site. Several active faults are near the project site, including the San Joaquin Hills Fault approximately 1.7 miles, the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone approximately 5.5 miles, and the Newport Inglewood (offshore segment) located approximately 6 miles from the site. Potential for surface fault rupture was considered low. Construction of the proposed Project would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering geology report, as set forth in SC GEO-1. The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved by the building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications. Compliance with SC GEO-1 and applicable CBC requirements would not expose persons or structures to seismic hazards and impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. 68 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Strong seismic ground shaking? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan policies ensures that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. Policy S 4.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design; Policy S 4.2 encourages the seismic retrofitting and strengthening of essential facilities such as hospitals and schools to minimize damage; and Policies S 4.4 and S 4.5 ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the CBC Chapter 33 for the construction of new buildings and/or structures, specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts. Compliance with applicable regulations and the policies contained in the General Plan would ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking remain at a less than significant level. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Project construction would be required to conform to the seismic design requirements of the 2019 CBC (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults and ground shaking by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Additionally, the Project would need to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code, which requires approval of soil engineering and engineering geology report (SC GEO-1). The Excavation and Grading Code also requires that recommendations included in the reports and approved bythe building officials be incorporated in grading plans or specifications. The Project would also be required to adhere to General Plan policies related to seismic and geologic hazards standards (SC GEO-2). The geotechnical study noted that potential for surface fault rupture is low. With implementation of the requirements of the CBC and the General Plan, the proposed Project would not expose persons or structures to strong ground shaking and impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Portions of the City are susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure (i.e., seismically induced settlement) include areas along the coastline that includes Balboa Peninsula, in and around the Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, in the lower reaches of major streams in Newport Beach, and in the floodplain of the Santa Ana River. A considerable part of the City mapped liquefiable areas (West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, the harbor islands and vicinity) are already built upon, mostly with residential and commercial development. The City Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6 require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and the protection of community health and safety through the implementation of effective, state of the art standards for seismic design of structures in the City. Additionally, if any development on steep terrain were to occur upon implementation of the General Plan, site-specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards 69 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City Building Code, as well as by California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization. With compliance of applicable regulations as well as policies identified in the General Plan, impacts were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is not located within the areas susceptible to liquefaction and related ground failure. The site is within a developed and urbanized area of the City. The geotechnical evaluation indicated that localized and isolated sandy layers within the old paralic deposits that underlie the site are susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along a nearby fault and the historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. Overall seismic induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with removal of materials for the subterranean parking structure excavation. The estimated settlements appear to be limited to isolated and localized relatively thin zones generally between 12 and 49 feet below existing grades during seismic events. Typical construction methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered fill materials prior to re -compaction with paralic deposits and/or other non -expansive materials. The resulting configuration would not be subject to liquefaction. There are no known geologic conditions on the project site that would render development infeasible. Compliance with the City's Municipal Code and General Plan Policies SC 3.6-1 and SC 3.6-2 would reduce the risk associated with seismic -related ground failure and associated liquefaction, lateral spreading, or subsidence to a less than significant level. The proposed Project would not result in a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. iv) Landslides? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Many of the areas in central and eastern Newport Beach have been identified as vulnerable to seismically induced slope failure, due to steep terrain. Compliance with the standards set forth in the current CBC would require an assessment of hazards related to landslides and liquefaction and the incorporation of design measures into structures to mitigate this hazard if development were considered feasible. The City has included policies in its Safety Element to achieve the goal of minimizing the risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances (SC 3.6-2). Adherence to the standards contained in Appendix ChapterA33, Excavation and Grading, City Building Code, and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CAL/OSHA) requirements for shoring and stabilization would reduce impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is located at an elevation of approximately 46 to 52 feet above msl. In general, the overall ground surface is relatively level with a gentle slope to the west. Due to the level topography on the project site and in area surrounding the site, landslides are not anticipated. According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Tustin Quadrangle, the site is not located within a Zone of Required Investigation for earthquake -induced landslides. Additionally, no historic landslides have been mapped 70 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis within or adjacent to the site, nor were there any indications of landslides due to the developed nature of the area. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to all applicable building code regulations and engineering design standards related to shaking hazards and geologic stabilization, as set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a new impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. Threshold (b) Would the project result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. General Plan Policies NR 3.11, NR 3.12, and NR 3.13 would require compliance with applicable local, State, or federal laws. Compliance with the CBC and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan. Implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. No mitigation is required. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is currently developed with surface parking areas and landscaping. Grading and earthwork activities during construction would expose soils to potential short-term erosion by wind and water. The project site would be graded, and foundation excavation would require the export of approximately 114,000 cy. All demolition and construction activities within the City would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading activities to reduce soil erosion. In addition, all new developments would be subject to regional and local regulations pertaining to construction activities. Specifically, development that is greater than five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which would require the employment of best management practices (BMPs) to limit the extent of eroded materials from a construction site. All development that is between one and five acres would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Phase II regulations concerning the discharge of eroded materials and pollutants from construction sites. Compliance with policies in the General Plan would further ensure that the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Compliance with the NPDES permit would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plan. Implementation of the General Plan policies would have a less than significant impact associated with soil erosion or topsoil. The proposed Project's impact on soil erosion would be less than significant, similar to those impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. 71 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Threshold (c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils, or compressible and expansive soils, as a result of collapse, subsidence, differential settlement, lateral spreading, or heaving. Adherence to the City's codes and General Plan policies would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations. Compliance with General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would ensure that development is not located on unstable soils or geologic units. In view of these requirements, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils. No mitigation is required. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Similar to the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would have the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that would become unstable and potentially result in on- or off-site impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and/or collapse. The geotechnical evaluation concluded that the project site had a very low to high expansion potential. Liquefaction -induced ground displacements are relatively minor overall and typical reinforced concrete structural mat foundation system for the support of the proposed apartment building and parking structure would further reduce impacts. The proposed Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies and CBC regulations set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. With adherence to these standard conditions, impacts would be less than significant, similar to the previously certified General Plan Program EIR. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. Threshold (d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to unstable soils, or geologic units. Development under the General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the CBC related to soil hazard -related design. The City's Building Code requires a site-specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. Further, General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 would require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 72 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. As discussed in the General Plan Program EIR, the City contains soils that are highly expansive and compressive, and subject to significant volume changes due to moisture fluctuations. The proposed Project would be required to adhere to the City's Building Code and General Plan Policies S 4.4 and S 4.6 require that development not be located on unstable soils or geologic units, as set forth in SC GEO-1 and SC GEO-2. Compliance with State and local regulations described in the standard conditions would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to less than significant. This would not be a new specific impact or an increase in the severity of an impact that was identified in the General Plan Program EIR and would therefore be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan and no further analysis is required. Threshold (e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR determined that the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks. No impact would occur. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is within a fully developed commercial office complex. The Project would connect to utility infrastructure and would not use septic tanks. As a result, no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project's implementation. Therefore, no further analysis is required. Threshold (f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identified that potential impacts to paleontological resources would be a less than significant with compliance with General Plan policies and Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4). The City has known significant paleontological resources, including portions of the Vaqueros formation that underlie the Newport Coast, Newport Banning Ranch, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area. Ground -disturbing activities associated with the buildout of the General Plan would have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present below the surface. Damage or destruction to these resources could cause a significant impact. General Plan Policy HR 2.1 and Policy NR 18.1 require any new development to protect and preserve archaeological resources from destruction, and that potential impacts to such resources be avoided and minimized through planning policies and permit conditions. Other policies under Goal HR 2 and Goal NR 18 ensure that information resources are maintained regarding these resources and that grading and excavation activities where there is a potential to affect cultural or archaeological resources be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Additionally, the Newport Beach City Council Paleontological Guidelines (K-4) requires the City to prepare and maintain sources of information regarding paleontological sites. 73 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Compliance with policies within Goal NR 18 and the policies under Goal HR 2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There are no known unique paleontological resources of unique geologic features on the project site. The proposed Project would adhere to the General Plan policies under Goals HR 2 and NR 18 should ground - disturbing activities that may impact previously undisturbed grounds. The proposed Project would comply with the City's "Paleontological Guidelines (K-5)." Set forth in SC GEO-3. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan Program EIR identifies General Plan policies that would address potential impacts to soils and geological resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ S 4.7 — New Development: Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where potentially active faults may occur. ■ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. ■ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.12 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, wherefeasible. 74 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. ■ HR 2.1- New Development Activities: Require that, in accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ HR 2.2 - Grading and Excavation Activities: Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. ■ HR 2.4 - Paleontological or Archaeological Materials: Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. ■ NR 18.1- New Development: Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. ■ NR 18.3 - Potential for New Developmentto Impact Resources: Require new development, where on-site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. ■ NR 18.4 - Donation of Materials: Require new development, where on-site preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC GEO-1 The Project is required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the City of Newport Beach Deputy Community Development Director/Building Official or his/her designee shall review the grading plan for conformance with the conceptual grading shown on the approved site development plan submittal. The grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. SC GEO-2 The Project is required to comply with General Plan Safety Element Policies S 4.1 through S 4.6, which require new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards, and help protect community health and 75 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis safety through the implementation of effective, state-of-the-art standards for seismic design of structures. SC GEO-3 In compliance with City Council Policy K-4, prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to be available on-call during ground -disturbing activities onsite and provide documentation of such retention to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. If fossils are encountered, all construction work within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If, in consultation with the City, the discovery is determined to not be important, work will be permitted to continue in the area. Any resource shall be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Cooper Center (a partnership between California State University, Fullerton and the County of Orange). Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new geologic impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a geologic impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with adherence to the Standard Conditions discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative geologic impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to geology and soils or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 76 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold (a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: The General Plan Program EIR did not evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission generation. At the time of approval of the General Plan Program EIR, the contribution of GHG emissions to climate change was a prominent issue of concern. On March 18, 2010, amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines took effect which set forth requirements for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA. Since the EIR has already been certified, the determination of whether GHG emissions and climate change needs to be analyzed for this specific development is governed by the law on supplemental or subsequent EIRs (PRC §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15163). GHG emissions and climate change are not required to be analyzed under those standards unless it constitutes "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time" the General Plan Program EIR was approved (State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)). The issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known at the time the General Plan was approved and the General Plan Program EIR was certified. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold. Although the City finds that GHG impacts and climate change is not "new information" under PRC Section 21166, the following analysis for the proposed Project is provided for informational purposes. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact. The Project would allow for 312 residential apartments, including 299 market -rate units and 13 very -low income affordable units. The proposed Project would not include any acreage changes or increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses in the MU -H2 designated areas as analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed land uses would be within the development capacity analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Construction GHG Emissions The proposed Project would result in direct emissions of GHGs from construction activities. The approximate quantity of daily GHG emissions generated by construction equipment associated with the Project is identified in Table 3.7-1, Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in the table, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 3,250 metric tons of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. The SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime. Therefore, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions. 77 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3-7.1. Construction -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Year MTCO2e 2021 (Parking Structure) 139 2022 (Parking Structure) 30 2022 (Residential Building) 1,208 2023 (Residential Building) 1,308 2024 (Residential Building) 395 Total Construction 3,250 30 -Year Amortized Construction 103 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. Operations GHG Emissions Table 3.7-2, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions summarizes the GHG emissions associated with Project operations. As shown, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,585 metric tons of CO2e annually. Table 3.7-2. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source MTCO2e per Year Construction Amortized Over 30 Years (Parking and Residential Building) 103 Energy (Parking Structure) 146 Area Source (Residential Building) 69 Energy (Residential Building) 890 Mobile (Residential Building) 1,233 Waste (Residential Building) 36 Water and Wastewater (Residential Building) 107 Total 2,585 Bright Line Threshold 3,000 Source: CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs. As identified in Table 3.7-2, the SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric bright -line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e annually would not be exceeded. The proposed Project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is therefore less than significant. Water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation, and energy demand would increase due to the introduction of up to 312 multi -family rental units at the Koll Center Newport. However, the units would be within the overall 2,200 maximum multi- family units for the Airport Area identified in the General Plan. As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan evaluated 4,300 multi -family units in the Airport Area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions had the evaluation been provided in the General Plan Program EIR. 78 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The City of Newport Beach Energy Action Plan outlines goals to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions to become a more sustainable community and to meet Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) goals. Goals include: ■ Meet and exceed AB 32 energy reduction goals; ■ Be an example for energy efficiency and sustainability at City facilities; ■ Continue interacting, educating, and informing the community about energy efficiency and GHG emissions; ■ Explore the newest "green" technologies and methods to decrease future energy dependency; and ■ Explore renewable energy recourses (not limited to solar) and possible financing based on available grants/rebates. The proposed Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction which include energy conservation measures mandated by Title 24 of the California Building Standards Code — Energy Efficiency Standards (refer to SC GHG-1) and the California Green Building Standards (refer to SC GHG-2). Because Title 24 standards require energy conservation features in new construction (e.g., high -efficiency lighting, high -efficiency heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, thermal insulation, double -glazed windows, water -conserving plumbing fixtures), these standards indirectly regulate and reduce GHG emissions. California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle. The most recent 2019 standards went into effect January 1, 2020. Although the City's Energy Plan is primarily focused on reducing municipal energy consumption, the proposed Project would not conflict with the community -wide energy use goals of the plan. As discussed in Section 3.5, Energy, the Project's energy impacts would be less than significant. Further, the Project would be below the SCAQMD's GHG threshold and would comply with the City's General Plan policies, and State Building Code provisions designed to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with all SCAQMD applicable rules and regulations during construction of the operational phase and would not interfere with the State's goals of reducing GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020 as stated AB 32. In addition, when the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB's Scoping Plan outlines the State's strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020 and a 40 percent reduction from 1990 emissions by year 2030. The CARB Scoping Plan has been the primary tool to develop performance-based and efficiency -based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing SB 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero -electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 79 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creation of a post -2020 Cap -and -Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California's land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed Project's GHG emissions. Additionally, approximately 91 percent of the project's emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2017 Scoping Plan measures described above. It should be noted that the City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 60 percent of the project's total emissions). However, these emissions would decline in the future due to statewide measures including the reduction in the carbon content of fuels, CARB's advanced clean car program, CARB's mobile source strategy, fuel efficiency standards, cleaner technology, and fleet turnover. Additionally, SCAG's RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 8 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035.10 The Project is an infill residential development within Koll Center Newport and near other large employment areas such as Newport Center and the Irvine Business Center, which could reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions." Regarding goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05, at this time it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures, as they have not yet been developed. Nevertheless, it can be anticipated that operation of the proposed Project would benefit from the implementation of current and potential future regulations (e.g., improvements in vehicle emissions, SB 100/renewable electricity portfolio improvements, etc.) enacted to meet an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions. Consistent with Title 24, AB 32, SB 32, and the Energy Action Plan, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. The GHG emissions associated with the land uses assumed in the General Plan Program EIR would be reduced through compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted, inclusive of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the above statewide strategies identified to implement the CARB Scoping Plan. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 10 Southern California Association of Governments, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, September 3, 2020, p. 9. 11 The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. 80 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 6.1— Walkable Neighborhoods: Provide for walkable neighborhoods to reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. ■ NR 6.2 — Mixed -Use Development: Support mixed-use development consisting of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. ■ NR 6.4—Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: Implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, which promotes and encourages the use of alternative transportation modes, and provides those facilities such as bicycle lanes that support such alternate modes. ■ NR 7.1 — Fuel Efficient Equipment: Support the use of fuel-efficient heating equipment and other appliances. ■ NR 7.2 — Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices: Require the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to reduce source emissions. ■ NR 8.1— Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution: Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. ■ NR 24.1— Incentives for Energy Conservation: Develop incentives that encourage the use of energy conservation strategies by private and public developments. ■ NR 24.2 — Energy -Efficient Design Features: Promote energy-efficient design features. ■ NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation: Promote or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" status. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC GHG-1 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. SC GHG-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall be required to demonstrate to the Community Development Department, Building Division that building plans meet the applicable California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) Code (24 CCR 11). 81 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Cumulative Impacts Because of the global nature of climate change, most projects will not result in GHG emissions that are individually significant. Therefore, it is accepted as very unlikely that any individual development project or General Plan would have GHG emissions of a magnitude to directly impact global climate change and the impact of the proposed Project is considered on a cumulative basis. The Project's cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the Project's cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered less than significant. Conclusion As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new GHG impact nor an increase in the severity of GHG impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. 82 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold (a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, implementation of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact related to the public with respect to hazardous materials. General Plan Policy S 7.6 requires that all users, producers, and transporters of hazardous materials and wastes clearly identify the materials that they store, use, or transport, and to notifythe appropriate City, County, State and federal agencies in the event of a violation. Oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public's potential exposure to these substances. Therefore, impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials can occur through transportation accidents; environmentally unsound disposal methods; improper handling of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes (particularly by untrained personnel); and/or emergencies, such as explosions or fires. The severity of these potential effects varies by type of activity, concentration and/or type of hazardous materials or wastes, and proximity to sensitive receptors. The proposed Project, similar to all development pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to comply with regulations and standards established by applicable regulatory agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the U.S. EPA, and OSHA. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, storage, production, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Upon development of the project site, hazardous materials would be limited to those associated with common household fertilizers, pesticides, paint, solvent, and petroleum products. Because these materials would be used in very limited quantities, they are not considered a significant hazard to the public. The proposed Project's impact on creating significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, similar to the General Plan Program EIR, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Threshold (b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulations of the County Environmental Health Division, County Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board and General Plan 83 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Policies S 7.1 and S 7.4 would reduce impacts related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Compliance with Titles 8, 22, 26, and 49 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation in Chapter 6.95 ofthe California Health and Safety Code, would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use, transportation, and handling through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (EMS, June 2020) was prepared for the proposed Project. No recognized environmental conditions at the project site were identified. One historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) was identified for a leaking underground storage tank associated with 4910 Birch Street parking lot in 1993. Remediation occurred and the case was closed in 2002. A Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CREC) was identified at 4311 Jamboree Road at the TowerJazz Semiconductor (formerly Conexant Systems, Inc.) site, approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site. Remediation efforts were ongoing between 2005 and 2016. That property is also undergoing a pilot test study for enhanced in-place bioremediation for remediation of contaminants of concern in groundwater. The Phase I concluded that the TowerJazz Semiconductor facility is a CREC in connection with the project site. The proposed Project would not impact or otherwise hinder remediation efforts at the TowerJazz Semiconductor site and would not exacerbate risk of exposure to hazards associated with that off-site property. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Threshold (c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that areas of concerns for hazardous materials sites near schools were Hixson Metal Finishing, Big Canyon Reservoir, and San Joaquin Reservoir. Although hazardous materials and waste generated from future development may pose a health risk to nearby schools, all businesses that handle or have on-site transportation of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and any additional elements as required in the California Health and Safety Code Article 1 Chapter 6.95 for Business Emergency Plan. Additionally, the General Plan Safety Element includes Policy S 7.5, which requires that strict land use controls, performance standards, and structure design standards, including development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses, be developed and implemented for uses which generate or use hazardous materials. Compliance with the provisions of the City's Fire Code and implementation of Policy S 7.5 in the Safety Element of the General Plan would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials. Impacts were considered less than significant. 84 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to proximity to schools or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact. Threshold (d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR notes that the City has sites that have been identified as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil, including oilfields, landfills, sites containing leaking underground storage tanks, and large and small -quantity generators of hazardous waste. Future development at contaminated sites would be required to undergo remediation and clean up consistent with the requirements of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Santa Ana RWQCB. General Plan Policy S 7.1 requires proponents of projects in known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards. The General Plan Program EIR found that compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is not identified on the Cortese List, which is the list of hazardous materials sites that is compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. In addition to the Cortese List, federal, State and local governmental agencies maintain other lists of sites where hazardous materials may be present or used. The Phase I ESA includes a database search report, which is provided as an appendix to the Phase I ESA. Based this review, the Phase I ESA determined that the project site was not listed in any of the hazardous materials databases reviewed. As previously addressed, a number of listings were identified that are proximate to the project site but were determined to not be considered an environmental concern. Accordingly, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant impact. Threshold (e) Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR identifies that John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to Newport Beach. John Wayne Airport generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach due to flight paths and descent patterns. All land uses surrounding the airport are required to comply and be compatible with the land use 85 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation -related hazards, and lists General Plan Policies S 8.1 through S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the AELUP. General Plan LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential development be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. If City Council overrides AELUP decision, then a possibility for residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour could occur. Therefore, if residential development is constructed within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the potential increase for safety hazards associated with the airport would be considered a significant impact. However, if development occurs outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and complies with existing regulations and General Plan policies, then impacts would be minimized. Impacts on new uses outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour would be considered less than significant Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is approximately 0.44 mile southeast of John Wayne Airport and is in the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport. As previously noted, the AELUP identifies safety and compatibility zones that depict which land uses are acceptable and unacceptable in various portions of AELUP Safety Zones 1 through 6. The project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses and most nonresidential uses other than outdoor stadiums, children's schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Safety Zone 6 has a "generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Safety Zone 6 includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry routes." The project site is in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surface Zone and the FAR Part 77 Notification Area of John Wayne Airport, as identified in the AELUP for John Wayne Airport. Per FAR Part 77, Section 77.13(a), notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is required for any proposed structure more than 200 feet above the ground level of its site. The project site is not located within the AELUP's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. The proposed development has a maximum height of 71 to the top of the parapet (the PC Text would permit development up to 75 feet). The proposed Project is consistent with the allowable uses under the AELUP Safety Zone 6 and is under the 200 feet height limit for the AELUP and for FAA Part 77 notification. Therefore, with the proposed Project's compliance with regulations specified in the AELUP, the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would have a less than significant impact. Therefore, there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Threshold (f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan guides responses to emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations. In addition, the General Plan Safety Element also contains Policies S 9.1, S 9.2, and S 9.3 to ensure that the City's Emergency Management Plan is regularly updated, provides for efficient and orderly citywide evacuation, and also ensures that emergency services personnel are familiar with the relevant response plans applicable to the City. Implementation of General 86 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Plan policies would reduce impacts associated with emergency response and evacuation in the City to a less than significant level. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, including the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP identifies evacuation routes, emergency facilities, and City personnel and describes the overall responsibilities of federal, State, regional, Operational Area, and City entities. No revisions to the adopted EOP would be required as a result of the proposed Project. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction of the Project and no evacuation routes would be impacted during Project implementation. Adherence to all applicable regulations and General Plan policies would result in a less than significant impact with respect to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Threshold (g) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas? General Plan Significance Determination: Refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire. There are no impacts and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program Relevant General Plan Policies The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ LU 6.15.24 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. ■ S 7.4 - Implementation of Remediation Efforts: Minimize the potential risk of contamination to surface water and groundwater resources and implement remediation efforts to any resources adversely impacted by urban activities. Cumulative Impacts Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site-specific and localized. The EIR evaluates RECs in connection with the project site and surrounding area. While impacts are minimized with implementation of General Plan policies, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were 87 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis considered less than significant and no mitigation was required under the General Plan Program EIR. As identified in the General Plan Program EIR, the General Plan would continue to develop new land uses in the City, possibly exposing persons to hazardous materials through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of future developments, or proposed land uses in areas that would create hazards for people working or residing in the area. However, compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials on a project -by - project basis would ensure that the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not result in adverse impacts. All demolition activities that would involve asbestos or lead-based paint would also occur in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and OSHA Construction Safety Orders, which would ensure that hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. With adherence to applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing hazardous materials and compliance with the General Plan policies, the potential risks associated with hazardous wastes in the area would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative hazards impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hazardous materials impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a hazardous material impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with compliance with all state and local regulations, along with General Plan policies discussed in this section. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. 88 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold (a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that during construction and operations of future development would result in a less than significant impact related to violations of water quality standards. Areas that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the Construction General Permit adopted by the SWRCB. Preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required for compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Activity Permit. Certain projects require the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Construction would also need to comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions in the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), including the implementation of appropriate BMPs to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would create new types of pollutant sources associated with residential development that could alter the types of constituents or levels of pollutants contained in post -developed site runoff. In order to reduce the amount of pollutants in storm water runoff from the proposed Project and to minimize associated hydrologic and water quality impacts, BMPs are required to be implemented in accordance with City, State, and RWQCB standards, set forth in SC WQ-1, SC WQ-2, and SC WQ-3. Construction of the proposed Project, similar to construction associated with development analyzed and assumed under the General Plan, would be subject to the Construction General Permit, the requirements of Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code, the Orange County DAMP, and the General Plan policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Threshold (b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City is not located within an identified recharge area, as recharge primarily occurs in the upper portions of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. Groundwater table depths could occur as shallow as 50 feet. Development footprints could encounter groundwater, although support and foundation structures in the groundwater would not displace enough volume to be considered substantial. Construction activities were considered to not substantially deplete groundwater supplies nor interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The City's Water Supply Plan, which assumed the demand associated with General Plan buildout, identifies that that projected groundwater supplies would meet projected demand throughout the City. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for 89 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis present use and future growth. According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City's imported water needs until 2030. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project could create additional impervious surfaces; however, similar to the development assumed under the General Plan, the Project would occur in an already developed area and would not substantially decrease groundwater recharge. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations and therefore the residential development envisioned for the project site would have been accounted for in the City's Water Supply Plan, which finds there is groundwater available for the growth proposed in the General Plan. Additionally, there are no public water wells located on the project site and groundwater is not drawn from the area. As previously noted, the project site is within the service area of IRWD. As it applies to the proposed Project, the IRWD UWMP is the applicable planning document for evaluating water supply and demand. According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD's 2015 water supply was approximately 92,220 AF, which was combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF of groundwater and 22,866 AF of reclaimed water. IRWD's anticipates a water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 acre-feet per year (AFY). The proposed Project's water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent of IRWD's anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, any greater than already analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR and this impact would be less than significant. This is consistent with the impact conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR. Threshold (c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. Refer to Section threshold (a) above. Impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot. The proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns, and connectivity. The construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality by induced sheet erosion of exposed soils and the subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. 90 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion. In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit). The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion -control and sediment -control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction -related pollutants. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City's Municipal Code would reduce the risk of substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site from drainage alterations to less than significant. Therefore, no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that increased impervious surfaces would increase stormwater runoff in the City. This increased runoff could exceed the capacity of existing and planned infrastructure and cause downstream flooding impacts. Several General Plan policies are intended to reduce stormwater runoff would also apply to runoff -related flooding impacts. These policies include NR 3.10, NR 3.11, NR 4.4, NR 3.20, S 5.3, NR 3.16, and NR 3.21. These policies require preparation of a WQMP, implementation of BMPs, incorporation of stormwater detention facilities, design of drainage facilities to minimize adverse effects on water quality, minimize increases in impervious areas. Implementation of these policies would also reduce the volume of runoff generated, and potential for flooding. Compliance with the methods and provisions contained in Chapter 15.50 of the City's Municipal Code would also minimize flood hazards resulting from drainage alterations. Therefore, implementation of General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations, the City's Municipal Code, and California Fish and Wildlife regulations would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to a less than significant impact Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot. Reuse of the site with a residential building, parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on- or off-site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious and 21 percent. The Project would require BMPs to treat the drainage associated with the proposed impervious areas of the project. Implementation of the project would not cause flooding on- or off-site, and impacts on storm drainage capacity would be less than significant. Therefore, implementation of the General Plan policies and compliance with NPDES regulations and the City's Municipal Code would reduce the risk of flooding resulting from drainage alterations to less than significant. Therefore, no changes or new information require preparation of an EIR. 91 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that existing storm drainage facilities at the time would not be able to serve future development assumed in the General Plan. However, the Public Infrastructure Plan in the General Plan specifies that the City and County would review the Storm Drain Master Plan to assure that adequate facilities are provided to serve permitted land use development. Construction of necessary storm drainage upgrades in and of itself would result in impacts separate from the General Plan. Upgrades, expansion, and construction of necessary utilities to accommodate new development would be subject to project - specific environmental review. Impacts were therefore considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. There is an existing storm drain near the southern end of the project site near Von Karman Avenue. As previously discussed and as identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, the proposed Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site. Table 3.9-1. Runoff Volume Summary (2 -year, 24-hour storm event) Drainage Existing Condition Proposed Condition Area Area (acre) Volume (cf) Area (acre) Volume (cf) A 4.38 2,080 4.21 1,940 B 1.82 884 1.89 947 D 1.18 632 1.18 602 Total 7.36 3,594 7.36 3,489 Cf = cubic feet Source: Tait & Associates, Inc., 2020. The proposed storm drain system would maintain the same drainage patterns. Drainage areas south of the high point would drain to Von Karman Avenue and drainage areas north of the high point would drain to an existing 60 -inch storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street building. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. 92 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis iv) Impede or redirect flood flows. General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that intensification of development would increase the area of land covered by structures, leaving less available ground surface area over which flood flows could travel. Several of the nine planning subareas planned for development as set forth in the General Plan are within the 100 -year flood zone. Parts of Mariners' Mile, the western portion of Banning Ranch, Balboa Village, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and West Newport Highway are susceptible to 100 -year flood conditions. General Plan implementation was not anticipated to substantially increase obstructions to flood flows, with the exception of potential development at Banning Ranch. A water displacement analysis would be required to investigate the effect of new structural development or fill on flooding depth, pursuant to FEMA regulation 44 CFR 60.3 (c)(10). Preparation of water displacement analyses where appropriate and compliance with FEMA regulations would ensure that General Plan implementation would not substantially impede or redirect flows. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The Project site is not within a 100 -year flood zone. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Threshold (d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR addresses potential risks from seiches and tsunamis. Compliance with requirements set forth in the Safety Element of the General Plan would minimize the impact of flooding, including flooding as a result of seiche and tsunami inundation. All new development in the City occurring in areas that are subject to flood hazards would be required to comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, risks associated with inundation by seiche, tsunami, and mudflow are considered to be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is not within a 100 -year flood zone, a dam inundation area, or in an area potentially subject to tsunami or seiches. There would be no impacts and no changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Threshold (e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts to water quality control plans or groundwater management plans were less than significant. The City is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB, which establishes water quality objectives and standards for both surface and groundwater of the region, and water quality discharge requirements. Under the Santa Ana RWQCB's NPDES permit system, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City would be subject to regulations. NPDES permits are 93 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis required for operators of MS4s, construction projects, and industrial facilities. Developments within the City would also be subject to the provisions in Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) of the Municipal Code. Under the provisions of this chapter, any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. Operation of new development or redevelopment projects are required comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of the water. General Plan Policy NR 3.6 requires that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. The Orange County Water District (OCWD) manages the Orange County Groundwater Basin through the Groundwater Management Plan. Consistent with the OCWD Groundwater Management Plan, the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan identifies goals and related policies designed to minimize water consumption and expand the use of alternative water sources to provide adequate water supplies for present use and future growth. Implementation of these policies would ensure water conservation and reduce potential impacts to groundwater supply. Impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Newport Beach is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. The Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan is the basis for the RWQCB's regulatory programs and establishes water quality standards for the ground and surface waters of the region. As indicated under threshold (a), the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality, and would therefore not conflict with the water quality control plan. OCWD adopted its most recent groundwater management plan in 2015. This plan sets basin management goals and objectives and describes how the basin is managed. As previously noted the project site is within the service area of IRWD. According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD's 2015 water supply was approximately 92,220 AF, which was combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF of groundwater and 22,866 AF of reclaimed water. IRWD's anticipates a water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 AFY. The proposed Project's water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent of IRWD's anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year and would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. The Project would implement environmentally sustainable practices including but not limited to water - efficient landscaping; electric vehicle charging stations; water quality BMPs to treat surface runoff from the project site; and low impact development (LID) practices. LID, source -control, and treatment -control BMP features would include but not be limited to an infiltration basin; Modular Wetlands System (proprietary biotreatment devices) or approved equivalents; vegetated swales; bioretention with underdrains; and a proprietary Drywell System. Therefore, the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not degrade groundwater quality, substantially decrease groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new information on requiring preparation of an EIR. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the 94 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The General Plan includes policies that address issues related to hydrology and water quality. The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ NR 3.2 - Chemical Use Impacts: Support regulations limiting or banning the use insecticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals which are shown to be detrimental to water quality. ■ NR 3.3 - Ground Water Contamination: Suspend activities and implement appropriate health and safety procedures in the event that previously unknown groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Where site contamination is identified, implement an appropriate remediation strategy that is approved by the City and the state agency with appropriate jurisdiction. ■ NR 3.4 - Storm Drain Sewer System Permit: Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. ■ NR 3.9 - Water Quality Management Plan: Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post -construction. ■ NR 3.10 - Best Management Practices: Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. ■ NR 3.11 - Site Design and Source Control: Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. ■ NR 3.13 - Reduction of Infiltration: Include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration, where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards. ■ NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. ■ NR 3.15 - Street Drainage Systems: Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. ■ NR 3.17 - Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way: Require that parking lots and public and private rights-of-way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. ■ NR 3.19 - Natural Drainage Systems: Require incorporation of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order to increase groundwater recharge. 95 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis • NR 3.20 - Impervious Surfaces: Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, wherefeasible. ■ NR 4.4 - Erosion Minimization: Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC WQ-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an SWPPP and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and made part of the construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the Project's impact on water quality and stormwater runoff volumes SC WQ-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the Project, subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs to ensure project runoff is adequately treated. SC WQ-3 During construction, if groundwater is unexpectedly encountered, the Applicant shall apply for dewatering coverage and adhere to the monitoring and reporting program under the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new hydrological impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a hydrological impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative hazards impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to hydrology and water quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 96 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.10 Land Use and Planning Threshold (a) Would the project physically divide an established community? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the General Plan would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas; instead, it would allow limited infill development in select subareas in the City. The General Plan Program EIR did not include any extensions of roadways or other development features through currently developed areas that could physically divide an established community. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR would not physically divide an established community and impacts were identified as being less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The City of Newport Beach is nearly built out, and the proposed Project consists of infill and intensification of development in a previously urbanized area. The proposed Project would not include any roadway extensions or other development features through currently developed areas. Therefore, the proposed Project, similar to development pursuant to the General Plan, would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impacts. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR analyzed land use incompatibility with regard to introducing new land uses and structures that could result in intensification of development in the City. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the majority of land use changes proposed would not result in incompatibilities or nuisances that rose to a level of significance and impacts were considered less than significant. The General Plan Program EIR was found to be consistent with all applicable land use plans for the City. The Airport Area is in the boundaries of the John Wayne Airport AELUP. Provided that residential uses remain outside the 65 dBA CNEL contour, the General Plan would be consistent with the AELUP. The City of Newport Beach is subject to policies within the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Future development was required to comply with policies within the plan, and therefore no impact occurred. It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR concluded a significant and unavoidable impact related to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.24. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.24 states that development must be constructed within the height limits and residential uses must be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour identified in the John Wayne Airport AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. This policy allows the possibility for residential development to occur within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour or height limits to be exceeded. Residential development within any area inside the 65 dBA CNEL would result in conflicts with AELUP Policy 3.2.1, which results in a finding of inconsistent land uses if development places people so that they are affected adversely by aircraft noise or concentrates people in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents. 97 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL would place residential units in an area adversely affected by aircraft noise and susceptible to aircraft accidents, since development would be beneath air traffic flight patterns. As such, if the AELUP is overridden by City Council, the development under the General Plan would be inconsistent with the AELUP. This impact would be significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. General Plan Consistency The project site has a General Plan land use category of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -1-12 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and adjacent uses and permits: ■ A maximum of 2,200 residential units are permitted as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted gross acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units. The General Plan policies for the Airport Area call for the orderly evolution of this area from a single - purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with the MU -1-12 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses into the Koll Center Newport. The Airport Business Area ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the project site. The proposed Project would carry out the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan because the project site would be developed with the uses envisioned in and approved under the Airport Business Area ICDP. Implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan for the area. An analysis of the proposed Project's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan is provided in Table 3.10-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis concludes that the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project would not require a General Plan land use amendment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts related to relevant Newport Beach General Plan goals and policies. 98 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Land Use Element Goal LU 2 —A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental setting, resources, and quality of life. Consistent: The proposed Project would support the needs of Newport Beach since it would LU 2.1 Residential -Serving Land Uses. Accommodate uses that support the develop a multi -family residential project with up to 312 residential units, inclusive of 13 very - needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, low -income affordable units, consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. The Project is an employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic infill, development and would not adversely impact the community's natural resources and engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with open spaces, particularly because the Airport Area is an urbanized area of the City. The project community natural resources and open spaces. site is existing surface parking for Koll Center Newport. LU2.2Sustainable and Complete Community. Emphasize the development Consistent: The proposed Project would develop residential uses in Koll Center Newport. By of uses that enable Newport Beach to continue as a self-sustaining integrating residential uses adjacent and proximate to other commercial and office uses, the community and minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the Project would provide Project residents with opportunities for employment in the many community for retail, goods and services, and employment. businesses in and around Koll Center Newport and other nearby business and employment centers in Newport Beach and surrounding communities. LU2.3 Range of Residential Choices. Provide opportunities for the Consistent: The proposed Project would have 312 residential units, including studio, development of residential units that respond to community and regional 1 -bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The Project includes 13 very -low-income units. General Plan needs in terms of density, size, location, and cost. Implement goals, policies, Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units programs, and objectives identified within the City's Housing Element. and a maximum of 50 units per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of a residential village. The net density for 260 base units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable housing density bonus. LU 2.8Adequate Infrastructure. Accommodate the types, densities, and mix Consistent: The proposed Project would be adequately served by the necessary public services of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility and utilities and service systems. Refer to Sections 3.14, Public Services, and 3.17, Utilities and infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public Service Systems, for further information and analysis regarding public services and utility services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). infrastructure, respectively. 99 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Goal LU 3 — A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. LU Policy 3.2 Growth and Change. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, Consistent: The proposed Project is an infill, residential development on an existing surface and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are parking area. The Airport Area, inclusive of Koll Center Newport, includes a mix of existing and complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or planned office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses. Therefore, the Project would be density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are compatible with existing and future uses. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Land economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Use Plan. The five -story building would be located adjacent to existing office buildings ranging Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the in height from two to ten stories. Proximity to one of Newport Beach's job centers can reduce relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or commute distances between home and jobs. enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live Additionally, as concluded in Addendum Sections 3.14, Public Services; 3.16, Transportation for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be and Traffic; and 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would not adversely impact coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public public services, traffic, or utilities. services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. LU 3.8 Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission. Refer Consistent: The proposed Project requires a referral to the Airport Land Use Commission the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, (ALUC) for a determination of consistency with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne John Wayne Airport in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 3.8, the State Aeronautics Act, Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use and the requirements outlined in the AELUP because the Project requires an amendment to Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center) to allow for residential uses in for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Professional and Business Offices Site B consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a Business Area ICDP. height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. Goal LU 4— Management of growth and change to protect and enhance the livability of neighborhoods and achieve distinct and economically vital business and employment districts, which are correlated with supporting infrastructure and public services and sustain Newport Beach's natural setting. LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram. Accommodate land use development consistent Consistent: The Project is consistent with the land use designations for the project site. The with the Land Use Plan. Figure LU1 depicts the general distribution of uses Airport Business Area ICDP requires a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depict specific use maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 requires categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LU1 (Land residential units to be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and a maximum of 50 units Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, per net acre (prior to any affordable housing density bonus) as averaged by the total area of a and, for certain categories, the densities/intensities to be permitted. See residential village. The net density for 260 base units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre page 3-11 of the City's General Plan for the full policy. based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the 100 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency density bonus. As noted, the density range is prior to the application of an affordable housing density bonus. Goal LU 5.3 — Districts where residents and businesses are intermixed that are designed and planned to ensure compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and are of high-quality design reflecting the traditions of Newport Beach. LU Policy 5.3.3 Parcels Integrating Residential and Nonresidential Uses. Consistent: The Project includes a five -story residential building sited adjacent to existing two - Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and nonresidential story to ten -story office buildings in Koll Center Newport. Uptown Newport is a mixed-use uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance development on Jamboree Road east of the project site. The Project also includes a 1.1 -acre with policies LU 5.1.9 and LU 5.2.1 and planned to ensure compatibility among public park and pedestrian linkages to provide connections through the project site and to the uses and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses adjacent and surrounding uses. Uptown Newport is a mixed-use residential development on should be seamlessly integrated with nonresidential uses through Jamboree Road east of the project site. architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be The contemporary architectural style of the Project would be compatible with non-residential completely isolated by walls or other design elements. uses in the Koll Center Newport and the surrounding area. In particular, the architecture of the Project would be compatible with the Uptown Newport Project. Uptown Newport is intended to be an urban village with diverse architecture including contemporary styles and the use of a neutral color palette. Goal LU 5.6 — Neighborhoods, districts, and corridors containing a diversity of uses and buildings that are mutually compatible and enhance the quality of the City's environment LU 5.6.1 Compatible Development. Require that buildings and properties be Consistent: See the consistency analysis for LU Policy 5.3.3. Additionally, the Project's building designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surround office developments, where these neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. building are variable in height. LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment. Require that new and renovated buildings Consistent: The contemporary architectural style of the Project would be compatible with be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually existing and planned development in Koll Center Newport and surrounding area with respect impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt to materials and colors. The Project would use building glass and glazing with minimal changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface reflectance. The building material, style, and colors would not raise local temperatures through materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive glare or excessive illumination. illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. 101 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting. Require that outdoor lighting be located and Consistent: Exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed downward, or shielded to designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly contain direct illumination on-site to prevent excess illumination and light spillover onto increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Development of the Project would also be required to adhere to all applicable City lighting as set forth in Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code. It is also noted that development of the Project would be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the CCR, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries. LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools, Consistent: As addressed in Section 3.14, Public Services, of this Addendum, the Project would government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police not adversely impact community services. The Project would comply with applicable conditions facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, and requirements, including the payment of the Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code (§2.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities residents and businesses. associated with the Fire Department, Public Library, and public parks. Goal LU 6.2 – Residential neighborhoods that contain a diversity of housing types and supporting uses to meet the needs of Newport Beach's residents and are designed to sustain livability and a high quality of life. LU Policy 6.2.1 Residential Supply. Accommodate a diversity of residential Consistent: The General Plan Housing Element identifies five locations—Newport Banning units that meets the needs of Newport Beach's population and fair share of Ranch, the Airport Area, Newport Center, Mariners' Mile, and the Balboa Peninsula—as key regional needs in accordance with the Land Use Plan's designations, sites for future housing opportunities. The General Plan designates these areas as appropriate applicable density standards, design and development policies, and the for development of up to 5,025 new dwelling units. The project site is in the Airport Area and adopted Housing Element. 260 units are identified as additive units for the site. With the requested density bonus of 52 units, the Project would have a total of 312 rental units including 13 very -low-income units. LU Policy 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities. Require the Consistent: The Project includes a 1.1 -acre public park, as well as private open space and open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by common open space for Project residents. On-site recreational amenities would include a private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the swimming pool, fitness room, clubroom, and lawn areas for residents that would be privately development approval process and are prohibited from converting to developed as part of the Project. The park is proposed to be privately developed and residential or other types of land uses. maintained and accessible to the public during daylight hours. The park would be constructed by the Applicant and offered for dedication to the City. Open space, and recreational amenities would not be converted to residential or other types of land uses on the site. 102 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Goal LU 6.15 — A mixed-use community that provides jobs, residential, and supporting services in close proximity, with pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. LU 6.15.1 Land Use Districts and Neighborhoods. Provide for the Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 3.3 of Goal LU 3 and Policies LU 5.6.1 and development of distinct business park, commercial, and airport -serving 5.6.2 of Goal LU 5.6. districts and residential neighborhoods that are integrated to ensure a quality environment and compatible land uses. LU 6.15.3 Airport Compatibility. Require that all development be Consistent: The Project proposes a 71 -foot tall residential structure (up to 75 feet as allowed in constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal the PC Text) and a 40 -foot tall free-standing parking structure. These buildings are consistent Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, with FAA regulations because it would not exceed 160 feet above ground level. The proposed and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be Project and the free-standing parking structure would not exceed obstruction standards and located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA would not be a hazard to air navigation. The project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise Master Plan. contour specified by the 1985 John Wayne Airport Master Plan. LU 6.15.5 Residential and Support Uses. Accommodate the development of Consistent: Consistent with this policy and the Airport Business Area ICDP, the proposed a maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units, including workforce Project would be adjacent and proximate to existing office and commercial land uses that housing, and mixed-use buildings that integrate residential with ground level provide jobs and supporting services within the Airport Area. More specifically, the Project office or retail uses, along with supporting retail, grocery stores, and proposes 312 residential units, inclusive of 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units of parklands. Residential units may be developed only as the replacement of which 13 would be very -low-income affordable units. The Project would be within the 2,200 underlying permitted nonresidential uses. When a development phase maximum multi -family unit count for the Airport Area. includes a mix of residential and nonresidential uses or replaces existing Additive units are exempt from the requirement of not exceeding the number of existing peak industrial uses, the number of peak hour trips generated by cumulative hour trips generated by existing uses. These units would be allocated to the proposed Project development of the site shall not exceed the number of trips that would in accordance with the City's General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project result from development of the underlying permitted nonresidential uses. would therefore develop a portion of the residential units envisioned and approved for the However, a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill on surface Airport Area. parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area depicted on Figure LU22 provided Existing development at the site includes surface parking areas and common landscape areas. that the parking is replaced on-site. During the construction of the new free-standing parking structure (Phase 1) and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use of office employees of and guests to the office buildings. LU 6.15.6 Size of Residential Villages. Allow development of mixed-use Consistent: The Project would allow for the development of the approximately 13 -acre project residential villages, each containing a minimum of 10 acres and centered on site with a residential building adjacent to existing office buildings and proximate to Uptown Newport, a mixed-use development. The Project does not include a neighborhood park; it does 103 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency a neighborhood park and other amenities (as conceptually illustrated in include a 1.1 -acre public park that would be accessible during daytime hours. Resident Figure LU23). amenities would include a clubroom, a dog park, fitness room, roof deck with a swimming pool, and courtyards. LU 6.15.7. Overall Density and Housing Types. Require that residential units Consistent: The density range identified in LU 6.15.7 is prior to any affordable housing density be developed at a minimum density of 30 units and maximum of 50 units per bonus. The net density for 260 base units would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acre averaged over the total area of each residential village. Net acreage net acres and would be 53 dwelling units per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. shall be exclusive of existing and new rights-of-way, public pedestrian ways, Although the Project is limited to one particular housing product, it includes a variety mix of and neighborhood parks. Within these densities, provide for the unit types, ranging from studio to two-bedroom apartment units, accommodating a variety of development of a mix of building types ranging from townhomes to high- household types and incomes. Of the 312 residential units, 13 units would be affordable to rises to accommodate a variety of household types and incomes and to very -low-income households and 299 units would be market -rate housing. promote diversity of building masses and scales. LU 6.15.8 First Phase Development Density. Require a residential density of Consistent: The Airport Business Area ICDP area is exempt from this specific numerical 45 to 50 units per net acre, averaged over the first phase for each residential requirement but is subject to a requirement for a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net village. This shall be applied to 100 percent of properties in the first phase acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre. The density range identified in development area whether developed exclusively for residential or LU 6.15.7 is prior to any affordable housing density bonus. The net density for 260 base units integrating service commercial horizontally on the site or vertically within a would be 44 dwelling units per net acre based on 5.9 net acres, and would be 53 dwelling units mixed-use building. On individual sites, housing development may exceed or per acre for 312 units inclusive of the density bonus. be below this density to encourage a mix of housing types, provided that the average density for the area encompassed by the first phase is achieved. LU 6.15.10 Regulatory Plans. Require the development of a regulatory plan Consistent: The proposed Project includes an amendment to PC -15 Koll Center to include for each residential village, which shall contain a minimum of 10 acres, to provisions allowing for residential development consistent with the City of Newport Beach coordinate the location of new parks, streets, and pedestrian ways; set forth General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. PC -15 would be amended so that a strategy to accommodate neighborhood -serving commercial uses and Professional and Business Office Site B includes a new residential overlay zone and would other amenities; establish pedestrian and vehicular connections with include development standards and the identification of permitted uses. adjoining land uses; and ensure compatibility with office, industrial, and The overall project development site is approximately 13 acres, which consists of the project other nonresidential uses. site and the existing office developments, exceeds the minimum 10 -acre for each residential village. The proposed residential development would create a mixed-use community adjacent to and surrounded by office, commercial, open space, and transit uses. The mixed -uses would be linked through pedestrian connections, sidewalks, and open space. The Project would provide adequate parking for the proposed residential units, and replacement office parking. 104 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements. A Development Agreement shall be Consistent: The proposed Project includes a Development Agreement, which would be required for all projects that include infill residential units. The Development implemented as part of the Project approval. Agreement shall define the improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density, and location of the housing units. LU 6.15.13 Standards. To provide a focus and identity for the entire Consistent: The proposed Project includes a 1.1 -acre public park with a minimum dimension of neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of 150 feet. The park and associated open space improvements would be located between the the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication north side of the proposed residential building and the existing two-story and four-story office and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of buildings, extending from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or %2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in - lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. LU 6.15.14 Location. Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in Consistent: The proposed Project includes a 1.1 -acre park area extending from Birch Street to character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park Von Karman Avenue. Access to the park would be provided from walkways through the park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with and on-site open space to existing sidewalks on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. See on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in also consistency analysis for LU 6.15.13. its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. LU 6.15.15Aircraft Notification. Require that all neighborhood parks be Consistent: In accordance with this policy, the park would be posted with a notification to posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. and aircraft overflight and noise. 105 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.16 Standards. Require developers of multi -family residential Consistent: See consistency analysis for LU 6.15.13 and 6.15.14 of Goal 6.15 and Policies R1-1 developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational and R1.2 of Goal R 1. The proposed Project would provide an average of 143 sf of on-site amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational recreational amenities for each dwelling unit. Private recreational amenities developed as amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the part of the Project are proposed to include a bike shop and storage, a clubroom, a dog park requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with dog wash area, a fitness room, swimming pool and spa, an outdoor area, and roof deck. with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of- way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. LU 6.15.17Street and Pedestrian Grid. Create a pattern of streets and Consistent: The proposed Project includes an internal street that will traverse the site and pedestrian ways that breaks up large blocks, improves connections between connect Von Karman Avenue to Birch Street approximately halfway through the block. The neighborhoods and community amenities, and is scaled to the proposed pedestrian circulation would facilitate connections between the proposed residential predominantly residential character of the neighborhoods. development with adjacent office uses and public sidewalks and streets. The Project also includes a public park that is connected to Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street through new pedestrian walkways. LU 6.15.18 Walkable Streets. Retain the curb -to -curb dimension of existing Consistent: Pedestrian walkways would be provided through the project site and connect to streets, but widen sidewalks to provide park strips and generous sidewalks by existing sidewalks on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. means of dedications or easements. Except where traffic loads preclude fewer lanes, add parallel parking to calm traffic, buffer pedestrians, and provide short-term parking for visitors and shop customers. 106 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency LU 6.15.19 Connected Streets. Require dedication and improvement of new Consistent: Internal streets would be designed to establish clear way -finding and to provide streets as shown on Figure LU23. The illustrated alignments are tentative and access to surface parking and parking structure entrances. Connections would be provided to may change as long as the routes provide the intended connectivity. If traffic directly link the interior of the Project streets to Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street, in conditions allow, connect new and existing streets across Macarthur accordance with those shown in Figure LU23, Airport Area Residential Villages Illustrative Boulevard with signalized intersections, crosswalks, and pedestrian refuges in Concept Plan. On-site internal streets would be privately owned and maintained and provide the median. public access through the project site from Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. LU 6.15.21 Required Spaces for Primary Use. Consider revised parking Consistent: Parking for office tenants, residents, guests, and visitors would be provided on requirements that reflect the mix of uses in the neighborhoods and overall the site. Parking ratios proposed for the Project are included in the PC -15 Koll Center Airport Area, as well as the availability of on -street parking. amendment. LU 6.15.22 Building Massing. Require that high-rise structures be Consistent: There are three office buildings within the boundaries of the project site that are surrounded with low- and mid -rise structures fronting public streets and two to four stories in height. Additionally, there are one -to four-story office buildings located pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed five -story residential building would be generally located between these office buildings and the existing 5000 Birch Street office building (10 stories, 154 feet). The proposed residential building would be compatible with the surrounding structures and would provide a variety of building mass and scale. Walkways would be provided within the site and connect to existing sidewalks along Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Walkways would be provided along the internal street, within the site, with connections to the office buildings noted above. LU 6.15.23 Sustainability Development Practices. Require that development Consistent: This Addendum address the effects of the Project on air quality, energy, climate achieves a high level of environmental sustainability that reduces pollution change and water supply, and applies measures and regulatory requirements to reduce any and consumption of energy, water, and natural resources. This may be impacts, as applicable and feasible. The proposed Project is required to comply with the accomplished through the mix and density of uses, building location and provisions of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the Green Building Standards design, transportation modes, and other techniques. Among the strategies Code (CALGreen). Additionally, the Project would implement environmentally sustainable that should be considered are the integration of residential with jobs- practices including but not limited to water -efficient landscaping; electric vehicle charging generating uses, use of alternative transportation modes, maximized stations in the parking structures; water quality best management practices to treat surface walkability, use of recycled materials, capture and re -use of storm water on- runoff from the project site; and low impact development practices. site, water -conserving fixtures and landscapes, and architectural elements The project site is also close to employment uses in the Airport Area and would provide that reduce heat gain and loss. housing near these businesses and promote the use of alternative transportation modes. As a part of Project, a public park and pedestrian pathways would provide connections throughout the site and to adjacent and surrounding uses, thereby providing an alternative mode of 107 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency transportation for residents and visitors. The Project's location close to existing OCTA bus routes provided along Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of transportation for Project residents. LU 6.15.24 Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be Consistent: The proposed Project requires a determination of consistency with the Airport constructed within the height limits and residential be located outside of Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport by the Airport Land Use Commission areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the Airport (ALUC) in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 3.8 and the requirements outlined in the Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), unless the City Council makes appropriate AELUP because the Project requires an amendment to Koll Center Newport Planned findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. Community (PC -15 Koll Center) to allow for residential uses in Professional and Business Offices Site B consistent with the General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The AELUP shows the project site is outside of the 60 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, on-site buildings would not exceed 71 feet (the PC Text would allow development up to 75 feet), which is within the height limits set forth in the AELUP. Housing Element Goal H 2 — A balanced residential community comprised of a variety of housing types, designs, and opportunities for all social and economic segments. H 2.1- Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing Consistent: The Project includes 13 very -low-income rental units. affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing Consistent: The proposed Project includes of 312 residential unit, of which 13 are very -low - and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing income units. as perceived by the industry. H2.3. Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and Consistent: The proposed Project would consist of 312 residential units and a 1.1 -acre public commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing park. The introduction of new residential uses into a primarily office business area of the City and jobs. would not only help locate new residents close to a wide array of jobs, but would also help improve the local and regional jobs -housing balance. 108 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Historical Resources Element Goal HR 2 — Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 New Development Activities. Require that, in accordance with CEQA, Consistent: The Addendum identifies standard conditions to comply with potential impacts to new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological unknown archaeological and paleontological resources found during ground -disturbing resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. activities. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities. Require a qualified Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations. Notify cultural organizations, including Native Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials. Require new Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Circulation Element Goal CE 2.2 — A safe and efficient roadway system. CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets Consistent: As part of the proposed Project, any necessary traffic control measures would be and roads function with safety and efficiency. installed to ensure that the City's roadways function as intended while allowing site access from Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Additionally, the Project's traffic study was 109 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency prepared in accordance with the City's traffic study guidelines and identifies no significant impact to study intersections. CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street Consistent: Access would be provided from the existing unsignalized access drives that access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. provided access into the project site from Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. All driveway Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's engineering during redevelopment of adjacent parcels. standards to ensure safety and a desired quality of traffic flow. CE2.2.6 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial Consistent: To address emergency access needs, the Project's internal traffic and circulation areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. components would be designed in accordance with all City of Newport Beach Fire Department (Fire Department) design standards for emergency access. Additionally, the Project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements in the most current adopted fire codes, building codes, and fire and life safety standards. During the building plan check and development review process, the City would coordinate with the Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Newport Beach Police Department (Police Department) to ensure that adequate circulation and access are provided within the traffic and circulation components of the Project. Goal CE 4.1— A public transportation system that provides mobility for residents and encourages use of public transportation as an alternative to automobile travel. CE4.1.4 Land Use Densities Supporting Public Transit. Accommodate Consistent: The proposed Project's introduction of 312 residential units at 53 dwelling units residential densities sufficient to support transit patronage, especially in per acre inclusive of the density bonus and its location close to existing OCTA bus routes along mixed use areas such as the Airport Area. Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard could help support transit patronage. Goal CE 5.1— Convenient trail systems that satisfy recreational desires and transportation needs. CE 5.1.1 Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system Consistent: The proposed Project would not conflict with the planned Class I bicycle facilities as shown on Figure CE4. on Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street near the project site, as called for in the City's Bicycle Master Plan. CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity. Link residential areas, schools, parks, and Consistent: The proposed Project would provide pedestrian walkways throughout the project commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community site, with connections to the public street system and adjacent properties. The Project's without driving. pedestrian circulation components would be designed and installed in compliance with all safety and accessibility requirements, including Title 24, and to minimize potential conflicts with vehicles. 110 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency CE 5.1.3 Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects. Require Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1. new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods. Require Consistent. The project site is not adjacent to a trail system but would provide pedestrian developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and connections to the Uptown Newport planned community. communities where appropriate. CE 5.1.7 Bicycle Safety. Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1. pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices. CE 5.1.8 Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians. Minimize conflict Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1. points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. CE 5.1.16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety. Provide for the safety of bicyclists Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 5.1.2 of Goal CE 5.1. and pedestrians through provision of adequate facilities, including maintenance of extra sidewalk width where feasible. Goal CE 6.2 — Reduced automobile travel through the use of travel demand management strategies. CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes. Require new development Consistent: As part of the proposed Project, pedestrian linkage would provide convenient projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and access within the project site and with adjacent and surrounding uses, thereby providing an intensity to support alternative modes, such as referential parking for alternative mode of transportation for residents and visitors. The site's proximity to existing carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare employment centers and OCTA bus routes along Von Karman Avenue, Birch Street, Campus vehicle loadings areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop Drive, Jamboree Road, and MacArthur Boulevard would also provide alternative forms of improvements. transportation for the Project residents. Project. Additionally, bicycle racks and storage would be provided within the project site. CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes. Encourage Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 6.2.2. increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. Goal CE 7.1—An adequate supply of convenient parking throughout the City. CE 7.1.1 Required Parking. Require that new development provide adequate, Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 6.15.5 of Goal LU 6.15. All Project parking convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors. would be provided on-site. 111 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Recreation Element Goal R 1: Provision of Facilities — Provision of adequate park and recreation facilities that meet the recreational needs of existing and new residents of the community. R1.1 New Residential Subdivisions. Require developers of new residential Consistent: The City's parkland dedication requirement of 5 acres per 1,000 residents applies subdivisions to provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as stated in to residential subdivisions (see Section 19.52.020 of the City's Municipal Code). Because the the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or to contribute in -lieu fees for the proposed Project does not include a subdivision, the requirement is not applicable to the development of public recreation facilities meeting demands generated by Project. However, the Project would provide 1.1 acres of public park and open space uses. the development's resident population, as required in the City's Park Dedications Fees Ordinance. R1.2 High -Density Residential Developments. Require developers of new Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy R1.1. The proposed Project would provide an high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to average of 143 sf of on-site recreational amenities for each dwelling unit inclusive of private provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square balconies, bike shop and storage, a clubroom, dog wash area, a fitness room, swimming pool feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit and spa, garden and roof terraces. in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedications and Fees Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is, for example, accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. Goal R 3: Accessibility of Facilities—Accessible parks and recreation facilities to persons with disabilities. R3.1 Adequate Access. Ensure that parks and recreation facilities include Consistent: All new park facilities would be designed and constructed to include provisions for provisions for adequate access for persons with disabilities and that existing adequate access for persons with disabilities in accordance with Title 24. facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 112 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Natural Resources Element Goal NR 1— Minimized water consumption through conservation methods and other techniques. NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development. Enforce water Consistent: Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, addresses water supply effects that conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project, and applies regulatory water or cause runoff, and require the use of water—efficient landscaping and requirements to reduce any impacts, as applicable and feasible. Additionally, the Project irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. would be required to comply with the water -efficient landscape requirements outlined in Chapter 14.17 (Water Efficient Landscape Requirements) of the City's Municipal Code. The Project would also be required to comply with the provisions of the Green Building Standards Code, which contains requirements for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. The Project would implement a number of environmentally sustainable practices, including but not limited to water -efficient landscaping; water quality best management practices to treat surface runoff from the project site; and low impact development practices. NR 1.2 Use of Water Conserving Devices. Establish and actively promote use Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 1.1 of Goal NR1. of water -conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings. This can include the use of rainwater capture, storage, and reuse facilities. Goal NR 3 — Enhancement and protection of water quality of all natural water bodies, including coastal waters, creeks, bays, harbors, and wetlands. NR 3.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit. Require all development to comply Consistent: The proposed Project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES permit with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and best management practices (BMPs). The project site currently drains in two directions. From the south side of the existing high point, the flows collected by the on-site storm drain system connect to the existing storm drain line in Von Karman Avenue. The drainage area north of the high point is tributary to an existing storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street office building which ultimately drains to the collection ponds within Koll Center Newport. The proposed Project would use BMPs throughout the site to capture and treat storm water. The Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the impervious area at the project site. The reduction of 113 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency water to the storm drain system and use of best management practices would incrementally improve water quality on the project site. NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan. Require new development Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, a preliminary Water applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared which identifies site -design, and minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post- source- and treatment -control BMPs. The low -impact development, source -control, and construction. treatment -control BMP features would include but not be limited to an infiltration basin; Modular Wetlands System (proprietary biotreatment devices) or approved equivalents; vegetated swales; bioretention with underdrains; and a proprietary Drywell System. Implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention of storm water and the recharge of groundwater. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the WQMP and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed Project. Additionally, through the development -review process, the City complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated storm water runoff. Storm water runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively minimize the Project's impact on water quality. NR 3.108est Management Practices. Implement and improve upon Best Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control. Include site design and source Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property. Retain runoff on private Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. 114 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems. Require all street drainage systems and Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and NR 3.9 of Goal NR 3. other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way. Require that parking lots and public Consistent: The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and and private rights-of-way be maintained and cleaned frequently to remove regulations regarding the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights-of-way, debris and contaminated residue. including Sections 6.04.220, Persons Required to Clean Sidewalks, and 10.50.020, Nuisance, of the City's Municipal Code. NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems. Require incorporation of natural Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Additionally, the drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns. As developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in order addressed, a portion of the storm drain underlies the location of the proposed free-standing to increase groundwater recharge. parking structure. Either that portion of the storm drain would be rebuilt and remain in its existing location or it would be relocated within the project site as a part of the Project. The connections to the existing public storm drain systems would remain. NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces. Require new development and public Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 3.19 of Goal NR 3. Collectively, improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum of storm water and the recharge of groundwater. The pre -project condition is 18 percent extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious pervious and post -project conditions would be 21 percent. surfaces, where feasible. Goal NR 4 — Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization. Require grading/ erosion control plans with Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9 of Goal NR 3. Collectively, structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the Project's proposed water quality construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. design features would address the anticipated and expected erosion impacts during the construction and operational phases of the Project. Goal NR 6 — Reduced mobile source emissions. NR 6.1 Walkable Neighborhoods. Provide for walkable neighborhoods to Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy CE 6.2.1 of Goal CE 6.2. reduce vehicle trips by siting amenities such as services, parks, and schools in close proximity to residential areas. 115 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency NR 6.2 Mixed -Use Development. Support mixed-use development consisting Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy LU 2.2 of Goal LU 2 and Policy LU 6.15.5 of Goal of commercial or office with residential uses in accordance with the Land Use 6.15. Element that increases the opportunity for residents to live in proximity to jobs, services, and entertainment. Goal NR 7 - Reduced air pollutant emissions from stationary sources. NR 7.1—Fuel Efficient Equipment. Support the use of fuel-efficient heating Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24. equipment and other appliances. NR 7.2 —Source Emission Reduction Best Management Practices. Require Consistent: The Project would comply with the energy efficiency requirements of Title 24. As the use of Best Management Practices (BMP) to minimize pollution and to addressed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the Project would be required to adhere to all applicable reduce source emissions. SCAQMD regulations that help reduce air pollutants from construction -related activities. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with the construction -related mitigation measures. Goal NR 8 — Reduced air pollutant emissions from construction activities. NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution. Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy NR 7.2. Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. Goal NR 18— Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1 New Development. Require new development to protect and Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources. Notify cultural Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 Goal HR 2. organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. 116 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency NR 18.4 Donation of Materials. Require new development, where on-site Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy HR 2.1 of Goal HR 2. preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. NR 22.1 - Regulation of Structure Mass. Continue to regulate the visual and Consistent. See consistency analysis for Policy LU 6.15.22 of Goal LU 6.15. physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. Goal NR 24 — Increased energy efficiency in City facilities and operations and in private developments NR 24.3 — Incentives for Green Building Program Implementation. Promote Consistent: The current building energy efficiency standards are substantially more stringent or provide incentives for "Green Building" programs that go beyond the than were in effect when the General Plan Program EIR was prepared. For example, the 2016 requirements of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code and encourage standards for residential buildings are 28 percent more energy-efficient and nonresidential energy-efficient design elements as appropriate to achieve "green building" buildings are 5 percent more energy efficient than under the 2013 Standards and buildings status. that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) more energy efficient than the 2008 Standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features. The 2019 Standards improve upon the 2016 Standards and are applicable to the proposed Project. Safety Element Goal S 4—Adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards are minimized by reducing the known level of risk to loss of life, personal injury, public and private property damage, economic and social dislocation, and disruption of essential services. S 4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development in areas where Consistent: A geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the proposed Project to identify potentially active faults may occur. geotechnical hazards associated with the project site, including active faults, liquefaction, subsidence, landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, expansive soils, and other ground failure hazards. According to the study, the site is in a seismically active area; however, no active faults are known to cross the site. Additionally, the Project would not exacerbate ground shaking on site. The design and construction of all structures would comply with seismic design parameters in the geotechnical evaluation, including the seismic design requirements under the California Building Code and Chapter 15.10 of the City's Municipal Code, Excavation and Grading in effect at the time grading and building permits are issued for construction. 117 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Goal S 7 — Exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials associated with methane gas extraction, oil operations, leaking underground storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators is minimized. S 7.1 Known Areas of Contamination. Require proponents of projects in Consistent: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared as a part of the proposed known areas of contamination from oil operations or other uses to perform Project to determine soil and groundwater contamination. There are no known or suspected comprehensive soil and groundwater contamination assessments in recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at the project site. However, one controlled REC accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials standards, and if was revealed, associated with the former Conexant facility. No evidence of contamination, contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, require the proponent to distressed vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbon surface staining, waste drums, USTs, ASTs, undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under illegal dumping, or improper waste storage/handling was noted during site reconnaissance. the supervision of the County Environmental Health Division, County While RVECs are not likely to exist at the project site, future site improvements would include Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control excavation and construction of a residential building and parking structures. It is possible that Board (depending upon the nature of any identified contamination). suspected contaminated soil or groundwater could be encountered during excavation and construction. The Project prepared technical studies have assessed groundwater contamination and soil sampling to determine if possible past contamination would exceed regulatory thresholds. The Project is consistent with General Plan Policy S 7.1. S 7.5 Siting of Sensitive Uses. Develop and implement strict land use Consistent: Development of the proposed Project would involve demolition of surface parking controls, performance standards, and structure design standards including and landscape areas to accommodate the residential development. The Phase I indicates that development setbacks from sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, day care no known or suspected RECs were identified at the project site. Further, no evidence of facilities, elder care facilities, residential uses, and other sensitive uses that contamination, distressed vegetation, petroleum hydrocarbon surface staining, waste drums, generate or use hazardous materials. USTs, ASTs, illegal dumping, or improper waste storage/handling was noted during site reconnaissance. However, the Project would be required to comply with State and local health and safety requirements, including the City's Fire Code and Fire Department Guidelines dictating requirements related to emergency access, fire protection, building construction, and storage and handling of hazardous materials. Potential safety hazards related to hazardous materials are addressed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Because the project proposes residential land uses and would not generate or use hazardous materials in such a manner as to present a hazard to sensitive uses, setbacks from such sensitive users are not required. 118 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Noise Element Goal N 1 Noise Compatibility— Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development. Require that all proposed Consistent: As shown in Section 3.12, Noise, the project site is located in an area projected to Projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, be exposed to a CNEL of 64.6 dBA or higher, as shown on General Plan Noise Element Figure and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. N5. The project site is in a Mixed -Use District (the General Plan land use category for the project site is Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -H2)). General Plan Noise Element Table N2 characterizes mixed use development as "clearly compatible' up to 65 dBA. The Addendum noise analysis demonstrates that the Project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance. N 1.2 Noise Exposure Verification for New Development. Applicants for Consistent: On-site noise impacts are evaluated in Section 3.12, Noise. As discussed in the proposed Projects that require environmental review and are, located in noise analysis, on-site noise levels could reach 64.6 dBA. Therefore, as required by Policy N areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on 1.2, exterior and interior noise levels must be evaluated to determine if additional Figure N4, Figure NS, and Figure N6 may conduct a field survey, noise attenuation is required. As discussed above, the project site a Mixed -Use District and on-site measurements or other modeling in a manner acceptable to the City to noise levels would not exceed the 65 dBA clearly compatible standard for mixed use provide evidence that the depicted noise contours do not adequately residential. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical account for local noise exposure circumstances due to such factors as, building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the topography, variation in traffic speeds, and other applicable conditions. City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise These findings shall be used to determine the level of exterior or interior, standard. Therefore, additional noise attenuation beyond what is required for standard noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and building code requirements would not be required. the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. N 1.4 New Development in Urban Areas. Require that applicants of Consistent: See consistency analysis for Policy N 1.2 of Goal N1.1. residential portions of mixed-use projects and high- density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. 119 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency N 1.8 Significant Noise Impacts. Require the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. CNEL dBA dBA increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 75 1 Over 75 Any increase is considered significant Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Consistent: Addendum Section 3.12, Noise, discusses these potential long-term noise impacts of the proposed Project. The Project would not generate transportation, or stationary long- term noise sources that would exceed the stated requirements under this policy. With respect to construction noise, refer to Policy N 4.6, Maintenance or Construction Activities. The General Plan Program EIR finds that with compliance with applicable City requirements, construction noise is a less than significant impact. Goal N 2 — Minimized motor vehicle traffic and boat noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in Consistent: See response above to Policy N1.1 and Policy N1.2. areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. N 2.2 Design of Sensitive Land uses. Require the use of walls, berms, interior Consistent: See response above to Policy N2.1 of Goal N2 noise insulation, double -paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise -sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 shall govern this requirement. Goal N 3 — Protection of Newport Beach residents from the adverse noise impacts of commercial air carrier operations at John Wayne Airport as provided in the City Council Airport Policy. N 3.1 New Development. Ensure new development is compatible with the Consistent: The project site is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides to future planning and development decisions. N 3.2 Residential Development. Require that residential development in the Consistent: See response to Policy N 3.1. Additionally, written disclosure statement to notify Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour no larger prospective tenants of aircraft overflight and noise would be required and included in the than shown in the 1985 JWA Master Plan and require residential developers residential overlay zone. to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. 120 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.10-1. General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Goal N 4: Minimization of Non -Transportation -Related Noise — Minimized non -transportation -related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources. Enforce interior and exterior noise Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, potential stationary -related noise impacts standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure associated with residential uses include the operation of air conditioning units and outdoor that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from activities. Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning approximately 50 to 60 dBA at 50 feet. SC N-2 requires that HVAC units be designed and equipment. installed in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance. Outdoor activities may occur intermittently, and if future residents and their guests engage in activities that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City can take actions to abate that activity. With application of SC N-2, proposed residential uses would not significantly impact existing and planned noise -sensitive uses including the multi -family residences at Uptown Newport currently east of the project site, office uses in the area, or proposed on-site noise -sensitive uses. Operation of mechanical equipment would not be anticipated to increase ambient noise levels beyond the acceptable compatible land use noise levels. N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities. Enforce the Noise Ordinance Consistent: As discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, the City understands that control of noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or construction noise is difficult and therefore provides an exemption for this type of noise as adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in-home identified in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations. hobby or work-related activities. Section 10.28.040 identifies that construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, in any area of the City that is not designated as a high-density area. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. All construction activities proposed within the project site would be required to adhere to these standards. Additionally, any project -related maintenance would be required to adhere to the standard or permitted exemptions and exceptions as stated in Municipal Code Section 10.28.045. Goal N 5 — Minimized excessive construction -related noise. N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity. Enforce the limits on hours of construction Consistent: See response above to Policy N 4.6 of Goal N 4. activity. 121 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Cumulative Impact The Project is consistent with applicable land use goals and policies. Although other changes in land use plans and regulations may have occurred with past and present projects in the area and may be necessary for individual future projects, such changes have been, and would be, required to demonstrate consistency with General Plan and other City policies such that no significant adverse cumulative impact has occurred or would occur from such changes. Given that the proposed Project would be consistent with the land use policies of the applicable plans, the Project would not combine with any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects to cause a significant adverse cumulative land use impact based on a conflict with a plan or policy. Any associated physical impacts are covered in the individual topic sections. It is also anticipated that regional growth would be subject to review for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the County of Orange, City of Newport Beach, and other cities in Orange County, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts associated plans and policies are anticipated. In addition, the contribution of the proposed Project to any such cumulative impacts would be less than significant because present and probable future projects are consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The Project would not contribute to any cumulative impacts associated with plan or policy inconsistency. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to land use and planning or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 122 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.11 Mineral Resources Threshold (a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The majority of the City is located with Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-1 and MRZ-3. MRZ-1 is defined as an area where available geologic information indicates there is little or no likelihood for presence of significant mineral resources and MRZ-3 is defined as an area containing known mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral significance. According to the California Geologic Survey, the City does not have any land classified as MRZ-2 which is an area underlain by significant mineral deposits or with a high likely hood of such. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would not impact mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of California. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project is located with MRZ-3 and does not contain mineral resources of significant value. The proposed Project would not have the potential impact any resources within MRZ-2, which is consistent with the General Plan Program EIR. The Project would not affect active oil wells located in the northwestern area of the City. No impact with regards to mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the State. Therefore, no new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of no impact. Threshold (b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR states that there are no regional, State, or locally important mineral resource recovery sites in the City. Consequently, implementation of the General Plan would not substantially alter the projected production or consumption of mineral resources. No impact would occur. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would develop a residential development within an urbanized area of the City. The proposed Project would not remove any locally or regionally important mineral resources from production or preclude access to important mineral resources. No impact to locally -important mineral resource recovery sites would occur. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies General Plan policies related to mineral resources identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential impacts to minerals resources are not applicable to the Project. 123 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Standard Conditions and Reauirements No conditions of approval or mitigation measures are required. Cumulative Impact As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new mineral impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a mineral impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative mineral resources impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to mineral resources or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 124 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.12 Noise Threshold (a) Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable. The General Plan Program EIR identified that regional growth would create noise that would affect new and existing receptors. Most of this noise would be produced by increased traffic on local roads. Many of the General Plan policies would reduce the impact. However, existing receptors would still be exposed to new noise levels in excess of standards, and this impact, even with the proposed General Plan policies, was found to be significant and unavoidable. The areas with the greatest potential for exceeding noise standards are roadway segments where the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours extend beyond the roadway right-of-way. The exposure of existing land uses to noise levels in excess of City standards as a result of the future growth under the General Plan is considered a significant impact. With respect to temporary construction noise, the General Plan Program EIR found that construction noise is not subject to the noise standards in the Municipal Code when activities occur during limited hours of the day and days of the week. Existing and future construction noise levels at individual construction sites may not substantially differ but previously unexposed areas could experience new sources of construction noise. Both existing and future noise would be exempt from the City code and when construction noise occurs, impacts would be considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Traffic Noise Policy N 1.8 of the General Plan Noise Element requires the implementation of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified for new development impacting existing sensitive uses, as presented in Table 3.12-1, Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses. Table 3.12-1. Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise -Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL) Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 3 60 2 65 1 70 1 75 0 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan, 2006. The proposed Project would not increase the overall development capacity of the allowable uses as analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Project generated traffic noise was modeled as identified in Table 3.12-2, Existing and Project Traffic Noise and Table 3.12-3, Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise. The proposed Project would generate a minimal increase in vehicle trips, resulting in a minimal increase in traffic generated noise levels. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in 125 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis a substantial increase in traffic noise compared to what was previously analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Table 3.12-2. Existing and Project Traffic Noise Roadway Segment Existing Existing Plus Project Project Change from dBA Existing ADT CNELa Conditions Significant Impact? ADT dBA CNELa Campus Drive Airport Way to MacArthur Blvd. 32,100 68.3 32,185 68.3 0 No MacArthur Blvd. to Von Karman 15,500 65.1 15,585 65.2 0.1 No Von Karman Ave. to Teller Ave. 13,100 64.4 13,185 64.4 0 No Teller Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 12,300 64.1 12,385 64.2 0.1 No Jamboree Rd. to Carlson Ave. 20,000 66.3 20,085 66.3 0 No Carlson Ave. to University Dr. 18,900 68.0 18,985 68.0 0 No University Dr. to Bridge Rd. 23,900 67.0 23,985 67.0 0 No Jamboree Road North of Barranca Parkway 62,500 72.9 62,670 72.9 0 No Main St. to Barranca Parkway 68,400 73.3 68,570 73.3 0 No Main St. to 1-405 NB Ramps 73,300 73.6 73,470 73.6 0 No 1-405 513 Ramps to Michelson Dr. 84,100 74.2 84,270 74.2 0 No Michelson Dr. to Dupont Dr. 59,200 72.3 59,370 72.3 0 No Dupont Dr. to Campus Dr. 45,900 71.2 46,070 71.2 0 No Campus Dr. to Birch St. 43,800 71.0 43,970 71.0 0 No Birch St. to Fairchild Rd. 43,100 71.8 43,270 71.8 0 No MacArthur Blvd. to Fairchild Rd. 37,800 71.3 37,970 71.3 0 No MacArthur Boulevard Main St. to Red Hill Ave. 33,300 68.6 33,470 68.6 0 No Main St. to 1-405 NB Ramps 51,800 70.5 51,970 70.6 0.1 No 1-405 NB Ramps to 1-405 SB Ramps 53,100 70.9 53,270 70.9 0 No 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 57,000 71.2 57,170 71.2 0 No Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 37,400 69.4 37,570 69.4 0 No Campus Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 20,800 66.8 20,970 66.9 0.1 No Von Karman Avenue North of Main St. 25,700 58.0 25,785 58.1 0.1 No Main St. to Michelson Dr. 27,200 58.3 27,285 58.3 0 No Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 18,600 56.6 18,685 56.7 0.1 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to -receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography. Source: Based on traffic data provided by Kimley-Horn, September 2020. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. 126 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.12-3. Opening Year and Project Traffic Noise Roadway Segment Opening Year Opening Year Plus Project Project Change from Existing Conditions Significant Impact? ADT dBA CNELa ADT dBA CNELa Campus Drive Airport Way to MacArthur Blvd. 33,737 68.5 33,822 68.5 0 No MacArthur Blvd. to Von Karman 16,291 65.3 16,376 65.4 0.1 No Von Karman Ave. to Teller Ave. 13,768 64.6 13,853 64.6 0 No Teller Ave. to Jamboree Rd. 12,927 64.3 13,012 64.4 0.1 No Jamboree Rd. to Carlson Ave. 22,082 66.7 22,166 66.8 0.1 No Carlson Ave. to University Dr. 20,867 68.4 20,952 68.4 0 No University Dr. to Bridge Rd. 26,388 67.4 26,472 67.5 0.1 No Jamboree Road North of Barranca Parkway 69,005 73.3 69,175 73.3 0 No Main St. to Barranca Parkway 75,519 73.7 75,689 73.7 0 No Main St. to 1-405 NB Ramps 80,929 74.0 81,099 74.0 0 No 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 92,853 74.6 93,023 74.6 0 No Michelson Dr. to Dupont Dr. 65,362 72.8 65,531 72.8 0 No Dupont Dr. to Campus Dr. 50,677 71.6 50,847 71.7 0.1 No Campus Dr. to Birch St. 48,359 71.4 48,528 71.5 0.1 No Birch St. to Fairchild Rd. 47,586 72.3 47,756 72.3 0 No MacArthur Blvd. to Fairchild Rd. 41,734 71.7 41,904 71.7 0 No MacArthur Boulevard Main St. to Red Hill Ave. 36,766 69.1 36,936 69.1 0 No Main St. to 1-405 NB Ramps 57,191 71.0 57,361 71.0 0 No 1-405 NB Ramps to 1-405 SB Ramps 58,627 71.3 58,796 71.4 0.1 No 1-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr. 62,933 71.7 63,102 71.7 0 No Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 41,293 69.8 41,462 69.8 0 No Campus Dr. to Jamboree Rd. 22,965 67.3 23,135 67.3 0 No Von Karman Avenue North of Main St. 28,375 58.5 28,460 58.5 0 No Main St. to Michelson Dr. 30,031 58.7 30,116 58.7 0 No Michelson Dr. to Campus Dr. 20,536 57.1 20,621 57.1 0 No ADT = average daily trips; dBA = A -weighted decibels; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level a. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to -receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography. Source: Based on traffic data provided by Kimley-Horn, September 2020. Refer to Appendix E for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. 127 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis On -Site Noise Future residents at the project site would be exposed to mobile traffic noise along Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. Table 3.12-3 shows that the loudest traffic noise levels along the Project site would be 64.6 dBA. General Plan Policy N 1.2 requires proposed projects that are located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. General Plan Policy N 2.1 requires that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N 1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. General Plan Policy N 1.1 requires that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Noise Element Table N2 and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Noise Element Table N3. Noise Element Table N2 identifies a "Clearly Compatible" exterior noise standard of 65 dBA for residences in mixed use areas. Land uses that are clearly compatible are satisfactory for buildings of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. The project site is in a Mixed -Use District, and the General Plan land use category for the project site is "Mixed Use Horizontal 2 (MU -1-12)". Noise Element Table N3 identifies a daytime interior noise standard of 45 dBA and a nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Stationary Noise The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation of MU -H2. The site is currently a surface parking lot for Koll Center Newport office uses. Stationary noise sources associated with these uses include rooftop mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment and truck loading and unloading. The proposed Project would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated underthe existing land use designation. In general, stationary noise sources associated with the proposed residential uses are similar to or less than office uses (e.g., HVAC equipment and group conversations). Stationary noise sources associated with residential uses include HVAC equipment, but would not require truck loading and unloading needed for occasional office deliveries (residential deliveries typically require smaller vehicles). Future development would be subject to the City of Newport Beach exterior noise standards from the Municipal Code, as set forth in SC N-1. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Construction Noise The proposed Project is consistent with the existing land use designation of MU -H2. Therefore, the proposed Project would accommodate land uses that would require similar construction processes and intensities. Though the General Plan Program EIR does not specifically include residential uses for the proposed Project area, overall it is anticipated that the required construction processes and activities 128 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis needed to develop the land uses accommodated under both the proposed Project and the General Plan Program EIR would be similar. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. These uses include residential, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, hotels, and open space/recreation areas where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Commercial and industrial uses are generally not considered noise and vibration sensitive unless noise and vibration would interfere with normal operations and business activities. The nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi -family residences in Uptown Newport, located approximately 500 feet southeast of the site. Additional residential development is planned in Uptown Newport and would locate residences closer to the project site (approximately 100 feet from the proposed paring structure and approximately 550 feet southeast of the proposed residential structure. This analysis conservatively evaluates construction noise levels at the closer distances. Project construction is anticipated to commence in the third quarter of 2021 and conclude in the first quarter of 2024. The proposed Project would be constructed in three continuous phases. Phase 1 includes the demolition of some surface parking and landscaping and the construction of a free-standing parking structure; Phase 2A includes the construction of the 312 -unit residential building; and Phase 2B includes the reconfiguration of existing surface parking. Phases 2A and 2B would overlap. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Such activities may require dozers, concrete/industrial saws, and excavators during demolition; dozers and tractors during site preparation; trenching equipment during trenching and utilities; graders, dozers, tractors, scrapers, and excavators during grading; cranes, forklifts, generators, tractors, and welders during building construction; pavers, rollers, and paving equipment during paving; As a conservative estimate, the short-term construction noise (i.e., the construction activity with highest number of equipment used during each sub -phase) were modeled using the FHWA's Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA-HEP-05-054) (January 2006). The noise levels calculated in Table 3.12-4, Project Construction Noise Levels, show estimated exterior construction noise at the closest receptors. The closest residential uses would be approximately 100 feet from the parking structure and approximately 550 feet west of the residential structure. Office uses are located approximately 200 feet from the parking structure and 100 feet from the residential structure. The City of Newport Beach does not have quantitative standards for construction noise levels. Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(A) states that "No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, unless authorized to do so in accordance with subsection (B) of this section." 129 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.12-4. Project Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Receptor Location Worst Case Modeled Exterior Noise Level (dBA Leq) Noise Threshold (dBA Leq)' Exceeded? Land Use Direction Distance (feet)a Free -Standing Parking Structure Residential East 100 79.3 80 No Demolition Office West 200 73.3 85 No Residential East 100 78.5 80 No Grading Office West 200 73.3 85 No Building Residential East 100 79.4 80 1 No Construction Office West 200 73.3 85 No Residential East 100 79.5 80 No Paving Office West 200 73.5 85 No Residential Structure Residential West 550 64.5 80 No Demolition Office North and South 100 79.3 85 No Site Residential West 550 64.7 80 No Preparation Office North and South 100 79.5 85 No Residential West 550 66.3 80 1 No Grading Office North and South 100 81.1 85 No Building Residential West 550 66.6 80 No Construction Office North and South 100 81.4 85 No Residential West 550 65.7 80 No Paving Office North and South 100 80.5 85 No a. Distance is from the Project construction area to the closest potential receptor. b. Construction noise threshold from Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-3, 2018. Source: Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006. Refer to Appendix E for noise modeling results. As applicable to the proposed Project, Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(B) states that the provisions of Section 10.28.040(a) do not apply to those activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on any weekday that is not a federal holiday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. The permitted hours of construction are in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant impact. However, this analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and 85 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts.12 Actual construction -related noise activities are expected to be lower than the conservative levels described above and would cease upon completion of construction. Due to the variability of construction 12 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-2, Page 179, September 2018. 130 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis activities and equipment for the Project, overall construction noise levels would be intermittent and would fluctuate over time. These assumptions represent the worst-case noise scenario because construction activities would typically be spread out throughout the project site, and thus some equipment would be farther away from the affected receptors. In addition, the noise modeling assumes that construction noise is constant, when, in fact, construction activities and associated noise levels would fluctuate and generally be brief and sporadic, depending on the type, intensity, and location of construction activities. It is also noted that Project construction equipment would be equipped with functioning mufflers as mandated by the state, and construction would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated or confined in the areas closest to sensitive receptors. Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to noise as addressed in the General Plan Program EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be temporary in nature and cease upon Project completion. Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the noise ordinance limits and hours in the City's municipal code. Since the Project's construction noise levels would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR, construction noise impacts with implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (b) Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that vibrations associated with construction activities would impact existing buildings and their occupants if they are located close enough to the construction sites. Vibration levels would be problematic if sensitive uses were located within about 100 feet of potential project construction sites, where sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, school children) would experience vibration levels that exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB. The only mitigation that could eliminate the vibration impact is to distance construction and existing sensitive receptors by approximately 150 feet. Since it is not feasible to prohibit construction within 150 feet of all existing receptors, there is no feasible mitigation available for the impact. Thus, when construction vibration occurs, impacts were considered significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with construction -related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. 131 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Construction -related ground vibration is normally associated with impact equipment such as pile drivers, jackhammers, and the operation of some heavy-duty construction equipment, such as dozers and trucks. Vibration decreases rapidly with distance. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, depending on the building category of the nearest buildings adjacent to the potential pile driving area, the potential construction vibration damage criteria vary. For example, for a building that is constructed with reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.50 inch per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) is considered safe and would not result in any construction vibration damage. The FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings (i.e., 0.20 inch/second) appears to be conservative. The types of construction vibration impact include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Building damage can be cosmetic or structural. Ordinary buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage (e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet. This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver. In addition, not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment. The City of Newport Beach does not provide numerical vibration standards for construction activities. Therefore, this impact discussion uses FTA standard of 0.20 inch/second PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings and human annoyance. The nearest structures to any of the construction activities include office buildings that are within approximately 50 feet; however; heavy equipment would be 100 feet away or more. Table 3.12-5, Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels, identifies vibration levels feet for typical construction equipment. Based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during Project construction would range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch/second PPV at 25 feet and 0.000 to 0.011 inch/second PPV from the source of activity. It is also acknowledged that construction activities would occur throughout the project site and would not be concentrated at the point closest to the nearest structure. Vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest building would be below the 0.20 inch/second PPV significance threshold. As noted above, the 0.20 inch/second PPV threshold is conservative because the construction vibration damage criteria for non -engineered timber and masonry buildings. Buildings would be better represented by the 0.50 inch/second PPV significance threshold (construction vibration damage criteria for a reinforced concrete, steel or timber buildings). Once operational, the Project would not be a source of groundborne vibration. Because construction equipment vibration levels would be below the significance thresholds, impacts would be less than significant. There are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. 132 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.12-5. Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Peak Particle Peak Particle Peak Particle Velocity at 25 Feet Velocity at 50 Feet Velocity at 100 Feet Equipment Type (inches per second) (inches per second)' (inches per second)' Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.024 0.011 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.024 0.011 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.020 0.010 Rock Breaker 0.059 0.016 0.007 Jackhammer 0.035 0.001 0.004 Small Bulldozer/Tractor 0.003 0.001 0.000 a. Calculated using the following formula: PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)15, where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in inch per second of the equipment adjusted for the distance; PPVref = the reference vibration level in inch per second from Table 7-4 of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018); D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver. Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. Threshold (c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that residential development that occurs outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of John Wayne Airport would not exceed allowable exterior noise levels for a residential area. Impacts would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) of Orange County adopted an AELUP, amended April 17, 2008, that included John Wayne Airport. The AELUP is a land use compatibility plan that is intended to protect the public from adverse effects of aircraft noise. The proposed Project is within the "airport influence area" defined by the AELUP. John Wayne Airport is approximately 0.44 mile northwest of the project site. The AELUP shows the project site is outside of the 65 dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, General Plan Policy N 1.3 and Standard Condition SC N-3 require residential developments within the Airport Area demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code and that interior noise levels would achieve 45 dBA CNEL or less. Therefore, there is no impact surrounding the proposed Project concerning airport noise and no mitigation is required. There are no changes or new significant information that would require the preparation of an EIR. 133 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. N 1.1 Field Surveys for New Development. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. Proposed projects located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher, as shown on Figure N5, shall (a) conduct a field survey to determine the existing levels of noise exposure and (b) project the levels that would result from the Plan's projected traffic increases as may be modified from those depicted on Figure N5 by existing building locations, topography, and traffic speed. Based on these findings, require that the project meet interior and exterior noise standards. ■ N 1.3 New Developments in Urban Areas. Requires that applicants of residential portions of mixed- use projects and high-density residential developments in urban areas (such as the Airport Area and Newport Center) demonstrate that the design of the structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code. ■ N 2.1 New Development. Require that proposed noise -sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and exterior noise levels. ■ N 2.2 - Design of Sensitive Land Uses: Require the use of walls, berms, and interior noise insulation, double -paned windows, or other noise mitigation measures, as appropriate, in the design of new residential or other new noise -sensitive land uses that are adjacent to major roads. Application of the Noise Standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element shall govern this requirement. ■ N 3.1- New Development: Ensure new development is compatible with the noise environment by using airport noise contours no larger than those contained in the 1985 JWA Master Plan, as guides to future planning and development decisions. ■ N 3.2 - Residential Development: Require that residential development in the Airport Area be located outside of the 65 dBACNEL noise contour no largerthan shown in the 1985 JWAMaster Plan and require residential developers to notify prospective purchasers or tenants of aircraft overflight and noise. ■ N 4.1 - Stationary Noise Sources: Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3 of the Noise Element and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. ■ N 4.2 - New Uses: Require that new uses such as restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 of the Noise Element and the City's Municipal Code. ■ N 4.6 - Maintenance or Construction Activities: Require the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in-home hobby or work-related activities. 134 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ LU 6.15.3 - Airport Compatibility: Require that all development be constructed in conformance with the height restrictions set forth by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics, and that residential development be located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the 1985 JWA Master Plan. ■ LU 6.15.15 - Aircraft Notification: Require that all neighborhood parks be posted with a notification to users regarding proximity to John Wayne Airport and aircraft overflight and noise. Standard Conditions and Reauirements SC N-1 To ensure compliance with Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, grading and construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise -generating project construction activities (as defined in Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays that are not federal holidays and from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturdays in any area of the City that is not designated as a high-density area. Loud, noise -generating construction activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and federal holidays. SC N-2 Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section 10.26.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which specifies the maximum noise levels for new HVAC installations and associated conditions. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets, as authorized by a Site Development Review Permit. SC N-3 Consistent with General Plan Policy N 1.3, all residential units shall be designed to ensure that interior noise levels in habitable rooms from exterior sources (including aircraft and vehicles on adjacent roadways) shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. This mitigation measure complies with the applicable sections of the California Building Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations). Prior to granting of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department for review and approval architectural plans and an accompanying noise study that demonstrates that interior noise levels in the habitable rooms of residential units would be 45 dBA CNEL or less. Where closed windows are required to achieve the 45 dBA CNEL limit, Project plans and specifications shall include ventilation as required by the California Building Code. Cumulative Impact As discussed above, all construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. The distance of separation among the proposed Project and other cumulative projects would be such that the temporary noise and vibration effects of the proposed Project would not be compounded or increased by similar noise or vibration effects from other cumulative projects. As discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant. Due to site distance and these intervening land uses, cumulative stationary noise impacts would not occur. No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would compound or increase the operational noise levels generated by the Project. Therefore, cumulative impacts relative to temporary and permanent noise generation associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. 135 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new noise impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a noise impact previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative noise or vibration impact than those already analyzed. Conclusions Accordingly, no new impacts relative to noise or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 1S162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 136 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.13 Population and Housing Threshold (a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR assumed that General Plan buildout would increase the number of dwelling units by 14,215 units (approximately 12,515 multi -family units and approximately 1,700 single-family units), for a total of 54,394 units. Using a persons per household rate of 2.19, the General Plan Program EIR assumed that the 14,215 residential units would result in a population increase of approximately 31,131 residents. This increase would result in a total population of 103,753 persons at General Plan buildout. The increase in residential units and the associated increase in population would exceed SCAG projections. The number of households in the City projected by SCAG by 2030 was 43,100 units, while the number of dwelling units under the General Plan would be 54,394 units. The SCAG projected population was 94,167 residents by 2030, while the population resulting from the General Plan buildout would be approximately 10 percent higher, or 103,753 residents. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that since residential growth would substantially increase population growth within the City (by approximately 43 percent over 2002 population, and approximately 10 percent higher than existing SCAG projections), impacts on population growth would be considered significant. It was noted that the estimated population increase represented a conservative, worst-case scenario because it assumed that all allowed units would be built. Additionally, this estimate assumed that all residences in the City would be occupied. The City typically has a substantially higher vacancy rate than that of the County due to a higher percentage of vacation properties (seasonal housing). Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would allow for the development of 312 multi -family apartment units, inclusive of 52 density bonus units. Assuming 2.19 persons per unit, the proposed Project would have a residential population of approximately 683 persons. This increase in residential units and population represents approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and be consistent with projected growth in the City based on SCAG's growth forecasts. Additionally, the Project does not include the extension of roads or other infrastructure to unserved areas, which could induce indirect growth. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required. Threshold (b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR finds that development would occur primarily by intensifying current land uses, and through the conversion of land uses of economically underperforming and obsolete development. No substantial demolition of 137 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis residential uses was proposed in the General Plan. There was an allowance for the loss of ten single-family residential units in the West Newport Mesa subarea, only if these units are sold voluntarily by the owners. These properties could be converted to commercial uses. However, West Newport Mesa would also gain 1,070 multi -family residential units, which would be consistent with Policy LU 6.6.2, which promotes the development of a mix of residential types and building scales within the subarea. Because the General Plan does not propose uses that would displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, no impact would occur. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is currently developed with surface parking and common landscape areas for Koll Center Newport. Koll Center Newport includes low-rise, mid -rise, and high-rise office buildings, hotels, and a private club. No existing residential uses are located on-site; therefore, Project implementation would not displace existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The City of Newport Beach's General Plan Housing Element was updated in 2013. This is in accordance with the state's requirement to update housing elements every five years in response to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ H 2.1 - Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate -income households. ■ H 2.2 - Encourage the housing development industry to respond to existing and future housing needs of the community and to the demand for housing as perceived by the industry. ■ H 2.3 - Approve, wherever feasible and appropriate, mixed residential and commercial use developments that improve the balance between housing and jobs. Standard Conditions and Requirements No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impact to population and housing to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of a cumulative impact previously disclosed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to population and housing or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in 138 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 139 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.14 Public Services Threshold (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts to fire services from implementation of the General Plan were less than significant assuming compliance with applicable regulations and General Plan policies. The General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of residential uses into the Airport Area. As previously addressed in this Addendum, the General Plan evaluated the construction of 4,300 multi -family units in the Airport Area; however, the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. The General Plan Program EIR noted that new Airport Area residential uses would increase demands for 24-hour medical service, and that an increase in density by both infill development and the conversion of low-rise properties to mid -rise and high-rise development would necessitate the addition of a ladder truck company at the Santa Ana Heights Fire Station (Fire Station 7). New development would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations governing the provision of fire protection services. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 requires that growth and development be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure. The General Plan Program EIR analysis concludes that compliance with applicable regulations and policies identified in the General Plan would ensure impacts would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would allow for the development of a 312 -unit, multi -family residential building with structured parking, a free-standing parking structure, and a 1.1 -acre park. As discussed in Section 3.13, Population and Housing, the Project has the potential to generate 683 residents. This would incrementally increase the demand for service from the Newport Beach Fire Department (Fire Department), as well as potentially increase the Fire Department's response time to the project site. Consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the Fire Department's demand for medical services. At the time of preparation of the General Plan Program EIR, it was forecasted that an additional ladder truck company would be needed at Fire Station 7. Because of changes in technology, building codes, and ongoing review of the current needs of the Fire Department, Fire Station 7 now requires a rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities instead of a ladder truck company without the need for new or expanded facilities. Fire Station 7 has the physical capacity to house a paramedic rescue ambulance unit and would be able to address the additional service demand. In addition to the ambulance unit and its appurtenant equipment, the paramedic rescue ambulance unit requires six firefighters that are cross -trained as paramedics to ensure the unit is available 24 hours a day. General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy LU 6.1.1 require that land uses can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure and by public services. Implementation of SC PS -2 would ensure appropriate levels of service to the Airport Area. 140 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Given the proximity of the project site to Fire Station 7, Santa Ana Heights Fire Station (1.8 mile), and with implementation of SCs PS -1 and PS -2, the Fire Department would continue to maintain its service response goals and provide adequate staffing. Therefore, increases in service demand generated by the proposed Project would not have a substantial impact on the Fire Department's ability to adequately serve the project site. Therefore, the Project can be adequately served. All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, Chapter 10.48 of the City's Municipal Code authorizes the Fire Marshal to regulate weed and rubbish abatement in the City to reduce potential fire hazards from dry grasses, brush, garden refuse, etc. The Project would comply with the Fire Department's Fire Prevention Guidelines and Standards. By complying with these federal, State, and local regulations, adequate fire and emergency safety elements would be integrated into the Project, thereby reducing the risk for fire hazards. The Fire Department's operating budget is generated through tax revenues. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the City of Newport Beach Property Excise Tax (Municipal Code §3.12 et seq) established for public improvements and facilities associated with the City's Fire Department, public libraries, and public parks; see SC PS -1. Accordingly, no new impacts relative to fire protection or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). ■ LU 6.1.1 Adequate Community Supporting Uses. Accommodate schools, government administrative and operational facilities, fire stations and police facilities, religious facilities, schools, cultural facilities, museums, interpretative centers, and hospitals to serve the needs of Newport Beach's residents and businesses. Standard Conditions and Reauirements SC PS -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project, the Applicant shall pay the required Property Excise Tax to the City of Newport Beach, as set forth in its Municipal Code (§2.12 et seq.) for public improvements and facilities associated with the City of Newport Beach Fire Department, the City of Newport Beach Public Library, and City of Newport Beach public parks. 141 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis SC PS -2 In compliance with General Plan Policy LU 2.8 and Policy 6.1.1, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residential structure, the Applicant, or any successors in interest, shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the Project's pro -rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. This Standard Condition will be satisfied through the applicant's payment of a Public Safety Fee as outlined in the proposed Development Agreement. Threshold (b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR determined build out of the General Plan would have a less than significant impact on police services. In order to maintain acceptable levels of service, the General Plan includes policies to ensure adequate law enforcement is provided as the City experiences future development (Policy LU 2.8). It was noted that to maintain the ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 residents (148 officers and 85,120 residents), the Newport Beach Police Department (Police Department) would have had to provide 53 additional officers by General Plan buildout. Maintaining the Police Department's ratio of 0.60 nonsworn personnel per sworn officer would result in the addition of 32 nonsworn personnel. The addition of 85 police personnel would require Police Department to expand police facilities. However, since Police Department did not have near-term plans for expansion of police facilities, staff, or equipment inventory, it was speculative to determine whether a new substation would be considered. All new development would be subject to the City's project -specific environmental review under CEQA. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR found that impacts would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Policy LU 2.8 of the General Plan provides that only land uses that can be adequately supported by the City's public services should be accommodated. Project implementation would introduce new residential uses and increase population in the City. Buildout of the proposed Project has the potential to generate 683 residents (see Section 4.11, Population and Housing). Based on the City's current ratio of officers to residents (1.6 officers per 1,000 residents), implementation of the Project would result in the demand for less than one additional police officer. It should be noted that the ratio of 1.6 officers per 1,000 residents is the current ratio but is not a ratio required by any City plan or policy. Although the project site is currently surface parking for the existing office building tenants, the Police Department currently provides police services to the Koll Center Newport. The demand for police services would not be substantially increased by the introduction of the proposed residential uses. The Police Department does not have any immediate or future plans to expand police facilities. Although the Project would incrementally increase demand for the City's police protection services, this demand would not require the construction of new facilities, nor would it require the expansion of existing facilities that would result in physical environmental impacts. The City is almost fully built out, with most new 142 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis development occurring as infill development or redevelopment. Residential development on the project site has been taken into account in long-range planning efforts by the Police Department. The Police Department's operating budget is generated through tax revenues, penalties and service fees, and allowed government assistance. Facilities, personnel, and equipment expansion and acquisition are tied to the City budget process and tax -base expansion. Tax base expansion from development of the proposed Project would generate funding for the police protection services. Implementation of SC PS -3 related to site security and building and site safety design recommendations would ensure adequate police protection services can be provided to the project site. Therefore, the Project's impact on police protection services would be less than significant. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to the proposed Project. Standard Conditions and Requirements SC PS -1 and the following conditions are applicable. SC PS -3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Newport Beach Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a list of project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police Department shall review and approve all defensible space design features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process. Threshold (c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR analyzed school capacity in Newport -Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD), Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD), and Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD). At buildout, the student population in the City was estimated to increase by approximately 6,230 students. The Airport Area is served by the SAUSD. The General Plan Program EIR projected that the Airport Area would experience an increase of 4,300 residential units and contribute approximately 1,883 students (of the total 6,230 students generated City- wide under General Plan buildout). The General Plan Program EIR also noted that anticipated growth within the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) would have the potential to cumulatively impact Airport Area schools. The General Plan included goals and policies to address capacity issues for NMUSD and SAUSD. Buildout would likely require construction of new school facilities; however, the EIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. 143 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Student generation rates are used by school districts, including SAUSD, to estimate the number of students generated by new development in order to determine whether existing school facilities would be adequate for future student enrollment. As identified in Table 3.14-1, Student Generation using these student generation rates, the proposed 312 multi -family rental units, would introduce approximately 34 students into the attendance area of SAUSD. Table 3.14-1. Student Generation School Level Single -Family Attached Units Number of Proposed Units Students Potentially Generated by the Project Elementary School 0.0620 312 19 Intermediate School 0.0229 312 7 High School 0.0251 312 8 Total n/a n/a 34 Source: SAUSD Residential Development School Fee Justification Study, 2014. The proposed Project would be served by Monroe Elementary, McFadden Intermediate, and Century High Schools within the SAUSD. The proposed Project would generate 19 elementary, 7 intermediate students, and 8 high school students (Table 3.14-1). This increase in the student population represents 1.8 percent of the growth projected for the Airport Area under General Plan buildout. School funding comes predominantly from federal, State, and local contributions, such as business and personal income taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995, the SAUSD requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the impacts to school facilities from new residential, commercial, and industrial development. The fees would be collected by SAUSD at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), "The payment or satisfaction of a fee, charge, or other requirement levied or imposed ...are hereby deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization ...on the provision of adequate school facilities." Payment of these fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development of the proposed Project by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. Overall, SAUSD would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected student residents of the Project, and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant. No changes or new information requiring preparation of an EIR. Parks Refer to Section 3.15, Recreation. Other Public Facilities? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded a less than significant impact to library facilities from implementation of the General Plan. General Plan Policy LU 2.8 would help ensure that adequate library facilities are provided to the City's residents and that public services can adequately support new development. Compliance with policies 144 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis contained in the General Plan would satisfy any future demand for library facilities. Impacts associated with library services were less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The Project is anticipated to include 683 residents, thereby incrementally increasing the demand for City library services. Although future Project residents would be expected to primarily use the Central and Mariners Branch Libraries, they would have access to all four libraries within the City's library system. The existing library space, collections, and programs provided are considered adequate for the existing residents, and the proposed residential development would have a nominal impact on library services. The City's library system would continue receiving funding for library facilities and resources through the City's General Fund; the property excise tax per Chapter 3.12 of the City's Municipal Code as set forth in SC PS -1; and library activities, such as fines, facility rentals, passport photo/execution fees, and grants and private donations. Overall, Project impacts to library services would be less than significant. Therefore, impacts on library facilities and services would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies General Plan Policies LU 2.8 and 6.1.1 are applicable to library services. Standard Conditions SC PS -1 is applicable. Cumulative As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a new public services impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any public services, recreation, or utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the standard conditions discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative public services impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to public services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 145 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.15 Recreation Threshold (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Threshold (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that potential impacts on recreational facilities would be less than significant with the implementation of General Plan policies and requirements. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated parks and recreational facilities on citywide basis and by service area. Twelve service areas were identified. The Airport Area is in Service Area 4—Santa Ana Heights/Airport Commercial. The General Plan Program EIR identified an existing park surplus (2006) for Service Area 4, noting that the two -acre Bayview Park and proximity to the Upper Bay recreation area provides recreational opportunities. A pocket park and joint use community center project with the YMCA were planned for this area. However, the General Plan identified a shortfall in active playfields and that the existing park uses did not account for future demand associated with multi -family residences in the Airport Area. The General Plan Program EIR found that there would be a greater possibility for physical deterioration of recreational facilities because of the introduction of multi -family residential development into the Airport Area. Prior to the adoption of the 2006 General Plan Update, there were no residential units in or permitted by the General Plan in the Airport Area. The General Plan Program EIR noted that new Airport Area residents would most likely use Bonita Canyon Sports Park stating "However, this park is already being fully utilized, and the increased usage resulting from the increase in population could contribute to this facility's physical deterioration." It was noted that the policies under General Plan Goal R 2 would help ensure that existing parks and recreation facilities are maintained and preserved. Compliance with General Plan Policy R 2.1 would maintain existing park facilities, thereby reducing impacts related to deterioration. With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states: Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreational facilities. For residential development in the Airport Area, the General Plan Program EIR concludes that with implementation of General Plan Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than significant. It is important to note that both the General Plan Program EIR and the General Plan cross reference the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to the mandates of the Quimby Act, which only apply to residential subdivisions. The Park Dedication Fee would therefore have been applicable to all of the multi -family units in the Airport Area based on the evaluation of 4,300 units in the General Plan Program EIR or 2,200 units adopted in the General Plan only if the residential developments include a subdivision (most typically for 150 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis for -sale residential). However, if any or all of the residential units do not require a subdivision, which is typically the case for for -rent residential developments, the fee would not apply. In additional to compliance with General Plan Policy R 2.1 to mitigate impacts to existing park facilities, the General Plan places additional park and recreational requirements on residential villages in the Airport Area. Compliance with General Plan Policies LU 6.15.13 and LU 6.15.15 are identified as development requirements. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 was modified in the adopted General Plan as shown below. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 addresses standards for neighborhood parks in the Airport Area. Policy LU 6.15.13. To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of de^1°^,+e -;;nd- impFe..e at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase of development, or % acre, whichever is greater, in each neighherhee ' as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The General Plan Program EIR included proposed General Plan Policy R 1.3 related to the provision of on-site recreational amenities for high-density residential developments in the Airport Area. This draft policy was replaced with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.16 in the adopted General Plan. Both policies are provided below. General Plan EIR: Policy R 1.3, High -Density Residential Developments. Require developers of new high-density residential developments on parcels eight acres or larger, to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on- site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities can also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay the City of 151 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Newport Beach cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30% of the parkland dedication requirements. Adopted General Plan: Policy LU 6.15.16: On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards. Require developers of multi -family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on- site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. With respect to the maintenance at preservation of existing parks and recreation facilities (General Plan Goal R 2), General Plan Policy R 2.1 states: Policy R 2.1. Use funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance to enhance existing parks and recreational facilities. In summary, the General Plan Program EIR concludes that "With implementation of Policy R 2.1, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities in the Airport Area would be less than significant". Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less than significant impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. As discussed, the General Plan Program EIR identified significant impacts to existing recreational facilities caused by the introduction of residential development in the Airport Area. The deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities caused by new residential development in this area would be mitigated through the use of funding from the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The Park Dedication Fee Ordinance applies to residential subdivisions. Although the proposed Project does not include or require a subdivision, the Project includes a 1.1 -acre public park with open space, as well as on-site recreational amenities consistent with GP LU 6.15.16 for 152 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis residents. The park would be constructed by the Applicant and offered for dedication to the City. Open space, park, and on-site recreational amenities would not be converted to residential or other types of land uses on the site. Based on the significance criteria and mitigation requirements set forth in the General Plan Program EIR, Project impacts would be less than significant and no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies The following General Plan policies related to recreation resources are applicable to the Project. ■ Policy LU 6.15.13. To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights- of-way) of the first phase of development, or % acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. This requirement may be waived by the City where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate the park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents, and when an in -lieu fee is paid to the City for the acquisition and improvement of other properties as parklands to serve the Airport Area. In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. Park acreage shall be exclusive of existing or new rights-of-way, development sites, or setback areas. A neighborhood park shall satisfy some or all of the requirements of the Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as prescribed by the Recreation Element of the General Plan. ■ Policy LU 6.15.14. Location. Require that each neighborhood park is clearly public in character and is accessible to all residents of the neighborhood. Each park shall be surrounded by public streets on at least two sides (preferably with on -street parking to serve the park), and shall be linked to residential uses in its respective neighborhood by streets or pedestrian ways. ■ Policy LU 6.15.16: On -Site Recreation and Open Space Standards. Require developers of multi- family residential developments on parcels 8 acres or largerto provide on-site recreational amenities. For these developments, 44 square feet of on-site recreational amenities shall be provided for each dwelling unit in addition to the requirements under the City's Park Dedication Ordinance and in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. On-site recreational amenities can consist of public urban plazas or squares where there is the capability for recreation and outdoor activity. These recreational amenities may also include swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, and basketball courts. Where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities, the developer shall be required to pay cash in -lieu that would be used to develop or upgrade nearby recreation facilities to offset user demand as defined in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. The acreage of on-site open space developed with residential projects may be credited against the parkland dedication requirements where it is accessible to the public during daylight hours, visible from public rights-of-way, and is of sufficient size to accommodate recreational use by the public. However, the credit for the provision of on-site open space shall not exceed 30 percent of the parkland dedication requirements. 153 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ R 1.12 - Aircraft Overflight and Noise: Require that all public parks located within the noise impact zones as defined in the 1985 John Wayne Airport Master Plan for John Wayne Airport be posted with a notification to users regarding aircraft overflight and noise. Standard Conditions and Requirements There are no additional standard conditions applicable to the proposed Project. Cumulative Impact As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause impacts to recreation to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative recreation impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to recreation or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 154 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.16 Transportation This section summarizes the findings of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Kim ley- Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn, 2020) to evaluate the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project. The Traffic Impact Study is included in its entirety as Appendix F of the Addendum. Threshold (a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? General Plan Significance Determination: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. The General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study evaluated: existing traffic conditions, future traffic conditions without implementation of the General Plan Update, and traffic conditions following implementation of the General Plan Update. The Transportation Study evaluated the following buildout scenarios: Without Project (buildout of the then current General Plan); With Project (buildout of proposed General Plan Update); and General Plan Update without surrounding regional growth. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would contribute to a substantial impact at freeway ramps that exceeds thresholds and would result in operational deficiencies. Impacts related to freeway mainlines and ramps were considered significant since needed improvements exceeded the current maximum planned improvements. With improvements noted in the Circulation Element, growth related to buildout of the General Plan alone would be reduced to less than significant levels. The improvements included in the City of Newport Beach Circulation Element are detailed in the General Plan Program EIR. General Plan Circulation Element Policies CE 6.1.1., CE 6.1.2, CE 6.1.3, CE 6.2.1, CE 6.2.2, CE 6.2.3, CE 5.1.14, CE 5.1.15, CE 5.1.16, CE 5.2.1, and CE 5.2.2 encourage alternative modes of transportation, use of intelligent transportation systems, encourage enhancement and maintenance of public water transportation services and expanded public water transportation uses and land support facilities. In addition, improvements at some intersections have been limited to protect bicycle and pedestrian safety. The General Plan Program EIR found that General Plan implementation would not conflict with existing policies regarding alternative transportation, and impacts were considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: Less Than Significant Impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Methodology The traffic analysis provided an evaluation of morning and evening peak hour intersection at 25 intersections identified in Table 3.16-1, Traffic Study Area Intersections. The study intersections are located in the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine and were identified based on input received from both cities. Of the 25 study intersections, 8 are controlled and maintained by the City of Irvine and 15 are controlled and maintained by the City of Newport Beach. The two 1-405 freeway ramp intersections at Jamboree Road are controlled and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Each intersection was analyzed using the methodology and parameters employed by the city in which the intersection is located. For "shared" intersections on the city boundary, the intersection analysis is based on the methodology used by the city that controls and maintains the signal. 155 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-1. Traffic Study Area Intersections No. Intersection Jurisdiction 1 Traffic Control 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. Newport Beach Signal 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. Newport Beach Signal 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd. 1,2 Newport Beach Signal 5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr. Irvine Signal 6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal 7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St. Newport Beach Signal 8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. Newport Beach 2 -way Stop 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps 2 Caltrans Signal 11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr. Irvine Signal 12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr. 1 Irvine Signal 13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St. 1 Irvine Signal 14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr. 1 Irvine Signal 15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N Newport Beach Signal 16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal 17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way Newport Beach Signal 18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr. Newport Beach Signal 19 University Dr. at Campus Dr. Irvine Signal 20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr. Newport Beach Signal 21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr. Newport Beach Signal 22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr. Newport Beach Signal 23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N Newport Beach Signal 24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal 25 Bayview Place at Bristol St. S Newport Beach Signal 1 For "shared" intersections on the boundary between the two cities, the city listed indicates the city that maintains and controls the signal. Freeway ramp intersections are maintained and operated by Caltrans. z Designated County of Orange Congestion Management Program (CMP) intersection. Field observations of all study intersections were conducted to document the number of through and turning lanes, traffic control, and other existing traffic conditions at each intersection. Existing morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement counts were provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Intersection counts that were not provided by either city were collected in either 2018 or 2019. The traffic counts provided by the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine were conducted between 2017 and 2019. For City of Newport Beach intersections, traffic counts older than one year have been grown atone percent per year on certain major roadways, per direction from City staff, to grow the counts to 2020. For City of Irvine intersections, traffic counts were grown at 2 percent per year, based on direction from City staff, to grown the counts to 2020. The intersection analysis for all signalized intersections has been conducted using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, which is the methodology used by both cities, as well as the 156 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Intersections that are located at an Interstate Highway intersection are also analyzed in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The intersection analysis for unsignalized intersections has been conducted using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of the average seconds of delay per vehicle. Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of "Level of Service" which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio that translates into a corresponding level of service, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free- flowing conditions; to LOS F, representing congested, over -capacity conditions. Table 3.16.2, Level of Service Descriptions, includes a summary description of each level of service and the corresponding V/C ratio or delay. Table 3.16-2. Level of Service Descriptions Signalized: Unsignalized: Level of ICU HCM 1 V/C Ratio Delay (sec) Service Description EXCELLENT — No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no A 0.00-0.60 <_10 approach phase is fully used. VERY GOOD —An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; drivers B 0.61-0.70 > 10 and <_ 15 begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. GOOD — Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than C 0.71-0.80 > 15 and < 25 one red light; back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. FAIR — Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, D 0.81-0.90 > 25 and <_ 35 but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups. POOR — Represents the most vehicles that the intersection E 0.91-1.00 > 35 and <_ 50 approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. FAILURE — Back-ups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection F > 1.00 > 50 approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. LOS = Level of Service; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual; V/C = volume -to -capacity Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 611 Edition Performance Criteria The City of Newport Beach target level of service for peak hour operation of signalized intersections is LOS D or better, except for designated intersections within the Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine, where LOS E is acceptable. The shared Airport Area intersections applicable to the proposed Project are as follows: 1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road (analyzed using City of Newport Beach ICU criteria) 6. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 12. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 157 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 13. Jamboree Road at Birch Street (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 14. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) In the City of Irvine, the target level of service is LOS D, except where the intersection is located in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) or the Irvine Spectrum area. For these intersections, the target level of service is LOS E. The following study intersections are located in the IBC: 1. MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 4. MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road (analyzed using City of Newport Beach ICU criteria) 5. Von Karman Avenue at Michelson Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 6. Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 9. Jamboree Road at 1-405 Northbound Ramps (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria and Caltrans HCM criteria) 10. Jamboree Road at 1-405 Southbound Ramps (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria and Caltrans HCM criteria) 11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 12. Jamboree Road at Campus Drive (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) 14. Jamboree Road at Fairchild Road (analyzed using City of Irvine ICU criteria) Significance Thresholds City of Newport Beach. To determine whether the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the following thresholds of significance: ■ A significant impact would occur when the addition of project -generated trips causes the level of service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable (LOS D, except for intersections on a CMP facility, or designated intersections in the Airport Area, where LOS E is acceptable) to a deficient level of service. ■ A significant impact would occur when the addition of project -generated trips increases the ICU at a study intersection by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.010 or more), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS E or F. For unsignalized intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service, a signal warrant analysis will be conducted to determine if a signal is warranted. The signal warrant analysis will be conducted according to the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). City of Irvine. All of the study intersections in the City of Irvine are signalized. To determine whether the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Irvine has adopted the following significance threshold: ■ A significant impact would occur when the intersection exceeds the acceptable level of service (LOS D except for intersections located in the IBC or on a CMP facility, where LOS E is acceptable) in the baseline condition and the impact of the development is greater than or equal to two percent (v/c increase by 0.02 or more), or; 158 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ The Project increases the ICU by one percent or more (v/c increases by 0.01 or more) at a study intersection, causing it to become deficient. Caltrans. The Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies does not establish a threshold of significance for Interstate Highway intersections. This traffic analysis uses the following traffic threshold of significance: ■ A significant project impact occurs at an Interstate Highway study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E, or F). Study Scenarios Each of the study intersections has been analyzed for the following CEQA scenarios: ■ Existing Conditions ■ Analysis Year 2025 Without Project ■ Analysis Year 2025 With Project ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout Without Project ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout With Project The General Plan without regional growth scenario, which was included in the General Plan Program EIR is not addressed for the proposed Project. In the case of the General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study, the analysis evaluated General Plan Buildout conditions. The proposed Project's traffic analysis evaluates both General Plan Buildout conditions and Year 2025 conditions. Because the analyses have determined that the proposed Project will have no significant traffic impacts under both scenarios, the evaluation of the hypothetical scenario, which isolates General Plan Buildout from regional growth was not prepared because it does not provide information needed to evaluate the potential effects of the Project. Existing Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Peak hour intersection analysis was conducted for the signalized study intersections using the applicable intersection analysis methodology and parameters for each city. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections. Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 3.16-3, Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions. All study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D for all intersections, except LOS E for intersections in the Airport Area or the IBC area, and CMP intersections). 159 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-3. Intersection Operations: Existing Conditions No. Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU/Delay LOS ICU/Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr.* S 0.50 A 0.82 D 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St. S 0.34 A 0.52 A 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. S 0.54 A 0.52 A 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd.* S 0.58 A 0.67 B 5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr.* S 0.54 A 0.68 B 6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* S 0.52 A 0.70 B 7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St S 0.30 A 0.36 A 8 Teller Ave. at Birch St U 12.2 B 13.5 B 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps* S 0.76 C 0.85 D 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps* S 0.96 E 0.95 E 11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* S 0.63 B 0.88 D 12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* S 0.62 B 0.63 B 13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* S 0.52 A 0.53 A 14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* S 0.57 A 0.69 B 15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N S 0.37 A 0.46 A 16 Jamboree Rd.at Bristol St. S S 0.67 B 0.62 B 17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way S 0.43 A 0.44 A 18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr S 0.62 B 0.53 A 19 University Dr. at Campus Dr S 0.79 C 0.79 C 20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr S 0.54 A 0.68 B 21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave./Campus Dr S 0.68 B 0.52 A 22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr S 0.48 A 0.64 B 23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N S 0.64 B 0.55 A 24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S S 0.48 A 0.48 A 25 Bayview PI. at Bristol St. S S 0.51 A 0.50 A S = Signalized; U = Unsignalized; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; LOS = Level of Service Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at LOS E or F per City standards. For signalized intersections, intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio using the ICU methodology. For unsignalized intersections, LOS is expressed in average seconds of delay per peak hour vehicle, based on the methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. * Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020. State Highway Intersection Levels of Service Existing peak hour intersection operations for the Interstate Highway study intersections are summarized in Table 3.16-4, Interstate Highway Intersection Operations. Each of the Interstate Highway study intersections currently operates at an acceptable level of service. 160 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-4. Interstate Highway Intersection Operations Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour DelayLOS Delay LOS Existing Conditions 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps 18.3 B 10.9 B 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps 25.6 C 20.9 C Year 2025 Without Project 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps 19.5 B 13.7 B 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps 54.0 D 22.9 C Year 2025 With Project 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps 19.5 B 13.9 B 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps 54.2 D 23.0 C Note: Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach. Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020. Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the proposed Project were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (10`" Edition) publication. The proposed Project components and trip generation estimates for the Residences at 4400 Von Karman are as follows: ■ Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (Land Use 221) Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are shown on Table 3.16-5, Project Trip Generation. The Project would generate approximately 1,697 daily trips, with 112 morning peak hour trips (29 inbound and 83 outbound) and 138 evening peak hour trips (84 inbound and 54 outbound). The project site is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 1405 of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM). The General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study includes 128 apartment units. Because the Project proposes 312 multi -family rental units, the Post -2030 General Plan Buildout scenario adds 184 additional multi -family units. 161 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-5. Project Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Unit Trip Generation Rates 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 221 DU 5.44 0.094 0.266 0.36 0.268 0.172 0.44 Land Use Quantity Unit Year 2025 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 312 DU 1,697 29 83 112 84 54 138 Total Project Trips 1,697 29 83 112 84 54 138 Land Use Quantity Unit General Plan Buildout Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) 184 DU 1,001 17 49 66 49 32 81 1. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition Future Conditions Future Year Cumulative Conditions peak hour traffic volumes for the City of Newport Beach intersections were developed by adding an ambient growth rate of one percent per year to existing volumes on primary roadways and then adding peak hour traffic volumes from both the Committed and Cumulative Projects. For the City of Irvine intersections, Irvine transportation planning staff provided peak hour traffic forecasts from the Irvine Traffic Analysis Model (ITAM), which is maintained and operated by the City. ITAM forecasts include the effects of ambient traffic growth and traffic from cumulative projects for forecasted Year 2023 traffic volumes. At the direction of Irvine staff, a two percent per year growth factor was applied to develop 2025 forecasts. Additionally, the westbound approach at the intersection of Jamboree Road at Birch Street will be widened to one left -turn lane, one shared left -through lane, and a dedicated right - turn lane to account for the traffic generated by the UCI North Campus Child Health project as identified as a recommended improvement in the UCI North Campus Child Health Traffic Study. Cumulative Projects consist of the Committed Projects (approved projects in the City of Newport Beach), as well as other projects that are in various stages of the application and approval process but have not yet been approved. These projects are considered to be "reasonably foreseeable" projects. The cumulative projects list, provided as Table 3.16-6, Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects, includes the projects identified by the City of Newport Beach as Committed Projects, plus pending projects in the City of Newport Beach, as well as approved and pending projects in the City of Irvine. 162 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total No. Description Land Use Qty Units City of Newport Beach 1 Drive Shack Golf Driving Range 102 Driving 1,392 25 16 41 57 70 127 Position 2 Newport Airport Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 329 DU 1,790 31 88 119 88 57 145 Village UCI North Campus 3 Hospital (City of Irvine) 350.000 KSF 3,752 212 100 312 109 231 340 Hospital UCI North Campus 4 Medical -Dental Office Building (City of Irvine) 168.000 KSF 5,846 364 103 467 163 418 581 Child Health 5 Newport Coast Mixed Residential 1,518 DU 14,778 413 932 1,345 926 557 1,483 6 Westcliff Restaurant Fast -Food Restaurant without drive-thru 11.953 KSF 4,002 180 120 300 101 102 203 7 Garden Restaurant Quality Restaurant 10.987 KSF 971 6 2 8 55 29 84 8 Newport Village Mixed Use N/A N/A 2,832 139 69 207 102 148 251 Bayside Family Resort 9 Hotel 275 Room 1,796 64 49 113 67 67 134 Hotel City of Irvine Hotel 386 Room 3,227 107 74 181 118 113 231 10 Landmark General Office Building 448.000 KSF 4,364 447 73 520 82 433 515 11 Trilogy Residential Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 876 DU 4,765 82 233 315 235 151 386 Hotel 225 Room 1,881 62 43 105 69 66 135 12 Banc &Office Hotel General Office Building 150.000 KSF 1,461 150 24 174 28 145 173 Park Place Office 13 General Office Building 199.000 KSF 1,938 199 32 231 37 192 229 Building Occupied 14 Towneplace Hotel Business Hotel 165 838 49 43 92 41 33 74 Room 15 17850 Von Karman General Office Building 240.856 KSF 2,346 240 39 279 44 233 277 163 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-6. Traffic Analysis Cumulative Projects No. Description Land Use Qty Units Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total 16 15 Degrees South Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 150 DU 816 14 40 54 40 26 66 17 2525 Main Street Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 272 DU 1,480 26 72 98 73 47 120 18 2055 Main Street Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 178 DU 968 17 47 64 48 31 79 19 Pistoia Apartments Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 371 DU 2,018 35 99 134 99 64 163 20 Milani Apartments Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 287 DU 1,561 27 76 103 77 49 126 Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 1,560 DU 8,486 147 415 562 418 268 686 21 Central Park West Shopping Center 10.016 KSF 378 6 4 1 10 18 20 38 22 Main & Jamboree Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 288 DU 1,567 27 77 104 77 50 127 23 17821 Gillette Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 39 DU 212 4 10 14 10 7 17 24 17811 Gillette Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 44 DU 239 4 12 16 12 8 20 25 17822 Gillette Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 137 DU 745 13 36 49 37 24 61 26 360 Fusion Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 280 DU 1,523 26 74 100 75 48 123 27 2602 McGaw Multi -family Housing (Mid -Rise) 120 DU 653 11 32 43 32 21 53 Total Project Trips 54,246 2,325 1,862 4,187 2,087 2,805 4,892 DU = Dwelling Unit, KSF = 1,000 square feet 164 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Year 2025 Without Project Intersection Levels of Service Year 2025 Without Project intersection operations are summarized in Table 3.16-7, Intersection Operations: Year2025 Without Project. All study intersections are forecasted to operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours with the exception of the following: 10. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps: AM - LOS F; PM - LOS F 11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive: PM - LOS F Table 3.16-7. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 Without Project No. Intersection AM Peak Hour ICU/Delay LOS PM Peak Hour ICU/Delay LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.664 B 0.949 E 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.401 A 0.583 A 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.562 A 0.572 A 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.723 C 0.837 D 5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr* 0.676 B 0.785 C 6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.740 C 0.860 D 7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St 0.304 A 0.379 A 8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. (unsignalized) 15.2 C 20.3 C 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps* 0.828 D 0.922 E 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps* 1.060 F 1.013 F 11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* 0.823 D 1.015 F 12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.808 D 0.811 D 13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 0.728 C 0.899 D 14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* 0.776 C 0.548 A 15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.440 A 0.590 A 16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.734 C 0.715 C 17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.473 A 0.491 A 18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.675 B 0.601 B 19 University Dr. at Campus Dr 0.871 D 0.853 D 20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 0.581 A 0.737 C 21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.691 B 0.560 A 22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.507 A 0.669 B 23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N 0.733 C 0.632 B 24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.496 A 0.507 A 25 Bayview PI. at Bristol St. S 0.551 A 0.539 A Note: Bold values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for unsignalized intersections. Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach. * Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020. 165 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis State Highway Intersection Levels of Service With respect to peak hour operation for the Interstate Highway study intersections, the intersection of Jamboree Road at the 1-405 southbound ramps would operate at LOS D in the morning peak hour without the proposed Project (see Table 3.16-4). Year 2025 With Project Intersection Levels of Service In this scenario, project -related peak hour traffic volumes were added to the Year 2025 Without Project traffic volumes. The resulting CEQA Analysis Year 2025 With Project peak hour intersection operations are summarized on Table 3.16-8, Intersection Operations: Year 2025. The following intersection would continue to operate at a deficient level of service under Year 2025 With Project conditions: 10. Jamboree Road at 1-405 SB Ramps: AM — LOS F; PM — LOS F 11. Jamboree Road at Michelson Drive: PM — LOS F Based on the significance criteria set forth in this traffic study, the Project's incremental increase does not exceed the significance threshold at the deficient intersections and would not result in a significant impact with the addition of Project trips. All other intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service in both peak hours. State Highway Intersection Levels of Service With respect to peak hour operation for the Interstate Highway study intersections, the intersection of Jamboree Road at the 1-405 southbound ramps would continue to operate at LOS D in the morning peak hour with the proposed Project (see Table 3.16-4). Project traffic would not cause the level of service at this intersection to worsen, and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The intersection of Jamboree Road at the 1-405 northbound ramps would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. 166 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-8. Intersection Operations: Year 2025 In . Intersection Without Project ICU/ Delay LOS AM Peak Hour With Project ICU/ Delay LOS Change Delay Sig Impact? Without Project ICU/ Delay LOS PM Peak Hour With Project ICU/ Delay LOS Change Delay Sig Impact? 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.664 B 0.667 B 0.003 No 0.949 E 0.951 E 0.002 No 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.401 A 0.410 A 0.009 No 0.583 A 0.587 A 0.004 No 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.562 A 0.573 A 0.011 No 0.572 A 0.575 A 0.003 No 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.723 C 0.725 C 0.002 No 0.837 D 0.842 D 0.005 No 5 Von Karman Ave. at Michelson Dr* 0.676 B 0.678 B 0.002 No 0.785 C 0.786 C 0.001 No 6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.740 C 0.741 C 0.001 No 0.860 D 0.861 D 0.001 No 7 Von Karman Ave. at Birch St 0.304 A 0.312 A 0.008 No 0.379 A 0.387 A 0.008 No 8 Teller Ave. at Birch St. (unsignalized) 15.2 C 19.3 C 4.1 No 20.3 C 22.5 C 2.2 No 9 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 NB Ramps* 0.828 D 0.829 D 0.001 No 0.922 E 0.925 E 0.003 No 10 Jamboree Rd. at 1-405 SB Ramps* 1.060 F 1.061 F 0.001 No 1.013 F 1.014 0.001 No 11 Jamboree Rd. at Michelson Dr* 0.823 D 0.826 D 0.003 No 1.015 F 1.017 IF 0.002 No 12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.808 D 0.809 D 0.001 No 0.811 D 0.814 D 0.003 No 13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 0.728 C 0.732 C 0.004 No 0.899 D 0.902 D 0.003 No 14 Jamboree Rd. at Fairchild Dr* 0.776 C 0.777 C 0.001 No 0.548 A 0.549 A 0.001 No 15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.440 A 0.441 A 0.001 No 0.590 A 0.592 A 0.002 No 16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.734 C 0.736 C 0.002 No 0.715 C 0.719 C 0.004 No 17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.473 A 0.474 A 0.001 No 0.491 A 0.492 A 0.001 No 18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.675 B 0.677 B 0.002 No 0.601 B 0.603 B 0.002 No 19 University Dr. at Campus Dr 0.871 D 0.871 D 0.000 No 0.853 D 0.853 D 0.000 No 20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 0.581 A 0.585 A 0.004 No 0.737 C 0.738 C 0.001 No 21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.691 B 0.691 B 0.000 No 0.560 A 0.560 A 0.000 No 22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.507 A 0.508 A 0.001 No 0.669 B 0.669 B 0.000 No 23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N 0.733 C 0.735 C 0.002 No 0.632 B 0.634 B 0.002 No 24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.496 A 0.496 A 0.000 No 0.507 A 0.508 A 0.001 No 25 Bayview PI. at Bristol St. S 0.551 A 0.552 A 0.001 No 0.539 A 0.541 A 0.002 No Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for unsignalized intersections. Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach. * Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) 167 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Comparative Analysis A comparative analysis has been conducted to determine whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts when compared to the conclusions of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (March 2006). The project site is located in TAZ 1405 of the NBTM, used in the General Plan Program EIR traffic analysis. The NBTM TAZ 1405 includes 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial uses, and 695,157 sf of office uses. Because the Project proposes 312 multi -family rental units, to provide a conservative analysis, the traffic from the additional 184 units were added on to Post -2030 General Plan Buildout traffic findings to determine 2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project levels of service. The Post -2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project levels of service were compared with the Post -2030 General Plan Buildout levels of service at the following study intersections analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study: 1 MacArthur Boulevard at Campus Drive 2 MacArthur Boulevard at Birch Street 3 MacArthur Boulevard at Von Karman Avenue 4 MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road 6 Von Karman Avenue at Campus Drive 12 Jamboree Road at Campus Drive 13 Jamboree Road at Birch Street 15 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street N 16 Jamboree Road at Bristol Street S 17 Jamboree Road at Bayview Way 18 Jamboree Road at University Drive 20 Bristol Street N at Campus Drive 21 Bristol Street S at Irvine Avenue / Campus Drive 22 Irvine Avenue at Mesa Drive 23 Birch Street at Bristol Street N 24 Birch Street at Bristol Street S 25 Bayview Place at Bristol Street S Table 3.16-8, Intersection Operation: Post -2030 General Plan Buildout With Project compares the Post -2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project ICU to the Post -2030 General Plan Buildout ICU shown in the General Plan Transportation Study. Daily, morning peak hour, and evening peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed Project (Table 3.16-5) identify the incremental change (184 additional units) would generate approximately 1,001 daily trips, with 66 morning peak hour trips (17 inbound and 49 outbound) and 81 evening peak hour trips (49 inbound and 32 outbound). Based on this comparison, the proposed Project would not result in any new traffic impacts compared to those identified in the General Plan Program EIR Transportation Study. 168 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.16-9. Post -2030 General Plan Buildout Plus Project Conditions Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout Plus Project Change in ICU New Impact? General Plan Buildout General Plan Buildout Plus Project Change in ICU New Impact? ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS 1 MacArthur Blvd. at Campus Dr* 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.00 No 1.24 F 1.24 F 0.00 No 2 MacArthur Blvd. at Birch St 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.01 No 0.90 D 0.90 D 0.00 No 3 MacArthur Blvd. at Von Karman Ave. 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 0.65 B 0.65 B 0.00 No 4 MacArthur Blvd. at Jamboree Rd* 0.93 E 0.94 E 0.01 No 1.02 F 1.02 F 0.00 No 6 Von Karman Ave. at Campus Dr* 0.73 C 0.73 C 0.00 No 0.97 E 0.97 E 0.00 No 12 Jamboree Rd. at Campus Dr* 0.93 E 0.93 E 0.00 No 1.18 F 1.18 F 0.00 No 13 Jamboree Rd. at Birch St* 1.00 F 1.01 F 0.01 No 0.83 D 0.84 D 0.01 No 15 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. N 0.68 B 0.68 B 0.00 No 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 No 16 Jamboree Rd. at Bristol St. S 0.94 E 0.94 E 0.00 No 0.87 D 0.87 D 0.00 No 17 Jamboree Rd. at Bayview Way 0.45 A 0.45 A 0.00 No 0.66 B 0.66 B 0.00 No 18 Jamboree Rd. at University Dr 0.68 B 0.68 B 0.00 No 0.67 B 0.67 B 0.00 No 20 Bristol St. N at Campus Dr 1.02 F 1.03 F 0.01 No 1.06 F 1.06 F 0.00 No 21 Bristol St. S at Irvine Ave. / Campus Dr 0.89 D 0.89 D 0.00 No 0.77 C 0.78 C 0.01 No 22 Irvine Ave. at Mesa Dr 0.98 E 0.98 E 0.00 No 1.19 F 1.19 F 0.00 No 23 Birch St. at Bristol St. N i 0.92 E 0.92 E 0.00 No 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.00 No 24 Birch St. at Bristol St. S 0.55 A 0.55 A 0.00 No 0.54 A 0.54 A 0.00 No 25 Bayview PI. at Bristol St. S 0.60 A 0.60 A 0.00 No 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.00 No Notes: Bold and shaded values indicate intersections operating at an unacceptable Level of Service Intersection operation is expressed in volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio for signalized intersections, and average delay for unsignalized intersections. Delay values for unsignalized intersections represent the average vehicle delay on the worst (highest delay) intersection approach. * Level of Service E is acceptable at this intersection. 1 A 5% capacity credit is applied at this intersection to reflect implementation of the Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) 2Source: 2006 General Plan Transportation Study. Excerpts are provided in Appendix H of this report. 3This scenario assumes the following uses for NBTM TAZ 1405, where the project site is located: 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial use, and 695,137 sf of office use 4 This "With Project" scenario assumes an additional 184 dwelling units (delta), for a total of 312 dwelling units, as proposed by the Project. 169 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Potential impacts associated with the proposed Project would either be the same or not substantially greater than those described in the General Plan Program EIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in more severe environmental traffic impacts than previously addressed in the General Plan Program EIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for more severe significant environmental impacts been identified that would result in the previous analysis being inadequate. As such, no further analysis is required. Construction Traffic Construction of the proposed Project would add construction -related trips to and from the site during construction activities. These trips are associated with construction activities, including construction workers, grading, and construction of structures and site features. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on-site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the different activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on-site during all phases of construction. Construction workers will not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking will be provided, and workers will carpool or be shuttled to the worksite. The Applicant will be required to provide a Construction Management Plan and identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles will be via Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Depending on the origin/destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material), trucks will either arrive and depart via 1-405, to the north of the site; or via SR -73, to the south of the site. Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt -hauling trucks and other heavy trucks will be scheduled outside of the AM and PM peak hours. The Applicant would be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles (SC TRAN-1). Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? This State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist question and the referenced CEQA Guidelines section were added to the CEQA Guidelines updates in 2018, and therefore were not addressed in the certified General Plan Program EIR in 2006. 170 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis When the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. However, since LOS was the applicable threshold when the General Plan Program EIR was approved, settled CEQA case law dictates that LOS, not VMT, is the applicable CEQA standard for the proposed Project. A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary but (1) there are no substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Preparation of an addendum is based on whether there have been any substantial changes to the project's physical environmental impacts or whether there are any new physical environmental impacts. The purpose of a CEQA Addendum is to compare physical project impacts with what was evaluated in the prior EIR to determine whether major revisions to the EIR are required. (See Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.) Level of Service was the applicable threshold when the City certified the General Plan Program EIR in 2006. The mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts was adopted in 2018 and effective in 2020. It does not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review nor does it affect the assessment of project environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to those analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. The potential environmental impacts regarding the amount of travel associated with the General Plan was known at the time that General Plan Program EIR was certified. Settled CEQA caselaw supports reliance on level of service as the appropriate threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of proposed Project. Therefore, no new significant impacts result from Project modification or changed circumstances, and no revisions to the General Plan Program EIR are necessary. No changes or new information would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that impacts related to geometric design features would be less than significant. General Plan policies in the Circulation Element and the Land Use Element (CE 1.3.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.5) provide for maintaining and enhancing existing roadways, increasing safety of roadways, and balancing safety, quality of life and efficiency in the design of circulation and access. Compliance with General Plan policies would help reduce hazards due to design features. This impact would be less than significant. 171 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is already developed, and the proposed development would be accessed by roadways and driveways into the project site. Vehicular access to Koll Center Newport is currently provided by three driveways on Birch Street, and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows drivers to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. Drivers access the site either by a key card or by pressing the button and pulling a parking ticket. To exit the site, key card users use their card to raise the gate. Visitors must insert a validated ticket or pay at the gate in order to exit. As a part of the Project, primary access to the site would be provided from two existing driveways on Birch Street and one driveway on Von Karman Avenue. Existing gates along the primary internal access street crosses the property from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue would be relocated as necessary to facilitate efficient site circulation. Gates would be removed at the middle driveway on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. The westernmost driveway on Birch Street, closest to the intersection of Birch Street at Von Karman Avenue, is a full -movement driveway. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in the residential building's parking structure, in a new, free-standing parking structure, and in surface parking areas. An entry to the residential parking structure for office parking would be provided near the 4910 Birch Street office building using this driveway. The middle driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. A gated entry into the residential parking structure from the drive aisle off of Birch Street would be provided. From this driveway, motorists can either continue to the internal access road to Von Karman Avenue where there is an entrance to the residential parking structure (access for resident and office parking), or access gated parking on both sides of the internal street. The driveway would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left -turn and one right -turn lane. The easternmost driveway on Birch Street is a full -movement driveway. Existing entry gates to the internal access road and parking areas would remain in their existing locations. Motorists would have access to the parking areas on either side of the internal access road, including surface parking east of the 5000 Birch Street office building and the proposed free-standing office parking structure. No changes to the ingress/egress are proposed. The northernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is an exit -only driveway and motorists can currently make both right and left turns. No changes would occur with the Project. The southernmost driveway on Von Karman Avenue is a full -movement driveway. This driveway is the southwestern access point of the internal street that connects Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street through the site. The entry gate from Von Karman Avenue would be removed and replaced with a parking gate on the east side of the internal street to provide access to the surface parking areas and the existing parking structure and new free-standing parking structure. Gated access into the residential parking structure would be provided from the internal street for residential and office parking. The driveway would be reconfigured to provide one inbound lane and two outbound lanes, with one left -turn and one right -turn lane. 172 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis The proposed Project would not introduce incompatible uses to area roadways. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable State and City building codes and would meet City of Newport Beach standards for design, including sight distance at all intersections (SC TRAN-2). The Project would not introduce roadway hazards or incompatible uses. It would not increase transportation hazards in comparison to the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required. Threshold (d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts related to emergency access were less than significant. Projects would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. General Plan policies related to disaster planning include measures for effective emergency response to natural or human -induced disasters that minimizes the loss of life and damage to property and reducing disruptions in the delivery of vital public and private services during and following a disaster. Therefore, the General Plan Program EIR concluded that with compliance with applicable regulatory standards and Municipal Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access, impacts would be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. As addressed under Threshold c, the proposed Project would remove and relocate existing gated access through the project site to allow for unrestricted vehicle access through the site from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. This change would not adversely impact public roads or introduce features that would adversely affect vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation in the vicinity of the site. In addition, Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area compared to the General Plan Program EIR. The proposed Project would not result in new impacts in comparison to the General Plan Program EIR. Project traffic would not result in substantial delays and congestions that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. All -access road would meet requirements for fire access roads in the 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. The proposed Project would not require new mitigation and emergency access impacts are considered less than significant. This determination of less than significant impact is supported by the previously certified EIR prepared for the General Plan. The proposed Project would cause neither a new impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of an impact previously disclosed. As such, no further analysis is required. Mitigation Program Relevant General Plan Policies The following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. ■ CE 2.1.1 Level of Service Standards: Plan the arterial roadway system to accommodate projected traffic at the following level of service standards: Level of Service (LOS) "D" throughout the City, unless otherwise noted. 173 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis — LOS "E" at the following Airport Area intersection: Campus Drive (NS) at Bristol Street North (EW) and any intersection shared with Irvine. — LOS "E" at the following intersections in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Mariners' Mile: Riverside Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) and Dover Drive (NS) at Coast Highway (EW). — LOS "E" at Marguerite Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. — Accept LOS "E" at Goldenrod Avenue (NS) at Coast Highway (EW) in the pedestrian oriented area of Coast Highway in Corona del Mar. ■ CE 2.1.2 - Street and Highway Network: Construct the circulation system described on the map entitled Newport Beach Circulation Element -Master Plan of Streets and Highways shown in Figure CE1 and Figure CE2 (cross-section). ■ CE 2.2.3 Traffic Control. Design traffic control measures to ensure City streets and roads function with safety and efficiency. ■ CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations. Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels. ■ CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. ■ CE 5.1.1 — Trail System. Promote construction of a comprehensive trail system as shown on Figure CE4. ■ CE 5.1.2 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. ■ CE 5.1.3 - Pedestrian Improvements in New Development Projects: Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. ■ CE 5.1.4 - Linkages to Citywide Trail System and Neighborhoods: Require developers to construct links to the planned trail system, adjacent areas, and communities where appropriate. ■ CE 5.1.5 - Bikeway System: Cooperate with state, federal, county, and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region. ■ CE 5.1.6 - Bicycle Supporting Facilities: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the design plans for new streets and highways and, where feasible, in the plans for improving existing roads. ■ CE 5.1.7 - Bicycle Safety: Provide for safety of bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians by adhering to current national standards and uniform practices. ■ CE 5.1.8 - Bicycle Conflicts with Vehicles and Pedestrians: Minimize conflict points among motorized traffic, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. ■ CE 5.1.17 - Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas, schools, parks, and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. 174 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis ■ CE 6.2.2 Support Facilities for Alternative Modes: Require new development projects to provide facilities commensurate with development type and intensity to support alternative modes, such as preferential parking for carpools, bicycle lockers, showers, commuter information areas, rideshare vehicle loading areas, water transportation docks, and bus stop improvements. ■ CE 6.2.3 - Project Site Design Supporting Alternative Modes: Encourage increased use of public transportation by requiring project site designs that facilitate the use of public transportation and walking. Standard Conditions and Reauirements SC TRAN-1 Traffic Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit for City of Newport Beach Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer review and approval a Construction Management Plan for the Project. The Plan shall identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. SC TRAN-2 Sight distance at all intersections shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards. Cumulative As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a transportation impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any transportation impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project -specific or cumulative transportation impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to transportation or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 175 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.16 Utilities and Service Systems Threshold (a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Water General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The City's surface water suppliers are the City, the Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD), and the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD), which source their imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The General Plan Program EIR concluded that the City's three water suppliers would have enough capacity to serve General Plan development and that no relocation or expansion of water facilities is required. Impacts would be less than significant. All of service providers use groundwater and recycled water to supplement their supply. Development consistent with the General Plan would increase water demand within the City; MWDOC indicated that its 2030 projected availability of imported water supply would exceed the 2030 projected regionwide demand for imported water supply by at least 155,000 acre-feet. Therefore, MWDOC would be able to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs through 2030, as shown in Table 3.17-1, Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 UWMP). Table 3.17-1. Projected Potable Water Supply and Demand (2005 LIWMP) Water Source 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 MWDOC 6,404 5,758 6,157 6,392 6,226 6,256 OCW D 11,927 13,590 14,921 14,778 14,990 14,960 Recycled Water 317 444 478 500 500 500 Total Water Demand 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716 Projected Demand 18,648 19,792 21,556 21,640 21,716 21,716 MWDOC= Municipal Water District of Orange County; OCWD = Orange County Water District. Source: City of Newport Beach, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Table 3-5, Table 4-8. According to the General Plan Program EIR, the City provided approximately 1,200 AFY of the irrigation demand using recycled water. Policy NR 2.1 of the General Plan encourages the use of recycled water in the City by continuing to provide financial incentives, staff assistance, and training opportunities for customers, and expanding recycled water infrastructure and programs, when feasible. Future recycled water infrastructure developments, if necessary, would require further environmental review when project -level details are known. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction of new recycled water conveyance systems within the City were considered less than significant. The General Plan Program EIR identified that new development would be subject to site-specific evaluation of existing water system's capacity to serve the development. If improvements are required, developers are required to pay its share of costs of all or portions of the needed improvements. General Plan Policy LU 2.8 directs the City to accommodate land uses that can be adequately supported by infrastructure, including water treatment and conveyance facilities. Therefore, overall impacts to the three water suppliers were found to be less than significant. 176 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is within the service area of Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). As it applies to the proposed Project, the IRWD UWMP is the applicable planning document for evaluating water supply and demand. According to the IRWD UWMP, IRWD's 2015 water supply was approximately 92,220 AF, which was combination of 18,696 AF of imported water, 2,826 AF of surface water, 50,833 AF of groundwater and 22,866 AF of reclaimed water. Table 3.17-2, IRWD Current and Projected Water Supplies shows the forecasted water supply for IRWD through 2035. Table 3.17-2. IRWD Current and Projected Water Supplies (AFY) Water Source Treatment Level 2020 2025 2030 2035 Imported Water Potable 41,929 41,929 41,929 41,929 Groundwater Potable 53,171 65,523 65,523 65,523 Imported Water Untreated 17,826 17,826 17,826 17,826 Reclaimed Water Non -Potable 28,757 28,757 28,757 28,757 Groundwater Non -Potable 3,514 3,514 3,514 3,514 Total - 145,197 157,549 157,549 157,549 AFY = acre-feet per year Source: IRWD, 2016. The Project includes 312 multi -family dwelling units. The 2015 IRWD UWMP noted that the daily per capita water usage was 129 gallons per capita per day. The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit is 2.19 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport Beach for 2020 (DOF 2020). Therefore, approximately 684 residents are associated with the proposed Project. The projected water demand for the Project is shown in Table 3.17-3, Portable Water Demand. Table 3.17-3. Potable Water Demand Expected Gallons per Acre -Feet per Land Use Unit Count Population Demand Factor Day (gpd) Year (AFY) High Density 312 684 129 gpcd 88,236 98.9 Residential gpd = gallons per day; du = dwelling unit; ksf = thousand square feet; gpv = gallon per vehicle Buildout of the proposed Project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 88,236 gpd, or 98.9 AFY (see Table 3.17-2). The most recent IRWD UWMP provides updated water demand and supply projections, shown in Table 3.17-4, IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand. In comparison of IRWD's water demand to IRWD's water supply (Table 3.17-2), there is an anticipated water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 AFY. The proposed Project's water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than one percent of IRWD's anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year. 177 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.17-4. IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand (AFY) Land Use Proposed Project Water Source 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Potable and Raw Water 64,154 71,086 77,700 80,645 81,966 Reclaimed Water Demand 29,249 25,359 28,261 28,786 29,311 Total Water Demand 90,403 96,445 105,961 109,431 111,277 AFY = acre-feet per year Source: IRWD, 2016. Therefore, no relocation or construction of new water facilities would be required. No new impact would result, nor would the impact previously identified be any more severe as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the effects of implementation of the General Plan. Wastewater General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan would produce an additional 4.12 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The additional 4.12 mgd of wastewater would be treated at Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) Reclamation Plants Nos. 1 and 2. Reclamation Plant No. 1 had a capacity of 174 mgd and treated an average flow of 90 mgd, approximately 52 percent of its design capacity. Reclamation Plant No. 2 had a capacity of 276 mgd and treated an average of 153 mgd, approximately 55 percent of its design capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was determined to be nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies within the General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would include up to 312 multi -family rental units, structured parking, and a 1.1 -acre public park with open space areas. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated up to 4,300 residential units in the Airport Area; the General Plan was adopted for up to 2,200 residential units. As such, the proposed residential development is consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan for the Airport Area. Assuming the City's wastewater generation factors of 240 gpd/du for residential land uses from the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed Project would generate 74,880 gallons per day (gpd), as identified in Table 3.17-5, Wastewater Generation. Table 3.17-5. Wastewater Generation Land Use Proposed Project Demand Factor Gallons per Day (gpd) Residential: Single-family and Multi -family 312 DU 240 gpd/du 74,880 Total 74,880 ac = acres; du = dwelling unit; gpd = gallons per day Source: City of Newport Beach Sewer Master Plan, August 2010. 178 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 320 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 312 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd. Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 185 mgd. Given that the proposed Project would generate an additional 74,880 gpd or 0.06 mgd of wastewater, this increase is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the Project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. If the proposed Project requires new sewer flow connections through OCSD, all connections are required to comply with current OCSD design guidelines and pay a sewer connection fee. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Storm Drainage General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR noted that impacts to the City's storm drainage system would be less than significant. Since the City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out, development would occur only in areas with existing storm drainage infrastructure. The Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan requires new developments to create and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which would ensure pollutant discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Therefore, any additional stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the General Plan would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities, and impacts were found to be less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Development of the proposed Project would alter the on-site drainage patterns with the development of the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. However, the proposed Project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would be required to implement a WQMP. The WQMP would reduce discharge of stormwater into urban runoff from the operational phase by managing site runoff volumes and flow rates through application of appropriate best management practices. BMPs would be designed in accordance with the NPDES requirements. Any drainage facilities would also be designed in accordance with Section 19.28.080 of the City's Municipal Code, set forth in SC 3.17-1. Therefore, stormwater runoff expected at buildout of the proposed Project would not exceed existing storm drainage capacities. Impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. As discussed under Section 3.9, Hydrologyand Water Quality, the site currently drains toward Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street and connects to the City's stormwater system. With buildout of the project site, the Project would continue to connect to the City's stormwater system through an on-site storm drain system. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch RCP within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design 179 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain in order that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Telecommunications General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. Telecommunications are provided by Spectrum, Cox, and Google Fiber. Local telecommunications companies operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the project area, which currently serves the project site. The previous General Plan Program EIR did not analyze impacts associated with the construction or relocation of telecommunication infrastructure. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The proposed Project would not require relocation or construction of new telecommunication facilities. The Project would connect to existing connections for services. No impact would occur. Threshold (b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan referenced in the General Plan Program EIR, water supplies would continue to meet the City's imported water needs until year 2030. OCWD, which provides the groundwater supply to the City, projects that there would be sufficient groundwater supplies to meet any future demand requirements in Newport Beach. The water supply impact associated with the City's water service boundaries within the General Plan Planning Area is less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The project site is within a portion of the City that is served by IRWD. The IRWD prepares its own UWMP, with the most recent iteration released in 2016 for the 2015 cycle. The IRWD UWMP found that the water supply was 100 percent reliable and able to accommodate normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events, if needed. Under all scenarios (i.e., normal, dry, and multiple dry years), the IRWD had a surplus of water availability. The year 2025 projected availability would exceed the projected water demands by at least 41,171 AF under the worst-case multiple dry year scenario. The UWMP also indicated that there is adequate existing and planned water supply to accommodate future development and its associated water demands. Table 3.17-6, Single Dry Year Supply and Demand and Table 3.17-7, Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand show the City's estimated single dry -year and multiple dry -year supplies and demand. 180 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.17-6. Single Dry Year Supply and Demand (AF) 2020 2020 2025 2030 2035 Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549 Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066 Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483 AFY = acre-feet Source: IRWD UWMP Table 7-3, 2015 35,483 Table 3.17-7. Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand (AF) 2020 2025 2030 2035 Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549 First Year Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066 Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483 Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549 Second Year Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066 Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483 Supply Totals 142,197 154,549 154,549 154,549 Third Year Demand Totals 103,195 113,378 117,091 119,066 Difference 39,002 41,171 37,458 35,483 ffFefeet WD UWMP 2015, Table 7-4 As previously identified in Table 3.17-3, the proposed Project would generate an increase in water demand of 43.68 AFY for the project site. The IRWD's 2015 UWMP found that water supplies are sufficient to meet the 2035 projected water demand for its service residents during normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry -year events. Therefore, the City's existing and future water supply is able to accommodate the increased water demand associated with the proposed Project. Impacts are less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment capacity. The additional 4.12 mgd from buildout of the General Plan was nominal compared to the capacities of the two plants. In addition, policies within the General Plan require adequate wastewater facilities and conveyance systems to be available to the City residents through renovations, installations, and improvements when needed. Therefore, impacts were determined less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. 181 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis As mentioned above, the incremental increase in wastewater generated by the proposed Project could be accommodated by OCSD's treatment plants (see Table 3.17-5). The City requires NPDES permits, which set limits on allowable concentrations in any wastewater discharge. The City's Municipal Code also requires dwelling units and commercial uses to connect to the City's public sewer network and prohibits certain polluting substances from being discharged into a public sewer. The proposed Project, similar to development in accordance with the General Plan, would be required to comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and the Municipal Code and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? General Plan Significance Determination: Less than Significant Impact. The General Plan Program EIR found that impacts on existing solid waste facilities from project -generated solid waste were less than significant. Development of the General Plan would result in an additional 21,659 tons per year of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which represented approximately 0.68 percent of the solid waste accepted annually at the landfill. Based on the landfill's 16 -year lifespan and remaining capacity of approximately 44.6 million tons at the time the previous EIR was prepared, the increase in solid waste generated from buildout of the General Plan was considered less than significant. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. The Bowerman Landfill has a maximum permitted disposal of 11,500 tons per day. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 205,000,000 cubic yards with a closure date of December 31, 2053.13 As identified in Table 3.17-8, Estimated Solid Waste Generation, the proposed Project would generate approximately 2,000 pounds of solid waste per day (1 ton per day or 365 tons/year). The estimated refuse generation for the Project is less than 0.01 percent of the landfill's annual tons per day average. The proposed Project's development intensity is consistent with the City's development assumptions, which are used by the County of Orange in their long-term planning for landfill capacity. The County's landfill system has capacity in excess of the required 15 -year threshold established by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Based on the remaining capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and the County's long-term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County's landfill system to meet the needs of the proposed Project. No significant impacts are anticipated. 13 CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.sov/Solid Waste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?sitelD=2103, Accessed September 7, 2020. 182 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Table 3.17-8. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Units/square feet (sf) Solid Waste Generation Rate Solid Waste Generation 312 units: multi -family residential 6.41 lbs/unit/day 1,999.92 lbs/day Total 1,999.92 lbs/day (365 tons/yr) Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan Program EIR, 2006. The proposed Project, similar to other projects developed pursuant to the General Plan, would comply with the California Green Building Standards and AB 341. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from residential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. AB 341 mandates a statewide solid waste diversion rate of 75 percent by 2020. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Threshold (e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? General Plan Significance Determination: No Impact. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that no impacts would occur related to compliance with federal, State, and local regulations. AB 939, the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (PRC §40000 et seq.) required all local governments to develop source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting programs to reduce tonnage of solid waste going to landfills. Cities were required to divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated by January 1, 2000. AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (PRC §§42900 et seq.), required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance or an ordinance of their own by September 1, 1993. Chapter 6.06 of the City's Municipal Code includes waste recycling requirements in conformance with AB 1327. The City consistently diverts 50 percent or more of solid waste and, therefore, is in compliance with this legislation. Therefore, no impacts were identified. Project -Specific Analysis and Significance Determination: No impact; no substantial change from previous analysis. Compliance with AB 939 is measured for each jurisdiction, in part, as actual disposal amounts compared to target disposal amounts. Target disposal rates for the City are 9.6 pounds per day (ppd) per resident. Actual disposal rates in 2018 were 6.9 ppd per resident. Therefore, solid waste diversion in Newport Beach is consistent with AB 939 and the Project's solid waste generation would be consistent with AB 939 and AB 1327. The proposed Project, similar to all projects, is required to recycle construction waste in compliance with the 2019 California Green Building Code, store and collect recyclable materials in compliance with AB 341 and handle green waste in accordance with AB 1826. Overall, impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. 183 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Mitigation Program Relevant General Plan Policies Consistent with the General Plan Program EIR, the following policies are applicable to the proposed Project and would be made conditions of approval. The policies below are applicable to this Project. ■ LU 2.8 Adequate Infrastructure: Accommodate the types, densities, and mix of land uses that can be adequately supported by transportation and utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm drainage, energy, and so on) and public services (schools, parks, libraries, seniors, youth, police, fire, and so on). ■ LU 3.2 Growth and Change: Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re- use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. ■ NR 3.4 Storm Sewer System Permit - Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy HB8.5) ■ NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control - Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. (Policy HB8.12) ■ NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems - Require all street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. (Policy HB8.16) Standard Conditions and Requirements SC UTIL-1 The Project shall be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.16 related to water conservation and supply level regulations in effect during the construction and operation of the Project, and Municipal Code Chapter 14.17 with respect to water -efficient landscaping. SC UTIL-2 The Project shall be required to comply with Section 19.28.080 (Storm Drains) of the City's Municipal Code which requires developers to design and construct all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of surface water from the site (e.g., open/closed channels, catch basins, manholes, junction structures), and to protect off-site properties from a project's water runoff. The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the 184 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis standards of the Orange County Flood Division. A drainage fee is also charged to fund improvements to the City's drainage facilities. SC IITIL-3 The Applicant shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMD) for each phase of the Project. The CWMP shall list the types and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected to be generated from construction. The CDWMP shall include options to divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume. Cumulative Impact As discussed above, the proposed Project would not cause a utilities impact to occur, nor an increase in the severity of any utilities impacts previously disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in this section. Implementation of the proposed Project would not alter the conclusions of the General Plan Program EIR analysis and would not result in a new or substantially more severe project or cumulative utility impact than those already analyzed. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to Utilities and Services or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior finding of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 185 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.17 Wildfire The topic of Wildfire was not addressed in the General Plan Program EIR because the requirement to analyze in CEQA documents the potential impacts associated with proximity to very high fire hazard severity zones did not become effective until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of General Plan Program EIR by the Newport Beach City Council in 2006. However, the General Plan identified areas with high and moderate fire susceptibility. Threshold (a) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Zone Map for Orange County, the project site is not within or proximate to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) zone for a Local Responsibility Area. Additionally, General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, shows that the project site is not within areas designated as High or Moderate fire susceptibility. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Threshold (b) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Threshold (c) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Threshold (d) If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post - fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. As noted, the site is not within or proximate to a VHFHSZ. Therefore, this threshold is not applicable to the proposed Project. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Program General Plan Policies General Plan policies related to wildfires identified in the General Plan Program EIR to mitigate potential impacts to wildfires are not applicable to the Project. 186 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis Standard Conditions and Reauirements No standard conditions are applicable to the proposed Project. Cumulative Impact As discussed above, the project site is not within a VHFHSZ. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause either a new cumulative impact to occur, nor cumulatively contribute to wildfire impacts. Conclusion Accordingly, no new impacts relative to wildfires or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. With regard to PRC Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 1S162(a), the Project would not result in any new impacts, or increase the severity of the previously identified impacts. Additionally, no new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified is available that would impact the prior findings. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis is not warranted. 187 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 4 Determination 4 DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE CEQA DOCUMENTATION The following discussion lists the appropriate subsections of Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and provides justification for the City of Newport Beach to make a determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, based on the environmental analysis provided above. Section 15162 — Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The City of Newport Beach proposes to implement the Project within the context of the General Plan, as described in this Addendum. As discussed in the Environmental Impact Analysis section of this Addendum, no new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur that would require substantive revisions to the General Plan Program EIR. The proposed Project would not result in substantially increased impacts above what was evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR with regard to density and other environmental factors such as air quality, noise, public services, and utilities. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As documented herein, there have been no changes in circumstances under which the General Plan is being implemented since certification of the General Plan Program EIR; and none of the proposed Project elements would result in new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than previously identified. (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant environmental effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; No new information that was not known at the time the General Plan Program EIR was prepared is now available that demonstrates that the proposed Project will result in a new or increased significant impact. Based on the analysis prepared for the proposed Project, the project -related effects would not be substantially more severe than were disclosed in the General Plan Program EIR as a result of the proposed 188 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 4 Determination Project. Implementation of the proposed Project within the context of the General Plan would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or No mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the General Plan Program EIR are now feasible. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. No feasible alternatives have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts. Additional technical analyses were performed for the proposed Project and are the subject of this Addendum. Based on the analysis in this document, the proposed Project would not result in any new significant environmental effects that are substantially different from those identified in the General Plan Program EIR nor would it substantially increase the severity of significant effects previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR. None of the conditions listed under subsection (a) would occur that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR. (b) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subsection (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. None of the conditions listed in subsection (a) would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, no subsequent EIR is required. Section 15164 — Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. As described above, none of the conditions described in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR would occur as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, an Addendum to the certified General Plan Program EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project. 189 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 4 Determination (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the EIR or adopted negative declaration. This Addendum will be attached to the General Plan Program EIR and maintained in the administrative record files at the City of Newport Beach. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the EIR prior to making a decision on the project. The City of Newport Beach would consider this Addendum with the General Plan Program EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed Project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. This document provides substantial evidence for City of Newport Beach records to support the preparation of this Addendum for the proposed Project. Therefore, preparation of a subsequent EIR is not required and the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project is this Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR. No additional environmental analysis or review is required for the proposed Project. This document will be maintained in the administrative record files at City of Newport Beach offices. 190 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 5 Preparers 5 PREPARERS City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 James Campbell, Deputy Director Rosalinh Ung, Principal Planner Tony Brine, P.E. T.E., City Traffic Engineer Socheata Chhouk, Civic Engineer Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 764 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Project Manager Brian Leung, Planning Analyst Prathna Maharaj, AICP, Planning Analyst Achilles Malisos, Technical Studies Manager Pranesh Tarikere, T.E., Traffic Manager Trevor Briggs, P.E., Traffic Manager Leslie Sorenson, Traffic Analyst 191 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 6 References 6 REFERENCES Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. 2008. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. —. 2005 (July). Figure 1, Airport Planning Areas. Alta Planning + Design. 2014 (October). City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA. Arcadis. 2016 (June). Final Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA. California Department of Conservation (DOC). Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff. Accessed August 22, 2020. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed August 6, 2020. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2012a. Construction/Demolition and Inert Debris Tools and Resources. http://www.caIrecycle.ca.gov/swfaciIities/CDI/Tools/CaIculations.htm. —. 2012b. Disposal Facility Inspection Report for the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. http://www. ca I recycle. ca.gov/SW Fa ci I iti es/Di rectory/30-AB-0360/Deta i 1/. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California Scenic Highway Mapping System, Orange County. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed July 31, 2020. California Energy Commission (CEC). 2011 (February). EnergyAware Planning Guide. http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy_aware_guide/. Accessed April 13, 2017. California Gas and Electric Utilities. No date. 2018 California Gas Report. Available at https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018_California_Gas_Report.pdf . Accessed August 23, 2020. Dolinka Group, LLC. 2014 (February). Residential Development School Fee Justification Study Santa Ana Unified School District, https://www.sausd.us/cros/lib5/CA01000471/Centricity/Domain/113/Residential%2ODevelpme nt%20School%2OFee%2OJustification%2OStudy.pdf. Prepared for Santa Ana Unified School District. EIP Associates. 2006 (April) City of Newport Beach General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA. —. 2006 (July). City of Newport Beach General Plan. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach, CA. 192 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 6 References Environmental Managements Strategies, Inc. 2020 (June). Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Lots 1, 3 And 5 At Koll Center Newport (4440 Von Korman Avenue and 4910 And 5000 Birch Street). Prepared for The Picerne Group. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). 2016 (June). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Kling Consulting Group, Inc. 2019 (June). Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Koll Center Property Southwest Corner of Van Korman Avenue and Birch Street, Newport Beach, California. Prepared for The Picerne Group. Kimley-Horn and Associates. 2020 (September). Residences at 4400 Von Korman Project Traffic Impact Study Newport Beach, City of. 2017a. Newport Beach Municipal Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/NewportBeach/ 2017. City of Newport Beach Demographics and Statistics. https://www.newportbeachca.gov/i-am- a/visitor/about-newport-beach/demographics-and-statistics. Accessed August 16, 2020. —. 2014. City of Newport Beach Sewer System Management Plan. —. 2011. City of Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). 1975, as amended. City of Newport Beach Archeological Guidelines. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2437. Accessed July 15, 2020. 1974, as amended. City of Newport Beach Paleontological Guidelines. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/home/showdocument?id=2438. Accessed July 15, 2020. —. 1972, as amended. Planned Community Development Standards for Koll Center Newport. Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). 2017. Life Safety Services. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/life-safety- services-division. Accessed September 13, 2020. —. 2017a. Fire Operations Divisions. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire- department/fire-operations-division. Accessed September 7, 2020. 2017b. EMS Division. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/government/departments/fire- department/emergency-medical-services-division. Accessed September 7, 2020. Orange County Flood Control District. 2003 (July). 2003 Drainage Area Plan. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). 2020a. Service Area. https://www.ocsd.com/about- us/general-information/service-area. Accessed August 4, 2020. —. 2020b. Regional Sewer Service. https://www.ocsd.com/services/regional-sewer-service. Accessed September 11, 2020. Orange County Waste & Recycling. 2016. Active Landfills. www.oclandfills.com/landfill. Accessed September 6, 2020. —. 2020. Frank R. Bowerman Landfill Fact Sheet. 193 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Section 6 References 2020. Prima Deshecha Landfill Fact Sheet. —. 2020. Olinda Landfill Fact Sheet. Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2015 (June). Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 2015 Update. Santa Ana Unified School District [SAUSD]. 2020. Quick Facts. https://www.sausd.us/Page/5. Accessed September 28, 2020. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016.2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Southern California Edison (SCE). 2017. Overview - Who We Are. https://www.sce.com/about-us/who- we-are. Accessed August 7, 2020. Tait & Associates, Inc. 2020 (June). Priority Project Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (pWQMP). Prepared for the KCN Management, LLC. 194 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR RESOLUTION NO. 2021-2 EXHIBIT H RESPONSES TO CORRESPONDENCE RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Public Review of an Addendum Summary of Comments Several commenters wrote that the Addendum was not circulated for sufficient time to allow for adequate public comment. Response The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that the lead agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15164(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically provides that an Addendum need not be circulated for public review. Accordingly, there is no requirement under CEQA that an Addendum be circulated for public review. The absence of a public review process for Addendums is consistent with CEQA's policy favoring the finality of adopted EIRs and CEQA Statute Section 21166 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21166) proscription against further environmental review except in specified circumstances. (See Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.Sth 656.) The Addendum is subject to and complied with the Brown Act and related requirements for Planning Commission actions, including timely issuance of the meeting agenda and appropriate inclusion of the Addendum in the Planning Commission staff report for the Project. Several commenters appeared, in person or via remote access, to support and oppose the Project and to comment on the Addendum at the Planning Commission hearing. The Addendum thus complied with applicable law, and was timely available to and used by members of the public during the Planning Commission meeting, and has remained available for and was commented on during the several weeks between the Planning Commission meeting and the City Council's consideration of the Project. Timeliness of Comments Summary of Comments A commenter claims their comments, received after the City Council Agenda packet was printed on January 12, 2021, are timely. The commenter cites Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 to support its position. Response However, in the referenced case, the court was discussing the role of the public comment period on an EIR, where CEQA requires that the EIR be circulated for public review for 45 days and the lead agency provide written responses to all comments received during the public comment period. Here, the Project is supported by an Addendum where there is no requirement of public circulation and written responses to comment. All correspondence received related to the Project prior to production of the Agenda report for the January 21, 2021 City Council meeting was included in the Agenda report and therefore provided previously to City Council. .Although written responses are not required to be prepared for correspondence received on an Addendum, the City has prepared written responses to address misstatements in the correspondence as well as provide clarification to commenters. These responses 2 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence comprehensively address comments provided in this correspondence, inclusive of correspondence provided to the City after the January 12, 2021 City Council Agenda packet was printed. EIRs Prepared for Other Projects Summary of Comments Comments were made that EIRs were prepared for other projects in the City of Newport Beach and reference specifically the Uptown Newport project and the Koll Center Residences project. A commenter claims that because findings of significant impacts associated with the previously proposed Koll Center Residences project and the nearby Uptown Newport project demonstrate that there are significant impacts to be analyzed in the area. Response The City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the proposed Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. Commenters suggest that the Addendum for the proposed Project omitted impacts that were identified as significant and unavoidable in the Uptown Newport and Koll Center Residences EIRs and that mitigation from these two other EIRs have not been applied to the proposed Project. As a point of clarification to the commenters, the City is considering an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan Update EIR for the proposed Project not an Addendum to the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR; the Koll Center Newport EIR was not certified. As background, approved by the City in 2013, the Uptown Newport project included 1,244 residential units (up to 150 feet), 11,500 square feet (sf) of retail uses, and 2 acres of park space on approximately 25 acres. The Uptown Newport EIR assumed the first phase of construction occurring over a five-year timeframe. The project is still under construction. Comparisons to the Uptown Newport Project are not relevant to the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. Uptown Newport is a different project, located at a different site. Commenters have provided no evidence to demonstrate that the proposed Project would result in similar impacts to the Uptown Newport project or any other significant impact warranting preparation of an EIR for the proposed Project. The Koll Center Residences proposed a mixed-use infill residential and retail development with 260 residential condominiums, 3,000 sf of ground -floor retail uses, a 1.17 -acre public park, a free-standing parking structure, and the reconfiguration of some of the existing surface parking areas. The 260 dwelling units would be in three, 13 -story buildings with a maximum building height of 160 feet. Construction was expected to occur over a 4.5 -year timeframe. The Koll Center Residences Draft EIR was not certified, but the Draft EIR was circulated for public review and found significant impacts with respect to construction air quality and noise impacts and land use and planning impacts due to uncertainty regarding the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) consistency determination with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. While the comments indicate the proposed Project would result in similar impacts or any other potentially significant impacts, the comments do not include specific evidence. For the proposed Project, the City determined air quality modeling conducted for the Project found no exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) construction thresholds and models with worst-case scenario assumption inputs found that construction noise impacts at the closest sensitive receptors would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR and would be less 3 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence than significant. Additionally, the ALUC has determined that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. Noise modeling performed for the proposed Project with worst-case scenario assumption inputs found that construction noise impacts at the closest sensitive receptors would not substantially differ from the General Plan Program EIR and would be less than significant. The City's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. While not referenced by commenters, two other mixed-use projects in the Airport Area include residential development: Newport Airport Village and Newport Crossings. Most recently, the Newport Airport Village project was approved by the City in 2020. Like Uptown Newport, the Koll Center Residences, and the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Projects, the Newport Airport Village project is also located in the Airport Area of the City. The Newport Airport Village project is a mixed -used development with 444 apartment units (329 base units and 115 density bonus units) and 297,572 sf of office, retail, service, and auto rental facilities on approximately 16.5 acres. For this project, the City prepared an Addendum to the City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006 Update Program EIR (General Plan Program EIR) and the General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR. Note, General Plan Land Use Element Amendment Final Supplemental EIR is not relevant to the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project. The Newport Crossings project was approved by the City in 2019. An EIR was prepared for the project that proposed the demolition of a 58,277-sf shopping center and the construction of a multi -story building including 350 apartment units (including affordable units), 2,000 sf of restaurant space, and 5,500 sf of retail space. The project also includes a 0.5 -acre public park on the approximately 5.7 -acre site. As previously addressed, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or to an adopted negative declaration is appropriate when it meets the criteria in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Pages 3 to 6 of the Addendum summarizes the findings of the General Plan Program EIR, and the Addendum evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the Addendum evaluated where there was a change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, whether these factors would result in new significant impacts not discussed in the previous EIR or substantially more severe effects compared to those noted in the previous EIR. None of these factors have occurred. Therefore, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the currently proposed Project. Other Project EIRs Imposed Mitigation Summary of Comments A commenter claims that mitigation measures in the certified final Uptown Newport EIR and the mitigation measures in the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR demonstrate that specific and enforceable mitigation must be implemented for the proposed Project. Response As previously stated, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project does not require the City to reach the same decision for the proposed Project. The Addendum for the Project incorporates and describes all applicable and required General Plan policies as project design features for the Project. If the Project is approved, compliance with the required General Plan policies would be made conditions of Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence approval. In addition to required General Plan policies, the Addendum identifies required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that further reduce potential environmental impacts. General Plan EIR Tiering Summary of Comments Commenters have claimed that the Addendum improperly tiers from the General Plan Program EIR because the proposed Project is not the same project as the General Plan. A commenter claims that tiering from the General Plan Program EIR is not appropriate because the General Plan Program EIR did not consider the specifics of currently proposed Project. Response Commenters cite Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 in support of their claim that a later proposal must be identical to the project analyzed in a Program EIR in order for Public Resources Section 21166 to apply. However, the court's language cited by commenters clearly states that the later proposal must be either the same or within the scope of the project described in the EIR. The proposed Project is within the scope of development analyzed in the certified final General Plan Program EIR. The General Plan Program EIR evaluated development of 4,400 multi -family residential units in the Airport Area, which is twice what was eventually approved in General Plan, and the Project proposes residential development well under the levels previously analyzed in that EIR in the Airport Area. Accordingly, the Project is within the scope of development previously analyzed. Reliance on the prior environmental analysis is appropriate and authorized by CEQA, and that prior analysis was supplemented in the Addendum with site-specific details for the proposed Project demonstrating that no new or increased significant impacts would occur. The City has approved other EIR Addenda to the same General Plan Program EIR, including Newport Airport Village, to support development under the General Plan. Tiering From Multiple CEQA Documents Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the City cannot rely on both the General Plan Program EIR and the subsequent Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the City's General Plan Housing Element amendment to the General Plan, both of which provide for multi -family residential development in the Airport Area, which includes the project site and Koll Center. Response Citing Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, the commenters claim that multiple CEQA documents cannot be relied upon to support approval of a project. The Newport Banning Ranch EIR was a project -specific EIR and was not tiered from the General Plan Program EIR or any other EIR. The court determined that the EIR did not adequately address potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas based on California Coastal Commission criteria, and the court did not believe that technical information in the EIR appendix was sufficient analysis. The case did not involve reliance on earlier CEQA documents, or subsequent environmental review for a project when an EIR had already been certified. 5 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Tiering Consistency Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the City is applying tiering inconsistently because an EIR was required for other projects. Response As stated previously, the City's prior decision to prepare an EIR for a different project, even on the same site, does not require the City to reach the same decision for the currently proposed Project. The commenter provided no specific evidence to show that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts similar to those projects or any other potentially significant impacts. Comparisons to the Uptown Newport Project, which is a different project on a different site, are not relevant to this Project. Supplemental EIR Criteria; Change in Circumstances Summary of Comments One comment claims that the proposed Project requires a Supplemental EIR because the criteria in PRC Section 21166 are met, specifically with respect to COVID-19, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and comment letters objecting to traffic impacts caused by Irvine's residential apartment projects. Commenters have also asserted that an EIR is warranted based on issues identified in the Uptown Newport EIR, such as the potential for hazards from groundwater contamination. Comments were made that these factors would require the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Project because they result in changed circumstances. Response The State CEQA Guidelines Section 16162(a)(2) refers to the need for a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration when: Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Under CEQA, a changed circumstance is not equivalent to a new significant impact or a substantial increase in a previously identified significant impact. As detailed in the following discussion, there is no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the proposed Project is undertaken which require major revisions to the General Plan Program EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts. Therefore, under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b), an Addendum is appropriate and a supplemental EIR is not warranted. COVID-19. COVID-19 is a public health issue, not a project -related CEQA effect. Conditions, information, recommendations, and procedures regarding this virus have changed many times during 2020 and would likely continue to change frequently. To attempt to predict such changes or to prescribe safety measures based on potential future public health requirements is not feasible nor practical in this Addendum. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Project, if approved, is anticipated would not begin construction until the third quarter of 2021. If the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing at that time, Project workers would follow any guidelines and requirements issued by the State of California and Orange County as well as any additional safety measures required by contractors working on site. Construction work has continued in California through most of the pandemic, and it can reasonably be assumed that work could proceed on the Project as long as any required safety measures were implemented. If another shutdown were to occur, the Project work and schedule would be modified based on conditions and guidance from public health officials at that time. Additionally COVID-19 is an existing condition, and the scope of CEQA is assessing the Project's impacts on the environment rather than an existing condition's impact on the Project. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. As stated in the Addendum, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992. The regulation of GHG emissions to reduce climate change impacts was extensively debated and analyzed throughout the early 1990s. The studies and analyses of this issue resulted in the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Therefore, the fact that GHG emissions could have a significant adverse environmental impact was known at the time the General Plan was approved and the General Plan Program EIR was certified. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to this threshold. In Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 and therefore constituted significant and new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. While the Addendum for the proposed Project determined that GHG emissions is not new information, the Addendum nevertheless contains an analysis of potential impacts to GHG emissions and climate change from the Project. The Project is consistent with the region's SB 375 sustainable communities strategy for reducing GHG emissions from the land use and transportation sectors, which includes more residential development in Orange and Los Angeles counties to help reduce long-distance commutes and vehicle miles travelled (VMT), and this plan has been approved as meeting the region's assigned GHG reduction target by the California Air Resources Board. The Project is also required to comply with all GHG reduction regulations and standards. Traffic: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). As stated in the Addendum, when the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not VMT. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law and started a process that would change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant environmental impacts. On January 20, 2016, the Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743, and final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed in December 2018. OPR allowed lead agencies an opt -in period to adopt the guidelines, before the mandatory date adoption of July 1, 2020. As described further below, because LOS was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was approved, LOS, not VMT, is 7 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence the applicable traffic standard for the proposed Project. VMT is therefore not an applicable traffic threshold. A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary, but (1) there are no substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Therefore, the question with respect to preparing an Addendum is whether there have been any substantial changes to a project's physical environmental impacts or whether there are any new physical environmental impacts. The purpose of a CEQA Addendum is to compare physical project impacts with what was evaluated in the prior EIR to determine whether major revisions to the EIR are required. (See Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 1538.) An Addendum's intent is not to evaluate impacts of a project compared to thresholds that were not considered in the EIR. As previously addressed, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 which constituted significant new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. Likewise, in Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, the court held that a new regulation designating critical habitat for an endangered species was not significant new information requiring a supplemental EIR. The court stated that "[H]owever legally characterized, the habitat would be affected the same as before. And the environmental review and mitigation measures that had already been completed focused on the real effects of the project not just on 'the tortoise,' but on its habitat (previously termed 'crucial'), which is exactly how the project would impact on the species." (Id. at p. 1605.) Similarly, in this case, LOS, not VMT, was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was certified. The new mandate requiring lead agencies to use VMT as a threshold for evaluating traffic impacts does not affect the assessment of the Project's environmental impacts or mitigation measures compared to those analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the new threshold is irrelevant with respect to the analysis of traffic impacts in this Addendum and LOS is the appropriate threshold by which to measure traffic impacts of the Project. Traffic: City of Newport Beach's Prior Comments Regarding Traffic Congestion in the Immediate Area. The commenter is suggesting that comments made to the City of Irvine by the City of Newport Beach more than a decade ago regarding traffic conditions in the area are relevant to the current analysis of transportation impacts of this Project. They are not relevant. The Addendum includes a technical analysis of the transportation impacts anticipated for this Project, based upon currently existing and planned road conditions and the current status of development in the area. Groundwater. Commenters submitted two technical reports alleging that there could be contamination conditions present below either the residential site or structured parking lot site. An expert environmental 8 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence consultant has reviewed these consultant reports and determined that they relied on outdated data, or used inaccurate assumptions about the project. That report, inclusive of figures and the resume/CV of the expert who completed this independent peer review of the studies submitted by commenter, is included as Attachment A. Project Within Scope of General Plan Summary of Comments A commenter disagrees with the City's decision to prepare an Addendum claiming that the City prepared an Addendum because proposed Project is within the allowable residential land use and density in the General Plan. The commenter claims that all projects that do not require a General Plan Amendment could proceed with an Addendum under this logic. Response The staff report does note that the proposed Project is within the allowable residential land use and density of the General Plan. However, the staff reports find that an Addendum is appropriate because: "On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the project (inclusive of recommended conditions of approval) would not result in any new significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the Program Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan 2006 Update (SCH No. 2006011119) and the 2008-2014 Housing Element Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration (together referenced as PEIR). The potential impacts associated with this project would either be the same or less than those described in the PEIR that have been appropriately mitigated. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than previously addressed in the PEIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts been identified." A CEQA Addendum is appropriate when some changes to a prior EIR are necessary, but (1) there are no substantial changes to the project which require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; (2) there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the EIR due to new or increased environmental impacts; and (3) there is no new information showing that the project would have significant effects not discussed in the prior EIR or showing that new mitigation measures or alternatives are feasible or required. (14 Cal Code Regs §15164(b).) Here, the City previously certified a Program EIR for the General Plan, which evaluated development of approximately 4,400 residential units in the Airport Area. Ultimately, only half of that evaluated residential development was approved as part of the General Plan. The City has approved other EIR Addenda to the same General Plan Program EIR, including Newport Airport Village, to support development under the General Plan. The proposed Project is within the scope of development previously analyzed and would not result in any new or increased significant impacts. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate. Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Deferred Mitigation Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum improperly defers mitigation by relying on adopted General Plan policies to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Response The General Plan Program EIR relies on General Plan policies adopted in the General Plan to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Existing enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that all required General Plan policies would be implemented, including conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring. Because the Project itself already mandated compliance with these measures, no additional mitigation measures were required to be included in the General Plan Program EIR. The Addendum incorporates and describes all applicable/required General Plan policies as required project design features for the proposed Project. Compliance with the General Plan is always a requirement for development within the City. A General Plan is the "constitution" for development in a jurisdiction and lies at the top of a city's land use regulation hierarchy. Neighborhood Action Group for the Fifth Dist. v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. All zoning and land use approvals must be consistent with the general plan. De Vita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772. Therefore, the Project would be required to comply with the General Plan. In addition to required General Plan policies, the Addendum identifies required regulatory requirements and City conditions of approval that further reduce potential environmental impacts. One commenter asserts that the City is taking an improper "we may require mitigation later, maybe" approach, citing to Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.4th 918. However, under CEQA case law, it is appropriate for an initial level of site characterization and analysis to be completed as part of an EIR process, with follow-up work required later. For example, in City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 262, the Court upheld an EIR for a new school site against claims that the EIR did not adequately evaluate environmental hazards. The EIR committed to the later preparation of a supplemental site investigation, a remedial action work plan, and cleanup according to that work plan. Commenters on the EIR claimed that further analysis was required prior to certification of the EIR, and that the school district could not defer a more specific study until after the new school project was approved. The court held that the EIR analysis was adequate. A similar result was reached in Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, where the Court upheld a general analysis of environmental hazards with follow-up mitigation. Because the Addendum identifies all required project design features that would ensure that the proposed Project results in no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the significant impacts previously identified in the General Plan Program EIR and the conditions of approval and General Plan requirements are enforceable mechanisms to ensure the required project design features are implemented, the Addendum does not defer mitigation. 10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Summary of Comments A commenter claims that an agency must adopt a MMRP because approving a project that requires mitigation measures, and that failure to adopt one violates CEQA. Response As described in the prior response, the General Plan Program EIR incorporated policies that made it unnecessary to also adopt duplicative mitigation measures. The General Plan policies are required to be implemented by all development within the City, including the proposed Project. Because no mitigation measures were required by the General Plan Program EIR, a MMRP was not required. Additionally, CEQA only requires a MMRP for EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declarations, and expressly authorizes reliance on conditions of project approval. Project Description: Parking and Storm Drain Improvements Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Project Description is inadequate because it does not describe necessary off-site staging and parking and does not adequate describe how storm flows would be managed. Response Staging/laydown for the proposed Project would occur on site. Therefore, the comment that soil export would require an off-site staging area is inapplicable. All excavated soil to be exported would be placed directly into trucks and hauled off of the site. This soil would not be stockpiled. Additionally, as stated in the Addendum, Standard Condition (SC) TRAN-1 requires the review and approval of a Construction Management Plan by the City. The Plan must identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan must identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. Please also see the draft Construction Management Plan (Planning Commission Attachment PC -5). Therefore, the Project is expected to be able to accommodate all construction parking on site. Section 2.4.3 of the Addendum identifies the parking assumptions for the Project. Office parking displaced by the Project would be provided in a new, free-standing parking structure, the residential building's parking structure, and surface parking areas. The new free-standing parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance of the construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces. Section 2.6 of the Addendum discloses that construction of the free-standing parking structure requires the demolition of 106 surface parking spaces. A 284 -stall parking structure would be constructed prior to initiating grading or construction of the remainder of the Project in order to replace the surface parking temporarily or permanently displaced by site development. Lastly, the developer was required to, and has with this proposed Project, replaced all parking spaces on the parking lot converted to park or residential use by the Project. Further, parking is not an "environmental impact" under CEQA. (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco ("SFUDP") (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.) The Project also complies with the City's parking 11 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence standards for residential projects, and includes residential as well as guest parking, and appropriate temporary parking for vendors, deliveries, and other vehicles. The City thoroughly investigated parking. The parking study the City required to be conducted for this Project (referenced in the Addendum) confirmed that, even pre-COVID-19, substantial numbers of parking stalls remained empty even during peak occupancy periods, and the comments to not include evidence that displaced surface parking stalls are not being replaced. With respect to storm drainage, the hydrology analysis in the Addendum describes that the project site is currently developed as a surface parking lot and that the proposed storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns and connectivity. Drainage areas south of the high point would drain to Von Karman Avenue and drainage areas north of the high point would drain to an existing 60 -inch storm drain line located on the east side of the 5000 Birch Street building. There is an existing underground storm drain in the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Commenter claims incorrectly that the on-site drainage facilities are not described. In fact, two feasible options are proposed to address the location of the proposed free-standing parking structure to the storm drain. Option A would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures. Option B is addressed in greater detail under the response to Flood Hazards. In addition, the construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Reuse of the site with a residential building, parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on or off of the site, or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious to 21 percent. The hydrology analysis describes an existing storm drain near the southern end of the project site near Von Karman Avenue. As identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, in the Addendum, the proposed Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site. Aesthetics Summary of Comments: Aesthetic Character Some commenters have asserted that the proposed Project conflicts with the surrounding character of professional/office enterprises and ownerships. Response The aesthetics of adding multi -family residential to office business parks by repurposing surface parking lots with infill residential uses and structured parking is a fundamental planning policy question that was considered and approved in the Airport Area nearly a decade ago based on the EIR prepared at that time. This Project implements this approved Plan. The analysis in the Addendum appropriately considers impacts of the proposed Project based on the CEQA thresholds of significance: (a) substantial adverse 12 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence effects on a scenic vista; (b) damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway; (c) conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality; and (d) new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As evaluated in the Addendum, the project site is an urban infill site currently improved with surface parking. It is not visible from a scenic vista or within a State scenic highway. The Addendum discloses that the Project would change the visual character of the site from a parking lot to a multi -family residential development, structured parking, and a public park, and describes the fact that the Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning requirements. Further, the proposed Project is required to comply with a site development review to ensure that the design details of the Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations, including General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires design to avoid abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of materials that result in glare and excessive illumination. The Addendum also describes project design features and required General Plan policies that would minimize the visibility of lighting. The City's conditions of approval, including those imposed by the City of Newport Beach Park, Beaches & Recreation (PB&R) Commission, further assure compliance with all applicable standards. Commenters' aesthetic opinions are noted but do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant adverse aesthetic impact warranting preparation of an EIR. It is also noted that commenters' opinion that multi -family residential land use is an inappropriate aesthetic use in a business park was fully addressed at the time the General Plan and Housing Element update were adopted, and aesthetic objections to this City policy and planning decision are not timely. Summary of Comments: Aesthetic Impacts of Stand -Alone Parking Structure A commenter asserts that the stand-alone parking structure is an adverse aesthetic impact that must be screened and moved. Response Please see the prior response. The proposed free-standing parking structure would be compatible with existing and proposed development at the Koll Center Newport. The free-standing parking structure would be four levels inclusive of rooftop parking, at a massing and scale that is consistent with or smaller than nearby office buildings and parking structures. Project conditions of approval permits a maximum height at 40 feet, including mechanical equipment and elevator shafts. The parking structure would be constructed in the southeast portion of the site, proximate to the future Phase 2 of the Uptown Newport development. The proposed Project would comply with General Plan Policy LU 5.6.2, which requires that new buildings be designed to "avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open space, or adversely modify wind patterns." The proposed structure is four levels in height inclusive of rooftop parking. The height of the structure would not interfere with views or cause substantial shade. To minimize visibility of lighting from each floor of the structure, the facades of the above -ground levels of the structure would have a wall system to obscure the lighting and reduce noise from within the structure. With respect to the upper -roof level, light 13 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence standards are required to not exceed 25 feet above the driving surface. The aesthetic objections of commenters are opinions that are noted for the record but do not constitute a significant adverse CEQA impact warranting preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Views Comments were provided to the City that views from existing uses would be impacted. Response The General Plan does not identify any viewpoints or view corridors in the vicinity of the project site. With respect to view protection, the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 20.30.100 states: ...provides regulations to preserve significant visual resources (public views) from public view points and corridors. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to protect views from private property, to deny property owners a substantial property right or to deny the right to develop property in accordance with the other provisions of this Zoning Code .... The provisions of this section shall apply only to discretionary applications where a project has the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space... It is not the intent of the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code to protect views from private property. Further, the City's General Plan goals and policies provide directives in its consideration of aesthetic compatibility, and the Project complies with General Plan goals, as is addressed in the Addendum. While Natural Resources Element Goal NR 20 is the "Preservation of significant visual resources", the policies of the Natural Resources Element are applicable to only public views and public resources, not private views or private resources. The Addendum properly determined that the Project will not impact views. Summary of Comments: Deferral of Lighting Plan Mitigation A commenter claims that a lighting plan with photometrics must be prepared as part of the Addendum and that preparing it later constitutes deferred mitigation. Response The commenter is referring to a standard City condition and requirement that a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan must be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit (SC AESTH-1, Part d). Imposition of a standard City condition in conjunction with the approval of a final lighting plan is not improper deferral of the analysis of lighting impacts. The Addendum evaluated the potential lighting impacts of the proposed Project and determined that no new impacts relative to adverse effects related to lighting or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR would occur. The standard condition merely provides quality assurance that the final lighting plan associated with the final design package would continue to provide the same protections to neighboring properties as the design evaluated in the Addendum. 14 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Air Quality Several comments were provided to the City regarding the adequacy of the Addendum's air quality analysis. Responses are provided below. Summary of Comments: Modeling and SCAQMD Requirements A comment was made that the Addendum does not impose the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 403 for dust control during construction, and the modeling is based on "numerous assumptions and credits." Response The analysis and modeling conducted for the proposed Project was conducted in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and the SCAQMD recommended California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The CalEEMod input values were adjusted to be project -specific based on the proposed land use, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation. To be conservative, the analysis evaluated the proposed Project's air quality emissions based on reasonably expected maximum emissions scenarios. The proposed Project is required to comply with all regulatory standards as required by the SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires projects to incorporate fugitive dust control measures and is required for all projects. As such, these measures were incorporated into CalEEMod. Additionally, as compliance with SCAQMD Rules are already required by regulation, the incorporation of mitigation requiring compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations is not needed. Summary of Comment: Enforceable Mitigation A comment suggests that the Addendum does not include enforceable mitigation for air quality. Response The Addendum determined that that Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would therefore be less than significant for regional and localized impacts. As shown in Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 of the Addendum, the Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, Tables 3.2-4 and 3.2-5 show that the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds (LSTs). As set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15041, 15071, and 15126.4(a)(3), mitigation measures are required when a potentially significant impact is identified. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15041(a) requires mitigation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards established by case law. As demonstrated in the Addendum, the Project would not result in an exceedance of an air quality threshold or standard and impacts were found to be less than significant. Although mitigation is not required, and as previously noted, the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD regulatory requirements. 15 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comment: Construction Activities Commenters have claimed that the propose Project would have significant impacts related to construction truck traffic. Response A commenter incorrectly interpreted Table 3.2-3 (Equipment Specific Grading Rates). This table is used to determine the daily acreage that would be disturbed by off-road construction equipment. Haul trucks are considered on -road vehicles and are not included in this part of the analysis, in accordance with SCAQMD guidance and methodologies. The air quality modeling and analysis for the Addendum evaluated the emissions from 14,375 truck trips for earthwork/soil hauling. The comment incorrectly states that the truck trips should be included in Table 3.2-3. Because this is an incorrect assumption, the air quality analysis and the localized construction emissions are not underestimated. Summary of Comment: Comparisons to Other Projects Comments were provided that the proposed Project conflicts with the findings of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR. Response The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the findings of the certified Uptown Newport Final EIR and the Koll Center Residences Draft EIR are not directly relevant to the proposed Project. However, to address the unsubstantiated comments, it is noted that the analysis for the Addendum was conducted based on project -specific details including land use and project size, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation, among other variables. Some key factors that differentiate the proposed Project from the previous Koll Center Residences Project include: ■ Shorter construction period (32 months instead of 5 years) ■ Different construction process (including construction of one residential building instead of two) ■ Less excavation (1.5 subterranean levels instead of 2.5 levels) ■ Less heavy-duty equipment ■ Less truck trips for soil export ■ Less concrete and concrete trucks (residential building would be wood framed) ■ Smaller residential building area (565,452 sf compared to 691,162 sf) ■ Smaller stand-alone parking garage than the previous project as it would be more efficient and displace less existing parking As a result, the proposed Project has different emissions profiles and sources and would therefore result in different total emissions. As such, simply concluding that the proposed Project would have air quality impacts because the previous Koll Center Residences EIR identified that construction emissions would exceed thresholds is inappropriate and inaccurate. 16 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comments: Cumulative Imoacts Comments were made that the proposed Project would have a significant cumulative contribution to operational air quality impacts. Response The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions. The nature of air emissions is largely a cumulative impact. As a result, no single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, individual project emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The SCAQMD developed the operational thresholds of significance based on the level above which individual project emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to South Coast Air Basin's existing air quality conditions. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) states that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project -specific SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis. Therefore, a project that exceeds the SCAQMD thresholds would also be a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact and, inversely, projects with emission volumes below the SCAQMD thresholds are not cumulatively considerable. As shown in Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2 of the Addendum, the Project's construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Since these thresholds indicate whether individual project emissions have the potential to affect cumulative regional air quality, project -related emissions would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project -by -project basis. Summary of Comments: Consistency with SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan A comment was made that the Project is inconsistent with the SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Response Updates to the SCAQMD AQMP do not affect the project's ability to be consistent with the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP uses assumptions from the City's General Plan. As noted in the Addendum, the Project proposes development that would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR. Addendum Section 3.13, Population and Housing, notes that the increase in residential units and population represents approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. It is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR addressed the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and would be consistent with projected growth in the City based on the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) growth forecasts, which are used in the AQMP. The Project is an infill development near large employment areas, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions. The California Air 17 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project reduce vehicle miles traveled which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. CAPCOA also explains that projects with increased densities reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and provide greater options for the mode of travel they choose. Increasing development density also facilitates implementation of various other strategies including increased transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service. Therefore, Project implementation would not result in increasing growth and would be within the growth assumptions of the 2016 AQMP. As properly concluded in the Addendum, the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD's AQMP. Summary of Comments: Health Effects of Criteria Pollutants Some comments were made that the Addendum did not addresses air quality health effects. Response The comment incorrectly states that the Addendum failed to analyze the health effects of air emissions on surrounding employees and residents. As discussed in the Addendum, Project emissions would be less than significant and would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds (referto Table 3.2-1 and Table 3.2-2). Localized effects of on-site project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 3.2-4 and Table 3.2-5). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. The concern raised in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno was related to the Friant Ranch project, a 942 -acre Specific Plan project that would have significant and unavoidable emissions of multiple criteria pollutants (including significant emissions of both primary 03 precursors [NOx and ROGs]) at levels that exceeded the daily thresholds of significance. In contrast, the proposed Project's operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds and would not have the potential for health impacts from criteria pollutants. The commenter's comparison to Sierra Club v. County of Fresno is improper. Biological Resources Summary of Comments A commenter suggests that the Addendum does not adequately address potentially significant impacts to biological resources and no enforceable mitigation is provided for potential impacts to nesting birds. Response With respect to potential impacts to biological resources, the comment provides no documentation to support this unsubstantiated opinion. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580.) 18 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The topic of biological resources is addressed in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of the Addendum. The project site is an existing surface parking with ornamental landscape areas; there are no native habitat areas on the site nor is the site adjacent to native habitat areas. The site is bordered on all sides by developed urban uses. The Addendum notes that some of the existing landscape trees on the project site could provide nesting habitat for native birds. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC §703 et seq.) and the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503 et. seq.). Federal regulations prohibit any person to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, [or] purchase" any migratory bird, including parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. The California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3512 also prohibit the take of birds and active nests. The Addendum includes Standard Condition (SC) BIO -1, which requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey(s) prior to any disturbance activities (e.g., site clearing, demolition, grading) to identify any active nests in and adjacent to the project site no more than three days prior to these activities. This standard condition applies to activities during the breeding/nesting season. SC BIO -1 further identifies the procedures that must be implemented should any active nests be potentially impacted by project activities. Compliance with this standard condition is enforceable by the City of Newport Beach. The Addendum properly concluded that impacts are less than significant without mitigation. The commenter's opinion stating that impacts are not properly addressed and mitigation is required is unsupported. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Summary of Comments Commenters suggested that the Addendum documentation does not comply with the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 18 and Assembly Bill (AB) 52; that the Addendum does not address tribal cultural resources; that the Addendum does not include mitigation measures associated with potential impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, and then later says the cultural and tribal cultural mitigation measures are not sufficiently specific, and that the mitigation is inconsistent with prior City practices and General Plan policies. Response With respect to SB 18, because the proposed Project does not require an amendment to the General Plan or to a specific plan, SB 18 is not applicable. AB 52 had not been adopted at the time the General Plan Program EIR was certified. AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze the impacts of a project on "tribal cultural resources" separately from archaeological resources. AB 52 provisions only apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) filed on or after July 1, 2015. Therefore, AB 52 does not apply to the proposed Project. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the General Plan Program EIR analyzed potential impacts on cultural resources, which at the time the EIR was prepared was inclusive of historic resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources. Potential impacts to these resources are addressed in the Addendum. Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, 19 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence addresses historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources. Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, also addresses paleontological resources. With respect to the mitigation program, in the Addendum, SC CULT -1 requires the project applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist and a Native American tribal representative to perform periodic monitoring of ground -disturbing activities, which are inclusive of excavation, grading, etc. The standard condition identifies the programs and actions that would be taken should resources be observed at the project site. Compliance with this standard condition is enforceable by the City of Newport Beach. General Plan Policy HR 2.2 states "Require a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/ archaeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department." This policy does not mandate the frequency of monitoring. The duration and frequency of monitoring is at the discretion of the monitors and the City. As noted, the standard condition also requires monitoring during ground -disturbing activities. SC CULT -1 is consistent with this General Plan policy. The commenter's statement that the cultural and tribal resources mitigation measures are not sufficiently specific and that the mitigation is inconsistent with prior City practices and General Plan policies is unsupported. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580.) Energy Summary of Comments: Energy Analysis Comments were made regarding the inclusion of an energy analysis in the Addendum. Response As noted in Section 3.5, Energy, of the Addendum, potential impacts related to energy were not specifically analyzed in the General Plan Program EIR because this topic was not called out separately on the Office of Planning and Research's (OPR's) State CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G checklist until January 1, 2019, which was subsequent to the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. However, the General Plan Program EIR did include an analysis of the impacts on other public services and utilities, which included electricity and natural gas (see General Plan Program EIR Section 4.14, Utilities and Service Systems). The energy analysis in the Addendum is carried through to this new energy section for context, discussion, and comparison purposes. As discussed in the Addendum, nothing in the energy analysis would trigger a subsequent EIR. Summary of Comments: Electrical Service A commenter claims that the Addendum does not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project can be served with electricity by Southern California Edison (SCE) because SCE forecasts of adequate electricity to meet expected growth in its service area do not extend beyond 2026 when the Project is anticipated to open in 2024. 20 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Response No substantial evidence has been provided by commenters to support the position that electrical service could be unavailable to the Project in the future. The General Plan Program EIR concluded that additional energy demands resulting from implementation of the General Plan would be adequately met by current and planned infrastructure during most of the year as well as compliance with the energy conservation measures contained in Title 24, which would reduce the amount of energy needed for operation of buildings. The projected electrical demand for buildout under the General Plan was expected to be within SCE's then -current ten-year load forecasts. It should be noted that the General Plan Program EIR evaluated impacts of twice the amount of residential development in the Airport Area than was ultimately approved. The Addendum explains that the increase in electricity demand from the proposed Project would be approximately 0.0008 percent of the overall demand in Southern California Edison's (SCE) service area. Therefore, projected electrical demand would not significantly impact SCE's level of service. Furthermore, the Project would include energy efficiency design features that would reduce peak demand. For example, the Project would include high -efficiency wall assemblies and windows to reduce heating and cooling loads; Energy Star appliances; high -efficiency heating and cooling systems; high efficiency domestic hot water systems; and high -efficiency light -emitting diode (LED) lighting in residential units, common areas, and landscape design. The proposed buildings would meet the latest most stringent energy efficiency building codes, which would minimize demand. Furthermore, SCE has demand response programs that provide incentives for reducing electricity use when the demand for electricity is high to manage peak loads to further manage peak demand issues. Project operations would benefit from Title 24 energy standards, which would reduce electricity demand. Based on the analysis in the Addendum and the low proportion of energy and fuel consumption compared to regional demand (i.e., the Project would be 0.0008 percent of overall demand in SCE's service area), the Project would not affect peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. The proposed Project would not require additional power generation plants, natural gas transmission facilities, or fuel refineries to be constructed. Through use of renewable energy required by the State, energy efficiency standards, and electric vehicle charging infrastructure, the proposed Project would minimize impacts on the local and regional energy supply. The Project would comply with applicable energy standards and new capacity would not be required. Summary of Comments: Fuel Use During Construction Comments were made that the Addendum's analysis of fossil fuel consumption does not include truck trips associated with the export of soil Response Fuel use from construction haul trucks is specifically analyzed in Section 3.5, Energy, of the Addendum. The Addendum explains that transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The analysis qualitatively notes that fuel use would not be excessive or wasteful because contractors have a strong financial incentive to avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy during construction. Based on the Project's emissions modeling, construction fuel consumption would result in 232,876 gallons of gasoline and 81,404 gallons 21 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence of diesel. As noted on page 63 of the Addendum, Orange County's annual gasoline fuel use in 2020 was 1,180,213,295 gallons and diesel fuel use was 144,020,787 gallons. The Project's construction use of gasoline and diesel would represent 0.007 percent of current gasoline use and 0.162 percent of current diesel use in the County. None of the Project's energy uses exceed one percent of their corresponding County use. Project operations would not substantially affect existing energy or fuel supplies or resources. It should be noted that this fuel consumption includes both haul trucks as well as worker trips, vendor trucks, and off-road equipment. Flood Hazards Summary of Comments Commenters claims that the proposal for the parking structure would place the watershed near the entrance of 4340 Von Karman office building and cause flooding. A commenter asserted that the impacts of relocating or preserving the existing storm drain were not appropriate analyzed. Response The proposed Project would maintain the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the total flows to the storm drain system or the overall pervious/impervious ratio for the site. Existing drainage from north of the parking structure would be intercepted at the northeast corner of the parking structure and would be connected to the existing 66 -inch storm drain system to match existing conditions and would not affect the drainage conditions to the south of the structure. The Project's proposed storm drain improvements also includes water quality devices and a detention system that would be located to the south of the parking garage. The proposed detention system is designed to capture and treat the low flow water quality volumes. However, all peak flow drainage would be directly conveyed to the existing storm drain system. As a result, the proposed water quality feature would not increase flooding risk in this area, and instead significantly decreases the risk of flooding and increases the hydraulic efficiency of the existing system. As a result, the proposed water quality improvements and detention system would have a positive impact on the existing drainage conditions and there is not a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the 4340 Von Karman office building. Attachment B provides clarification to this issues. Commenter claims incorrectly that impacts of relocating the storm drain or preserving it in situ are not described. In fact, two feasible options are proposed to address constructing a parking structure over a storm drain. Option A would retain a storm drain under the parking structure. This option would remove approximately 200 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Additionally, a new 66 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed in the same alignment to match the hydraulic capacity of the existing system while also matching the ultimate design life of the proposed parking structure. Option B would remove and relocate the storm drain so that it is not under the proposed free-standing parking structure or other permanent buildings or structures, and would instead be located to the east, south and south-west of the free-standing parking structure. This option would remove approximately 300 linear feet of the existing 60-inch/66-inch RCP within the disturbance area for the free-standing parking structure. Approximately 550 linear feet of new 72 -inch RCP storm drain would be constructed to the east, south, and south-west of the free-standing parking structure. The new 72 -inch RCP storm drain would reconnect to the existing 66 -inch storm drain at southwest corner of the free-standing parking structure. 22 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence In addition, the construction of the proposed Project would not increase the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Reuse of the site with a residential building, parking structure, and park would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff so that it would result in flooding on- or off- site or exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. With implementation of the proposed Project, the pervious condition would increase from 18 percent pervious to 21 percent. The hydrology analysis describes an existing storm drain near the southern end of the Project site near Von Karman Avenue. As identified in Table 3.9-1, Runoff Volume Summary, in the Addendum, the proposed Project would result in the conveyance of less water to the storm drain system because the new development would reduce the volume of runoff at the project site, particularly due to the increased permeability of soils associated with the proposed public park. Geology and Soils Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum ignores geotechnical problems, including groundwater intrusion by the parking structure, liquefaction and expansive soils, and seismic risks. Response Although the historical high groundwater level is approximately 10 feet below grade, a perched groundwater condition was encountered in exploratory borings at depths between 20 and 25 feet below the existing ground surface during subsurface exploration performed for the preparation of the geotechnical report. These perched zones do not necessarily represent the static groundwater level, which may be closer to 50 feet below existing grades. The geotechnical report concluded that groundwater is not expected to have a significant impact during construction for one level of subterranean founded at a depth of 12 feet below existing grades; however, groundwater is anticipated to have a significant impact for two levels of subterranean found to a depth of 24 feet below existing grades. The Addendum and geotechnical report prepared for the Project included extensive analysis of seismically -induced liquefaction risk. The geotechnical report and Addendum determined that localized and isolated sandy layers within the old paralic deposits that underlie the Project site are susceptible to relatively minor amounts of liquefaction as a result of a potential earthquake along a nearby fault and the historical high groundwater level of 10 feet below existing grades. The estimated settlements appear to be limited to isolated and localized relatively thin zones generally between 12 and 49 feet below existing grades during seismic events. However, the seismic -induced liquefaction settlement would be reduced with removal of materials for the subterranean parking structure excavation. Typical construction methods and protocols for remedial grading would replace unsuitable materials with suitable engineered fill materials prior to recompaction with paralic deposits or other non -expansive materials. The resulting configuration would not be subject to liquefaction. In addition, the typical reinforced concrete structural mat foundation system for the support of the proposed residential building and parking structure would further reduce impacts. The Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies and California Building Code regulations. 23 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Comments Commenters have stated that a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was not provided and that the GHG analysis that was prepared was not adequate or correct. A commenter claims that the Project and the underlying documents do not comply with the provisions of AB 32 and other mandates requiring local jurisdictions to take affirmative steps to reduce GHG emissions with feasible mitigation and valid climate action plans. Comments also reference the City of Santa Ana, who is not the lead agency for the proposed Project, and that the proposed Project includes retail uses, which it does not nor is required to provide. Response As stated in the Addendum, the issue of GHG emissions and climate change impacts is not new information that was not known or could not have been known at the time of the certification of the General Plan Program EIR. When the Housing Element was updated in 2013, the City analyzed GHG emissions and found that the Housing Element would have less than significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions. As previously addressed, in Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, a project opponent argued that new threshold guidelines for GHG emissions came to light after the EIR for the project was certified in 2002 and therefore constituted significant and new information requiring a supplemental EIR for a subsequent project. The court rejected the argument and found that the new threshold guidelines did not constitute "new information" requiring additional environmental review. While the Addendum notes that the GHG emissions and climate change are not new information, the analysis of GHG emissions is provided in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Addendum. The Addendum analysis shows that the Project would not exceed SCAQMD's interim screening level numeric bright -line annual threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all building codes in effect at the time of construction, including Title 24 energy efficiency standards and other state-wide and City mandates and policies implemented in accordance with AB 32, SB 32 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan. Also, as described above, the Project is also consistent with the CARB-approved SB 375 plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from land use development in the region (the 2020 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy approved by the SCAG). The analysis demonstrates how the Project would not generate a significant amount of GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project is a residential infill project that would increase land use diversity and reduce GHG emissions compared to traditional development. The proposed infill development includes increased density that is near large employment areas, thereby potentially reducing the need to travel long distances for some residents and reducing associated GHG emissions. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) identifies that infill developments, such as the proposed Project, reduce VMT which reduces fuel consumption. Infill projects such as the proposed Project would have an improved location efficiency. CAPCOA also explains that projects with increased densities reduce VMT and provide greater options for the mode of travel they 24 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence choose. Increasing development density also facilitates implementation of various other strategies including increased transit ridership, which justifies enhanced transit service. As documented in the Addendum, the project would be within the development capacity assumed in the General Plan Program EIR. Section 3.13, Population and Housing, of the Addendum notes that the increase in residential units and population represents approximately two percent of the growth anticipated under the General Plan. Project implementation would make progress on the City's housing goals and be consistent with projected growth in the City based on SCAG's growth forecasts. Lastly, commenters stated that the Project has the potential to generate additional retail uses. The Project does not propose commercial uses and there is no information in the Addendum or project information identifying retail uses on the project site. Hazardous Materials Summary of Comments A commenter claims that the Addendum fails to disclose that a plume of contaminate soils and groundwater extends north of the TowerJazz Semiconductor Facility (TowerJazz) site and into the project site and that excavation required for the Project may result in exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater. A commenter also asserts that Project construction requires dewatering that would increase risks of the plume. The commenter alleges that groundwater contamination, or migration, would affect future residents on the site. Response As a general rule, CEQA does not require analysis of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. However, if the project would in some way exacerbate existing environmental hazards, then those exacerbated conditions must be evaluated as impacts of the project. (California Bldg. Indus. Assn v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.) The California Supreme Court stated this rule as follows (62 C4th at 377): In light of CEQA's text, statutory structure, and purpose, we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must evaluate the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment—and not the environment's impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how those future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions. Two courts have relied on California Bldg. Indus. Assn in rejecting claims that the effect of existing environmental hazards on the project need to be addressed by CEQA review. In Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 582, the court ruled that concerns about the effect activities at a nearby equestrian facility would have on project residents were "outside CEQA's scope." Similarly, in Clews Land & Livestock v City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.Sth 161, 193, the court observed that consideration of existing environmental hazards, such as the potential effect of wildfires on the project, would not be proper under CEQA. (See also South Orange County Wastewater Auth. v City of Dana Point 25 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1604, 1617 (EIR not required for general plan and zoning changes to allow mixed- use development adjacent to wastewater treatment plant because CEQA does not protect projects from existing adverse environmental conditions); Baird v County of Contra Costa (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1468 (EIR not required for expansion of residential addiction treatment facility near contaminated areas, because effect of existing contamination on residents of proposed facility is "beyond the scope of CEQA and the EIR requirement").) As a part of the Uptown Newport project, the former TowerJazz office building was demolished and the Phase 1 portion of the site was graded. Two of the residential apartment buildings and the Phase 1 park were completed. The certified Final EIR for the Uptown Newport project included a comprehensive review of the regulatory requirements for hazardous materials and identified five extremely hazardous substances that are used by and stored at the existing TowerJazz for manufacturing and operating on the Phase 2 portion of the planned community. The July 28, 2020 staff report for the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR, which includes the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR; see https://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/0/doc/2549418/Pagel.aspx. The Uptown Newport EIR disclosed and evaluated the potential for these five substances to impact surrounding uses orthe Phase 1 residential use of the approved project. An off-site consequence assessment was prepared to evaluate the potential risks, and only one of these substances, anhydrous ammonia, posed a health risk. Mitigation measures for the Uptown Newport EIR included installation of a new (replacement) ammonia tank at a minimum distance of 200 feet from the nearest existing or proposed residential structure with mitigation safeguards. With that requirement, the impact was reduced to less than significant levels. In the Addendum to the Uptown Newport EIR, the applicant proposed an alternative to the replacement and relocation of the ammonia tank. The Addendum proposed to enclose the existing, 2,230 -gallon, above -ground, pressurized, anhydrous ammonia tank at its current location. The enclosed structure would be airtight, and the interior of the building would be equipped with a water deluge system to neutralize the ammonia and allow it to drain into the existing sewer system. A revised ammonia risk analysis for the existing ammonia tank and an off-site consequence analysis technical review report were prepared based on the updated plans. The City of Newport Beach Fire Marshall reviewed the revised assessment and found the revised mitigation measure to be acceptable. The proposed enclosure would reduce the potential release of ammonia in the event of a malfunction or failure of the ammonia tank, and ultimately reduce potential exposure from such a release to TowerJazz employees and contractors, adjacent commercial users, and existing and future residents of Uptown Newport. Because the revised ammonia risk assessment concluded, to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshall, that mitigation to encapsulate the ammonia tank would prevent exposure of ammonia to adjacent uses and residents of Uptown Newport, the risk of exposure to future residents of the project is reduced to a less than significant level. In response to this comment, an expert consultant re -reviewed contaminated soil and groundwater issues, and concluded that: (a) the plume does not extend into the residential project site, and neither construction activities that include excavation for the residential building and construction of the structured parking would not cause or exacerbate any new or significant contamination conditions, or expose construction workers or future residents and parking structure users to this existing contamination condition. As stated previously, commenters submitted two technical reports alleging that there could be contamination conditions present below either the residential site or structured parking lot site. An expert environmental consultant has reviewed these consultant reports and determined that they relied on outdated data, or used inaccurate assumptions about the Project itself. That report, inclusive of Figures 26 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence and the CV of the expert who completed this independent peer review of the studies submitted by commenter (Attachment A). Specifically, the expert consultant concluded that assertions regarding migration of contamination in the direction of the project site were unsupported by fact and ignored current data for the Uptown Newport (formerly Conexant) site. The commenter offers no specific information as to if or how contamination, including underground storage tanks, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or trichloroethylene (TCE), could potentially affect development. There is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the argument that development of the project site with a free-standing parking structure may be affected by contamination at the Uptown Newport site. The commenter cites a 2017 groundwater figure and a 2020 Geosyntec groundwater figure as evidence that groundwater beneath the site is contaminated. However, a July 2019 report with the most recent shallow groundwater data shows well samples with "consistent non -detect results over the last five years." The 2020 groundwater figure cited by the commenter was not shallow groundwater and therefore does not support the commenter's assertion of contamination. The expert consultant found no data or information to support soil contamination or historical activities at the proposed location of the free-standing parking structure (referred by the commenter as Lot 5) that could negatively impact its environmental condition. The need for a Soil Management Plan and regulatory oversite, as suggested by the commenter, is unsupported. Likewise, the commenter provides no information or data to substantiate the assertion that the proposed location of the residential building (referred to by the commenter as Lots 1 and 3 — existing surface parking) may be affected by VOCs from the Uptown Newport (Conexant) site. Lastly, the Project does not involve dewatering and residents would only have living spaces on the second and third floors of the proposed building. Therefore, there is no risk of vapor intrusion to future residents and no need for vapor control measures. Because the Addendum appropriately evaluated contamination conditions at and from the TowerJazz site, and concluded that there is no public health risk at the project site, excavation required for the proposed Project would not exacerbate the existing environmental condition, or expose people to pre-existing contamination conditions. Further, there is no risk of contamination on the site, and no evidence of historical activities that could affect environmental conditions on the site. This Addendum assessment was re -reviewed and confirmed in response to the comment by a qualified environmental consultant as discussed above. As concluded in the Addendum, impacts are less than significant. Land Use Summary of Comments: Physically Divide an Established Community A commenter suggested that the inclusion of residential development in Koll Center Newport would physically divide an established community. Comments are also provided that the removal of the gates at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue would bisect the community. Response It is important to note that the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Business Area Integrated Development Plan (ICDP) which was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in September 2010. The 27 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ICDP is generally bound by MacArthur Boulevard, Birch Street and Jamboree Road and contemplates residential uses on the Uptown Newport and on the surface parking area of Koll Center Newport where the Residences at 4400 Von Karman Project is proposed. As included as Figure 4 to the Addendum, the conceptual ICDP identified residential development in this part of Koll Center Newport with existing office uses adjacent to and on either side of the residential uses. As addressed in the Addendum, the proposed Project would not divide an established community. Physical division of an existing community is intended to apply to projects such as highway construction projects that create physical barriers dividing an established community. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v. San Francisco Planning Com. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 275.) That is not the case for this Project. The Project would allow for the infill and intensification of development in an already urbanized, mixed-use area. The Project does not include any development features that would traverse or create a physical barrier between currently developed areas. It would also not preclude pedestrians from walking through the area and in fact includes a public park that connects existing and proposed uses. The proposed residential building would be integrated into Koll Center Newport and would not block or preclude movement through the area, particularly given that the Project includes pedestrian paths and a public park that would connect the Project to surrounding uses and public sidewalks. There is no evidence that the Project would result in physical division of an established community. Additional traffic, altered setbacks, higher density, changed building orientation, and road widening do not constitute a fair argument of physical division of a community. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta, supra, 36 Cal.App.4th at 1419-1420.) In particular, a project's density and design compared to existing conditions is not relevant when analyzing physical division of a community. (Id.) Claims that the internal circulation, traffic, and building orientation/size of the Project constitute physical division of an established community are unfounded. In particular, alteration of the interior circulation of Koll Center Newport would not cause division of an established community. As discussed in the Addendum, the Project's internal circulation would not substantially increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with circulation programs, plans, or policies. In any event, alteration of internal circulation, in and of itself, is not a CEQA impact. Summary of Comments: Koll Center Newport Planned Community Amendment A comment claims that the Addendum has not analyzed the impacts of an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) designation to provide a residential overlay. Response As disclosed in the Addendum, the project site is zoned "Koll Center Newport Planned Community (PC -15 Koll Center)" and zoning regulations are provided in the Koll Center Planned Community Development Standards (PC Text) adopted by Ordinance No. 1449 and subsequently amended several times. As a part of the Project, the PC text is proposed to be amended so that PC -15 Koll Center would include a Residential Overlay zone in Professional and Business Office Site B allowing for residential development and a park consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project's amendment to PC -15 Koll Center includes development standards and the identification of 28 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence permitted uses and parking standards. The proposed overlay zone is tailored to the Project and include specific uses, setbacks, density, and development standards. No change to the existing General Plan land use designation is required as a part of the City's consideration of the proposed Project. With approval of the PC -15 text amendment, the Project would be permitted on the property and consistent with PC -15. Therefore, with approval of the Project's entitlements, the Project would not conflict with PC -15 standards. It should also be noted that project inconsistency with a zoning standard that is itself not consistent with a General Plan designation is not a physical impact on the environment, or a significant adverse impact under CEQA. Summary of Comments: John Wayne Airport A commenter suggested that the proposed project is incompatible with airport operations at John Wayne Airport. Response John Wayne Airport generates nearly all aviation traffic directly above the City of Newport Beach due to flight paths and descent patterns. All land uses surrounding the airport are required to comply and be compatible with the land use standards established in the City's Municipal Code and the Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan identifies a goal to protect residents, property, and the environment from aviation -related hazards, and lists General Plan Policies S 8.1 through S 8.4 to ensure preparation and minimize risk in the case of an aviation accident. The entire Airport Area is within the Height Restriction Zone designated in the AELUP. General Plan LU Policy 6.15.24 requires that all development be constructed within the height limits and residential development be located outside of areas exposed to the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour specified by the AELUP, unless the City Council makes appropriate findings for an override in accordance with applicable law. The project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses and most nonresidential uses other than outdoor stadiums, children's schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and nursing homes. Safety Zone 6 has a "generally low likelihood of accident occurrence at most airports; risk concern primarily is with uses for which potential consequences are severe." Safety Zone 6 includes all other portions of regular traffic patterns and pattern entry routes." Because the Project site is in Safety Zone 6, which allows residential uses, the Addendum properly concluded that the Project is consistent with the AELUP. On November 19, 2020, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the proposed Project. The ALUC voted unanimously to find the Project consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (AELUP) (see staff report Attachment H). The ALUC staff report concludes: "ALUC staff has reviewed this project for compliance with the AELUP including review of noise, height, overflight and imaginary surfaces. Although the project site is located within Safety Zone 6 —Traffic Pattern Zone, it is located outside of the 60 and 65 dBA noise contours for John Wayne Airport. The Flight Tracks of general aviation aircraft are generally to the west and the east of the project site. The City provided FAA Determinations of No Hazard for structures up to 123 feet AMSL, and the proposed structure heights do not penetrate the horizontal surface for JWA." 29 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Courts generally defer to an agency's decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the evidence before the decision-making body, a reasonable person could not have come to the same conclusion. (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.Sth 883, 896.) Because (1) Safety Zone 6 allows for residential uses, (2) the project site is outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and (3) the ALUC unanimously voted that the Project was consistent with the AELUP, in its discretion under its AELUP, there is no basis for a claim that the Project is inconsistent with the AELUP. With respect to airport noise, the AELUP is cited in Section 6, References, of the Addendum. A review of the contours within Appendix B of the ALUC plan shows that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the latest contours from the airport show that the project site is outside of the 60- dBA CNEL contour'. These contours take into account aircraft type and flight paths associated with the airport. Additionally, General Plan Policy N 1.3 and Standard Condition SC N-3 require residential developments within the Airport Area to demonstrate that the design of a structure will adequately isolate noise between adjacent uses and units (common floor/ceilings) in accordance with the California Building Code and that interior noise levels will achieve 45 dBA CNEL or less. Therefore, both due to the Project's location and design, airport noise will not adversely affect future Project residents. Separate from the Addendum, existing and future noise impacts from aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport were analyzed in Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 617, John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement Amendment (JWA EIR) (County of Orange, May 2014). The JWA EIR analyzed the environmental impacts (including noise impacts) for an increase in flights and passengers at John Wayne Airport as a result of extending the terms of the John Wayne Airport Settlement Agreement. According to the JWA EIR, the project site is located outside the 60 dB CNEL noise contour under existing and future plus project conditions and is not located within the arrival or departure flight paths at John Wayne Airport. Additionally, the General Aviation Noise Ordinance (GANG) has been adopted by the County of Orange to regulate the hours of operation and the maximum permitted noise levels associated with general aviation operations. John Wayne Airport maintains ten permanent noise monitoring stations. The GANO specifies noise limits at each noise monitoring stations that vary by time of day. The GANO also identifies private aircraft that may not meet the noise standards and specifically limits their operations unless the aircraft owner/operator can furnish evidence that the aircraft can operate within acceptable noise levels. John Wayne Airport noise impacts were also analyzed in the Environmental Assessment for the Southern California Metroplex Project (Metroplex EA) (United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, June 2015) for the optimization of Air Traffic Control (ATC) procedures at several airports in Southern California, including John Wayne Airport. This is accomplished by developing procedures that take advantage of technological advances in navigation, such as Area Navigation (RNAV). RNAV uses technology, including Global Positioning System (GPS), to allow an RNAV-equipped aircraft to fly a more efficient route. According to Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS) grid point modeling in the Metroplex EA, John Wayne Airport airplane noise levels at the closest modeled grid receptor (located approximately 0.19 mile to the north of the project site) with implementation of RNAV ATC procedures would be approximately 52.0 DNL (Day -Night Sound Level). As the project site is 0.19 mile further south ' https://www.ocair.com/reportspubIications/AccessNoise/cneInoisecontours/2019.PDF 30 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence from the modeled grip receptor, aircraft noise levels would be lower than 52.0 DNL and below the City's noise standards for residential uses. Summary of Comments: Building Setbacks A comment was made that the Project does not comply with setback requirements for multi -family residential projects. Response The General Plan Land Use Element does not include a minimum setback for multi -family projects. Therefore, any allegation that the Project does not comply with General Plan setback requirements is unsupported. The Project would comply with setbacks required by the PC -15 text, as amended as part of the Project entitlements. With approval of the Project's entitlements, the Project would comply with setbacks required by PC -15. Further, building setback deviations are not physical impacts to the environment under CEQA. The residential building would be bordered by a new public park, existing office buildings, and parking areas, and the commenter has offered no evidence that amending the PC -15 setback will result in an adverse impact to the physical environment under CEQA. Summary of Comments: General Plan Consisten Comments were provided that the number of residential units proposed by the Project is underestimated or inconsistent with the General Plan. Response The project site has a General Plan land use category of Mixed -Use Horizontal -2 (MU -H2), which provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi -family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU -H2 designation applies to a majority of properties in the Airport Area, inclusive of the project site and adjacent uses, and permits a maximum of 2,200 residential units as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses at a maximum density of 50 units per adjusted net acre, of which a maximum of 550 units may be developed as infill units. A maximum of the 550 units are "additive" units that "may be developed as infill on existing surface parking lots or areas not used as occupiable buildings on properties within the Conceptual Development Plan Area as depicted on General Plan Land Use Element Figure LU22 provided that parking is replaced on-site." Together, the approved Uptown Newport Project and the proposed Project would use all of the 550 additive units allocated to the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project includes 312 multi -family rental units: 260 additive units and 52 density bonus units. As shown in Table 1 in the Addendum, between Uptown Newport's 290 additive units and the Project's 260 additive units, the total number of dwelling units in the Airport Business Area ICDP is 550. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the ICDP's maximum unit requirement. Some commenters claimed that the Project's 312 units (260 base units and 52 density bonus units) exceed maximum unit allocations in the City's ICDP and General Plan. However, eligible density bonus units permitted by Government Code Section 65915 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32 are not included in the MU-H2's allowable maximum of 2,200 residential units. There is no basis for a claim that the Project's number of units is underestimated or inconsistent with the General Plan. 31 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The General Plan policies for the Airport Area call for the orderly evolution of this area from a single purpose business park to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of the office, industrial, retail, and airport -related businesses. The proposed Project is consistent with the MU -H2 land use designation for the project site and would implement the City's General Plan goals and policies for this portion of the Airport Area because it would integrate residential uses into the Koll Center Newport. Additionally, the General Plan Program EIR considered the environmental impacts of twice as many units than the approved General Plan, and thus tiering from that General Plan Program EIR also appropriately considers the impacts associated with the Project's unit count for the Airport Area. The Airport Business Area ICDP is a prerequisite for the preparation of the regulatory plans called for in the City's General Plan, and it provides a framework for residential development on the project site. The proposed Project would carry out the intent of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan because the project site would be developed with the uses envisioned in and approved under the Airport Business Area ICDP. Implementation of the proposed Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Airport Business Area ICDP and the City's General Plan. With respect to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.5, the project is consistent with the ICDP's maximum of 2,200 multi -family residential units, as discussed above. Additive units are exempt from the requirement of not exceeding the number of existing peak hour trips generated by existing uses. These units will be allocated to the Project pursuant to the City's General Plan and the Airport Business Area ICDP. The Project is also consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.6, which requires a minimum of 10 -acres for mixed-use residential villages centered on a neighborhood park and other amenities. The Project would involve development on a 13 -acre site with a 1.1 -acre public park and on-site amenities. With respect to General Plan Policy LU 6.15.8, which requires a residential density of 45 to 50 units per net acre averaged over the first phase of each residential village, the ICDP area is exempt from the numerical requirement in LU 6.15.8. Rather, it is subject to a requirement for a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per net acre and a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per net acre prior to any affordable housing density bonus. The net density for the Project's base units would be 44 dwelling units per acre without the density bonus units considered. Inclusive of the density bonus, the density would be 53 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Project would be consistent with Policy LU 6.15.8. The project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 because it includes a 1.1 -acre public park with a minimum dimension of 150 feet. LU 6.15.13 requires at least 8 percent of the gross land area or acre, whichever is greater, to be dedicated as a neighborhood park. The Project's 1.1 -acre park exceeds both standards. The legal test for determining whether a land use enactment is consistent with a General Plan has been set forth in numerous court decisions. Generally, it is recognized that a General Plan consists of policies reflecting a wide range of sometimes competing interests. A project can be found to be consistent with a General Plan and its various competing policies if the project furthers some policies and objectives of the General Plan and does not inhibit or obstruct the attainment of other policies (67 Ops Cal Atty Gen 75 (1984); Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017)). Under this standard, a project need not be perfectly consistent with each and every policy of a general plan (See, e.g., Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 807, 815 [upholding overall 32 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence consistency finding even though the project deviated from some plan provisions because plan allowed for balancing of competing policies]). The standard for a finding of consistency is that the project is in "harmony" with the general plan's goals and objectives (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719). The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum has properly and thoroughly identified and discussed relevant General Plan policies and goals for the City's consistency determination. The Addendum analyzed the applicable General Plan objectives, goals and policies, and provided sufficient detail and analyses to support the consistency findings for the Project. The lead agency has discretion to weigh whether a project is consistent with the use, scale, and character of existing development and the surrounding natural environment. Courts generally defer to an agency's decision on consistency with its own plan unless, on the basis of evidence before the decision-making body, a reasonable person could not have found the project to be consistent (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.Sth 883, 896). Agencies have particularly broad discretion in determining whether a project is consistent with goals, policies, objectives, and measures of the agency's own general plan (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378). Noise Comments have been made regarding the Addendum's noise analysis with respect to construction noise and need for mitigation, as well as claims of Project inconsistency with the General Plan. Summary of Comments: Other Projects Commenters have compared the proposed Project to the mitigation requirements of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and Koll Center Residences Draft EIR, and stated the opinion that the Addendum ignores specific mitigation associated with those projects. Response The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum evaluates the potential construction and operational noise impacts of the proposed Project compared to existing conditions to determine whether the potential impacts are consistent with the findings of the General Plan Program EIR. Therefore, the findings of the Uptown Newport certified Final EIR and Koll Center Residences Draft EIR are not directly relevant to the proposed Project. The analysis for the Addendum was conducted based on project -specific details including land use and project size, construction schedule, anticipated construction equipment, and daily vehicle trip generation, among other variables. Some key factors that differentiate the proposed Project from the previous Koll Center Residences project include: ■ Shorter construction period (32 months instead of 5 years) ■ Different construction process (including construction of one residential building instead of two) ■ Less excavation (1.5 subterranean levels instead of 2.5 levels) ■ Less heavy-duty equipment ■ Less truck trips for soil export 33 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ■ Less concrete and concrete trucks (residential building would be wood framed) ■ Smaller residential building area (565,452 sf compared to 691,162 sf) ■ Smaller stand-alone parking garage than the previous project as it would be more efficient and displace less existing parking As such, simply concluding that the proposed Project would have noise impacts because other EIRs identified that noise impacts is inappropriate and inaccurate. The Addendum determined that that construction or operational noise levels associated with the Project would not exceed significance thresholds and therefore no additional mitigation is warranted. Temporary and permanent noise impacts from integrating residential development in the Airport Area were also considered in the General Plan Program EIR, which studied adding 4,400 multi -family residential units to the Airport Area (and the Project's units fall within the scope of that General Plan which assumes 2,200 multi -family units), so noise from occupancy — primarily vehicle use —was also considered based on traffic and other impacts considered in that EIR. The General Plan Housing Element Update Negative Declaration similarly concluded that compliance with applicable noise standards, including standard conditions of approval, would not result in new or worse significant noise impacts than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum further confirms that the proposed Project would not violate any noise standards or result in significant noise impacts that are new or worse than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The commenter has not presented any evidence that the noise control standards applicable to the proposed Project would be ineffective, or result in unique new or worse significant noise impacts for this mid -rise project. Summary of Comments: Construction Noise Comments were provided that construction noise was not adequately addressed in the Addendum. Response With respect to construction activities, construction noise associated with the proposed Project was analyzed on pages 128 to 131 of the Addendum. Municipal Code Section 10.28.040(8) states that the provisions of Section 10.28.040(a) do not apply to those activities between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on any weekday that is not a federal holiday, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturdays. The analysis conservatively uses the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) threshold of 80 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for residential uses and 85 dBA (8 -hour Leq) for non-residential uses to evaluate construction noise impacts. Section 3.12, Noise, of the Addendum demonstrates that Project construction would not exceed thresholds and result in significant impacts. Construction noise would be temporary in nature (and be substantially shorter in duration when compared to Uptown Newport [first phase: 5 years] and Koll Center Residences [4.5 years]) and cease upon Project completion. Potential construction noise related to this use would be similar to construction noise assumptions addressed in the General Plan Program EIR and would not represent a new impact. Construction noise would be subject to General Plan Policy N 4.6, which would require enforcement of the Noise Ordinance limits and hours in the City's Municipal Code. Since the Project's construction noise 34 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence levels would be consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan Program EIR, there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Operational Activities Comments were provided that noise from operational activities was not adequately addressed in the Addendum. Response With respect to mobile and stationary source operational noise, the analysis summarized on pages 125 to 128 of the Addendum also demonstrate that these noise sources would comply with City standards and would be consistent with General Plan policies and would not introduce new types of noise sources that were not already anticipated under the existing land use designation. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant and there are no changes or new significant information that would require preparation of an EIR. Summary of Comments: Consistencv with General Plan Comments were provided that the Addendum underestimates noise because the proposed number of residential units is inconsistent with the General Plan. Response The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan and it does not exceed the number of residential units for the Airport Area. As noted in the Addendum, the General Plan Program EIR evaluated the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units into the Airport Area; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. The commenter is incorrectly referencing the number of apartment units assumed in the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1405 within which the project site is located. The number of apartment units assumed in TAZ 1405 is not relevant to the Addendum noise analysis. The Addendum correctly compares noise associated with the proposed Project to the City's significance thresholds and the General Plan Program EIR, which evaluated 4,400 multi -family units in the Airport Area, although the General Plan subsequently approved 2,200 multi- family units. Additionally, the commenter incorrectly argues that the Addendum underestimated noise levels from vehicle trips. Noise from occupancy, including vehicle use, was considered in the General Plan Program EIR, which studied adding far more residential units to the Airport Area than the Project's units. The General Plan Housing Element Update Negative Declaration similarly concluded that compliance with applicable noise standards would not result in new or worse significant impacts than those identified in the General Plan Program EIR. The Addendum correctly analyzed noise, including vehicle noise, from development of 312 dwelling units. Vehicle noise was fully considered in the CEQA documents referenced above, including the Addendum, and was not underestimated. 35 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Summary of Comments: Off -Site Noise Levels Comments were provided that the Addendum did not address noise impacts to off-site uses. Response With respect to potential noise impacts to uses along Birch Street, Table 4.9-8 of the General Plan Program EIR shows that the noise levels along the segment of Birch Street in the vicinity of the project site range from 63.2 to 63.6 dBA. Traffic noise levels along Von Karman Avenue range from 62.5 to 63.0 dBA. Exhibit 5-A of the General Plan Program EIR Appendix D (Traffic Study) shows that Birch Street has an ADT of 20,000 vehicles and that Von Karman Avenue would has an ADT of 17,000 vehicles in the General Plan Buildout scenario. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Transportation Noise Analysis Protocol (2013), it takes a doubling of traffic volumes to result in a perceptible (3 dBA) increase in noise levels. As the Project would have a daily trip generation of 1,697 vehicles, it would not double the traffic volumes on Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue and would not result in a perceptible noise increase. Additionally, as the noise levels in the vicinity would be 62.5 to 63.6 dBA, General Plan Policies N 1.1, N 1.2, and N 2.1 do apply to the Project. It should be noted that the on-site noise analysis in the Addendum is conservatively based on a higher noise level of 64.6 dBA. The General Plan policies require proposed projects that are located in areas projected to be exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA and higher to determine the level of exterior or interior, noise attenuation needed to attain an acceptable noise exposure level and the feasibility of such mitigation when other planning considerations are taken into account. As analyzed in the Addendum, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would not exceed the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40-dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Summary of Comments: Internal Road Noise Levels Comments were provided that the Addendum did not address noise associated with vehicular traffic on the interior access road. Response Although some motorists may choose to cut through the site to access either Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue, it is reasonable to assume that most motorists without the need to access the proposed or existing uses in this portion of Koll Center Newport would continue to use existing travel routes. Von Karman Avenue is a six -lane divided arterial and Birch Street is a four -lane divided arterial that would have faster travel times than cutting through single lane drive aisles with slower speeds, loading areas, and parallel parking. If the drive aisle were to be used by vehicles other than those accessing this portion of Koll Center Newport, a worst-case conservative assumption would be that there could be 10,000 vehicles per day per the City's Circulation Element. It refers to the capacity for a 2 -lane commuter roadway, which has different characteristics than the project's drive aisle. This volume of daily vehicles would result in 61 dBA at 25 feet from the drive aisle centerline (the approximate distance to the building closest to the drive aisle). As discussed above, the roadway noise levels modeled for the segments of Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street adjacent to the project site range from 62.5 to 63.6 dBA, which is greater than 61 dBA along the drive aisle. Therefore, potential worst-case drive aisle traffic noise would not be noticeable since it is 36 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence below ambient conditions. Additionally, closest area of frequent human use is located approximately 100 feet from the drive aisle centerline. At 100 feet, noise levels would be reduced to 55 dBA and would not exceed the City's Compatibility Standard of 65 dBA. This noise level is a conservative condition for discussion purposes and does not represent actual conditions anticipated for the site (i.e., using 2 -lane commuter roadway traffic volumes for an internal drive aisle). Noise levels from the drive aisle would be lower. Summary of Comments: Interior Noise Comments were provided that the Project will exceed interior noise levels. Response As discussed in the Addendum's noise analysis, on-site noise levels could reach 64.6 dBA. Therefore, as required by General Plan Policy N 1.2, exterior and interior noise levels must be evaluated to determine if additional attenuation is required. The on-site noise levels would not exceed the 65 dBA clearly compatible standard for residential use. According to the U.S. EPA (Protective Noise Levels, November 1978), typical building construction reduces noise levels by 25 dBA with the windows closed. Therefore, the worst-case exterior interior noise levels would be reduced to 39.6 dBA, which is below the City's 45 dBA daytime interior noise standard and the 40 dBA nighttime interior noise standard. Therefore, additional noise attenuation beyond what is required for standard building code requirements would not be required. Summary of Comments: Airport Noise A commenter stated that the Addendum's finding that the project site is outside of the 65-dBA contour is not supported by evidence. Response As addressed in the Addendum, the project site is not located within the AELUP's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown on Figure 3. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport, Amended April 17, 2008 is cited in Section 6 (References of the Addendum). A review of the contours within Appendix B of the ALUC plan shows that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour. Additionally, the latest contours from the airport show that the project site is outside of the 60-dBA CNEL contour: https://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/cnelnoisecontours/2019.PDF Public Services: Solid Waste Summary of Comments Commenters suggested that the construction management plan is not adequate and that the Addendum underestimates solid waste generation which would adversely affect the capacity of landfills. Response With respect to construction debris, Standard Condition (SC) UTIL-3 requires the applicant to prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan, which requires the diversion 37 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence of a minimum of 65 percent of solid waste to be diverted from landfills. The adequacy of the plan would be determined by the City of Newport Beach. With respect to landfill capacity, the General Plan Program EIR did not identify significant impacts related to solid waste disposal. Specific to the Airport Area, General Plan Program EIR evaluated impacts associated with the introduction of 4,400 multi -family residential units; the adopted General Plan includes 2,200 multi -family units. As such, both the General Plan Program EIR and Addendum adequately address solid waste disposal at County landfills. Recreation Summary of Comments Comments have been provided that recreational impacts are not adequately addressed in the Addendum because the proposed park is an "odd -shaped area", temporary parking would not be provided for the park, and vehicular headlights from cars in the parking structure could disturb park users. Response Although the proposed Project does not include or require a subdivision, the Project includes a 1.1 -acre public park with open space, as well as on-site recreational amenities consistent with GP LU 6.15.16 for residents. As addressed in the Addendum, the park would be dedicated to the City and that would be accessible to the public during daytime hours. The ground level park would be located between and north of the proposed residential building and the existing office buildings located at 4910 Birch Street and 4440 Von Karman Avenue, and extend from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. The proposed park would be improved and maintained by the Applicant, and accessible to the residents and public during daylight hours. With respect to the configuration of the park, General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 addresses park standards and notes that, as applicable to the Project, a park must have a minimum dimension of 150 feet. The Project meets this requirement. With respect to parking spaces, five parking spaces located in front of residential building would be provided/allocated for park users. With respect to potential visibility of vehicle headlights from the parking structure, parks throughout the City include parking lots and are often near roadways. The potential for lighting from vehicles to be visible at the park is not relevant and is not a CEQA impact. Utilities: Sewer and Water System Capacity Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the Addendum did not adequately study sewer and water system capacity. Response As concluded in the Addendum, there is adequate capacity for water and sewer services for the Project. 38 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence The project site is within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) which provides both potable and non -potable water to its customers. IRWD has existing potable distribution lines adjacent to and within the site. The Project would construct a new water system with connections to an existing 10 - inch IRWD main in Von Karman Avenue and a 10 -inch main in Birch Street to provide potable and fire flow water service to the project site. IRWD maintains a non -potable water main immediately adjacent to the project site in Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project assumes 312 multi -family dwelling units. The 2015 IRWD Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) states that the daily per capita water usage is 129 gallons per capita per day. The number of persons expected to reside in each residential unit on the project site is 2.19 persons, which is the average cited by the Department of Finance for Newport Beach for 2020 (DOF 2020). Therefore, approximately 684 residents are anticipated to reside with the proposed Project. Based on 684 anticipated residents, buildout of the proposed Project is estimated to generate a water demand of approximately 88,236 gallons per day, or 98.9 acre-feet per year (AFY) (see Addendum Table 3.17-2). The most recent IRWD UWMP provides updated water demand and supply projections, shown in Addendum Table 3.17-4, IRWD Current and Projected Water Demand. In comparison of IRWD's water demand to IRWD's water supply (Addendum Table 3.17-2), there would be an anticipated water supply surplus in 2025 of 51,558 AFY. The proposed Project's water demand of 98.9 AFY would represent less than 1 percent of IRWD's anticipated water surplus for 2025 during a normal year. Given that the Project's demand would represent less than one percent of anticipated surplus in 2025, there is no basis for a claim that the Project would not have a sufficient water supply. It is also noted that the IRWD 2008 Irvine Business Complex Sub -Area Master Plan (SAMP) assumes the 2,200 residential units, as identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan for the Airport Area. With respect to wastewater service and infrastructure, the City will provide sewer service to the Project. There are three, 8 -inch service connections in Birch Street and Von Karman Avenue. The proposed Project would connect to existing service connections through sanitary sewer lines or laterals. Discharge from the sewer system would be directed to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) treatment plants. The Project proposes 312 multi -family residences, structured parking, and a public park with open space areas. Assuming the City's wastewater generation factors of 240 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/du) for residential land uses noted in the 2010 Sewer Master Plan, the proposed Project would generate 74,880 gpd, as identified in Addendum Table 3.17-5, Wastewater Generation. Wastewater collected by the City would be treated at OCSD's two reclamation plants, with a small portion of wastewater treated at IRWD's treatment plant. Reclamation Plant No. 1 has a capacity of 320 million gallons per day (mgd) and an estimated average daily influent of 120 mgd. Reclamation Plant No. 2 has a capacity of 312 mgd and an estimated average daily influent of 65 mgd. Collectively, the two plants have a residual capacity of 185 mgd. The proposed Project would generate an additional 0.06 mgd of wastewater, which is nominal compared to the combined residual capacity of both treatment plants. Therefore, existing wastewater treatment facilities would accommodate the Project -generated wastewater and continue maintaining a substantial amount of remaining capacity for future wastewater treatment. The Addendum properly evaluated the water and wastewater capacity associated with the Project and correctly concluded that the Project would result in less than significant impacts. There is no evidence 39 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence that utility infrastructure systems would be insufficient to accommodate buildout of the Project. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) Transportation and Parking Summary of Comments: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Comments were made that a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis was required. Response Please refer to the response to the appropriateness of a VMT analysis provided in the Response: Supplemental EIR Criteria; Change in Circumstances. In summary, as stated in the Addendum, when the City's General Plan Program EIR was approved in 2006, the applicable traffic threshold was Level of Service (LOS), not VMT. Because LOS was the applicable threshold when the 2006 General Plan Program EIR was approved, LOS, not VMT, is the applicable traffic standard for the proposed Project. VMT is therefore not an applicable traffic threshold. Summary of Comments: Internal Circulation A comment was made that the Addendum does not address internal circulation associated with the alteration of internal streets. Response Commenters did not provide substantial evidence regarding their assertion that the project would have a significant impact to internal circulation. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) As noted in the Addendum, vehicular access to office buildings Koll Center Newport near the project site is most directly provided by three driveways on Birch Street and two driveways on Von Karman Avenue. Cross access throughout the site currently allows motorists to access any parking area within Koll Center Newport from any of the site driveways. All driveways are unsignalized and gated. No changes to the locations of the existing driveways are proposed. As a part of the proposed Project, gates would be removed at the middle driveway ("Driveway 2") on Birch Street to allow for ungated vehicular movement from Birch Street to the internal access street to Von Karman Avenue. The remaining existing driveways would remain gated. See Figure 7 in the Addendum. Although some motorists may choose to cut through the site to access either Birch Street or Von Karman Avenue, it is reasonable to assume that most motorists without the need to access the proposed or existing uses would continue to use existing travel routes. Although it would be possible for through traffic to use the internal drive aisle, it is not likely that this would occur on a frequent or regular basis because the internal drive aisle would not provide an efficient path of travel. For example, vehicles traveling on Von Karman Avenue trying to access Birch Street would have to slow down substantially to maneuver along the internal drive aisle and turn north onto another drive aisle and then ultimately turn on to Birch Street. Von Karman Avenue is a six -lane divided arterial and Birch Street is a four -lane divided arterial that 40 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence would have faster travel times than cutting through single lane drive aisles with slower speeds, loading areas, and parallel parking. The intersection analysis presented in the Addendum Traffic Impact Study shows that the intersection of Von Karman Avenue at Birch Street is operating at Level of Service (LOS) A under existing conditions and is expected to continue to operate at LOS A with and without the proposed Project. As there is no congestion at the adjacent intersection, there is no incentive for vehicles to cut through the slower internal drive aisle, which would take more time to pass through. As discussed in the Addendum, the Project's internal circulation would not substantially increase hazards, result in inadequate emergency access, or conflict with circulation programs, plans, or policies. In any event, alteration of internal circulation, in and of itself, is not a CEQA impact. Summary of Comments: External Circulation Comments were provided that the off-site traffic analysis is inadequate. Response No substantial evidence is provided to support with position. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4t" 556, 580) In summary and as addressed in the Addendum and Traffic Impact Study, the traffic analysis provides an evaluation of morning and evening peak hour intersection at 25 intersections. The study intersections consist of a combination of intersections in the City of Newport Beach and the City of Irvine. The study area and study intersection list reflect input received from the cities of Newport Beach and Irvine. Potential impacts were evaluated based on the significance criteria of the respective jurisdictions, as well as intersections (freeway ramps) controlled by Caltrans. The CEQA Level of Service (LOS) analysis evaluated the following scenarios: ■ Existing Conditions ■ Year 2025 Without Project ■ Year 2025 With Project ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout ■ Post -2030 General Plan Buildout With Project At Project buildout and when compared to buildout of the General Plan, the proposed Project would not significant impact traffic study area intersections based on the significance criteria. A General Plan comparison analysis was prepared to determine whether the proposed Project would result in any new or substantially more significant environmental impacts as compared to the conclusions discussed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study (March 2006). The project is located in traffic analysis zone (TAZ) 1405 of the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM), used in the 2006 General Plan traffic analysis. The NBTM TAZ 1405 consists of 128 apartment units, 128,610 sf of general commercial and 695,157 sf of office. The Project proposes 312 apartment units. To provide a conservative analysis, the traffic from the additional 184 units (312 units -128 units) were added on to Post -2030 General Plan Buildout traffic to determine 2030 General Plan Buildout With Project traffic. Based on this 41 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence comparison, the proposed Project would not result in any new traffic -related impacts compared to those identified in the 2006 City of Newport Beach General Plan Transportation Study. The proposed Project would not result in a significant Project impact at the study locations; therefore, no mitigation at the study locations is required. In compliance with City requirements, the Traffic Impact Study also includes a Traffic Management Ordinance (TPO) analysis to evaluated the following scenarios. No significant impacts were identified. ■ Existing Conditions ■ TPO Analysis Year 2025 Without Project ■ TPO Analysis Year 2025 With Project Summary of Comments: Parking and Need for Parking Mitigation Comments were provided with respect to insufficient parking spaces during construction and at completion of the Project, inconsistencies with the CC&Rs, and the location and aesthetics of the proposed free-standing parking structure. Response With respect to the aesthetic characteristics of the proposed free-standing parking structure, please refer to Response: Aesthetics. CEQA Section 21099 exempts parking impacts from review under CEQA. However, it is recognized that a CEQA does not exempt secondary impacts, such as traffic and air quality, "The social inconvenience of having to hunt for scarce parking is not an environmental impact; the secondary effect of scarce parking on traffic and air quality is." (San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco), The proposed Project would not result in a parking shortage; therefore, secondary impacts to traffic or air quality would not occur. A parking survey was conducted for the Koll Center Newport offices to determine parking utilization of the existing parking supply within the project site and the availability of parking during Project construction. Table 2-4 in the Addendum Project Description identifies the number of parking spaces that would be provided during each phase of the Project; both during the construction of the phase when the surface parking has been removed, and at the completion of the phase when the replacement parking or the new parking has been completed. As a part of the Project, office parking displaced by the Project would be provided (1) in the residential building's parking structure; (2) in a new, free-standing parking structure; and, (3) in surface parking areas. The new office parking structure would be built as Phase 1, in advance construction of the residential building to account for the loss of 106 surface parking spaces east of the internal street. During the construction of the new parking structure (Phase 1) and the construction of the residential building (Phase 2A), parking shuttles would be provided for the use of office employees of and visitors to the office buildings. At completion, there would be no net reduction in parking spaces. A parking deficit would not be created; therefore, secondary parking impacts would not occur and mitigation is not required. 42 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Although CC&Rs a are private covenants that are not CEQA environmental issues and are not enforced by the City, as a matter of disclosure, it is the understanding of the City that applicant is required through the applicable CC&Rs to replace every parking space converted to park or residential use by the Project. The parking study the City required to be conducted forthis Project, which is referenced in the Addendum, confirmed that, even pre-COVID-19, that a substantial numbers of parking stalls remained empty even during peak occupancy periods, and no commenter has provided evidence to support the allegation that displaced surface parking stalls would not be adequately replaced as part of the Project. Comments have been provided that the location of replacement parking would not be convenient to existing office buildings. The proposed overall site parking plan was designed to provide full replacement of removed parking spaces and distinct parking areas for the existing office uses and adequate parking for the proposed residential uses. It should be noted that within Koll Center Newport, there is no allocation of parking spaces by office building unless these spaces are located within the individual property. Assigned parking is not provided. Summary of Comments: Construction Traffic and Emergency Access Commenters suggest that the Addendum does not adequately address traffic during construction and adequate emergency access would not be provided. Response The Addendum addresses both construction traffic and emergency access. As stated in SC TRAN-1, the City requires the approval of a Construction Management Plan. The Plan must identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary street closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan must identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. As addressed in the Addendum, approach and departure routes for construction vehicles would be from Jamboree Road, MacArthur Boulevard, Von Karman Avenue and Birch Street. Depending on the origin/destination, trucks would either arrive and depart via 1-405, to the north of the site; or via SR -73, to the south of the site. Impacts from construction traffic would be limited to occasional and temporary delays to traffic during the movement of heavy equipment or transport of heavy loads to and from the site. The arrivals and departures of dirt -hauling trucks and other heavy trucks would be scheduled outside of the morning and evening peak hours. Construction management requirements, such as complying with peak hour restrictions, using flag men for short-term obstructions, and a formal traffic control plan for extended lane and street closures would be required. As addressed in the Addendum, impacts would be less than significant. With respect to emergency access and as addressed in the Addendum, the proposed Project would remove and relocate existing gated access (at one driveway) through the project site to allow for unrestricted vehicle access through the site from Birch Street to Von Karman Avenue. This change would not cause substantial delays and congestion that would affect the circulation of emergency vehicles in the study area. All -access roads would meet requirements for fire access roads in the 2019 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24 Part 9), Section 503. 43 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Urban Decay Summary of Comments Commenters asserted that the Addendum improperly excluded an analysis of social -economic impacts. Some commenters asserted that the project will cause economic or property interest harm or deprive existing owners of investment -backed expectations. Response Economic and social effects of projects are outside of CEQA's purview unless forecasted economic or social effects of a project will directly or indirectly lead to adverse physical environmental effects. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.) In Bakersfield, the courts defined urban decay as follows: "[N]ot simply a condition in which buildings become vacant as businesses compete with each other in the normal course of the market-based economy, nor is it a condition where a building may be vacated by one business or use and reused by a different business or for alternative purposes. Rather, under CEQA 'urban decay' is defined as physical deterioration of properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting a significant period of time that it impairs the proper utilization of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of the properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery, and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments." The proposed residential project could not conceivably result in business closures or physical deterioration of the Koll Center Newport area. Blight in Koll Center Newport is not a reasonably foreseeable outcome associated with the implementation of an infill residential development. Therefore, an urban decay analysis is unnecessary. Unlike Bakersfield Citizens, which addresses potential closures of shopping centers due to the introduction of competition, the proposed Project is a residential use integrated into an existing urban area of the City, which includes office, retail, and hotel uses, and is adjacent to the Uptown Newport mixed -used development. In Bakersfield Citizens, there was evidence suggesting that economic and social effects caused by a proposed shopping center could result in urban decay, which necessitated the analysis of urban decay. However, case law is clear that where there is no such evidence, an analysis of urban decay is not mandated by CEQA. (Melom v. City of Madera (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 41.) It is a project challenger's responsibility to provide substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a project may cause urban decay. (Visalia Retail, LP v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1.) Under the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.) The commenters have provided no evidence that would necessitate an analysis of urban decay. 44 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence As stated in Placerville Historic Preservation League v. Judicial Council of California_(2017) _Cal.App.4th_ (Case No. A149501), "there is no reason to presume that urban decay would be a consequence of the project. As defined by CEQA, urban decay is a relatively extreme economic condition. In a dynamic urban environment, including that of a small city such as Placerville, change is commonplace. In the absence of larger economic forces, urban decay is not the ordinary result. On the contrary, businesses and other activities come and go for reasons of their own, without necessarily affecting the overall health of the economy." Alternative Location For Free -Standing Parking Structure And Driveway Summary of Comments Comments have requested that an alternative location for the free-standing parking structure be considered. It has been suggested that the new structure be constructed adjacent to and east of the existing parking structure for the 5000 Birch Street office building in order that it be further from the existing office buildings in this part of Koll Center Newport. Concerns raised include aesthetic impacts and shading impacts to existing office buildings. Response The requirement to consider alternatives under CEQA refers to alternatives that would eliminate or substantially reduce a significant adverse project impact evaluated in an EIR. No such impact exists with respect to the proposed Project (including the free-standing garage), and a reasonable range of alternatives was already considered in prior EIRs covering this project site. Further, CEQA does not require the assessment of infeasible or speculative alternatives raised, such as building on top of other, third - party privately -owned improvements or real property over which an applicant has no jurisdiction or control. The City was not required to consider or analyze various alternatives suggested by commenters. Development Agreement: Fees Summary of Comments A commenter infers the applicant is providing a gift to the City. Response General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 requires a development agreement for all projects in the Airport Business Area that include infill residential units. Therefore, the Project applicant was required to enter into a development agreement with the City. Pursuant to the General Plan policy, the development agreement must define improvements and public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment on the number, density, and location of housing units. The applicant agreed to pay a $7,500,000 public benefit fee. Such a fee does not constitute a "gift" but rather is consideration for the City's commitment to allow a certain number of housing units at a particular density and in a particular location. The terms of the development for the Project are in accordance with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.12 and California law. 45 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Summary of Comments Several comments were provided asserting that the Project violates and is inconsistent with the Koll Center CC&Rs. Response CC&Rs are private voluntary covenants between private parties rather than between a governmental agency and a private party. They are not CEQA environmental issues and are not enforced by the City. Conditions of Approval Summary of Comments A commenter asserted that the Project's conditions were internally inconsistent because of a General Plan inconsistency Response Resolution No. 2021-3 lays out in great detail the facts in support of the Project's consistency with each applicable General Plan policy. Without specific facts to the contrary of these findings, the assertion that the Project's conditions of approval are defective because of a General Plan inconsistency is unsupported. Inability To Approved Required Resolution Summary of Comments A commenter has suggested that the City Council will not be able to make the findings for the resolution to approve the Project's entitlements. Commenter alleges that the project is not consistent with the zoning for the site and that the proposed Project is inconsistent and incompatible (bulk, scale, aesthetics). Further it is alleged that the development would bisect Koll Center Newport. Response See the responses titled "Aesthetics" and "Land Use" for responses to these comments. The commenter is incorrect that residential development was never contemplated for the project site. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Housing Element identifies the project site as Potential Residential Village Site 3 in the Sites Analysis and Inventory. In reference to the site, the Housing Element states "Further supporting the realistic development potential for these areas is the Integrated Conceptual Development Plan that has been prepared for future residential development on the Koll (Site 3) and Uptown Newport (formerly referred as Conexant) (Site 4) properties." As it applies to schools, the project site has been planned for residential development and is located within the boundaries of the Santa Ana Unified School District. 46 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Summary of Comments A commenter stated that the RHNA housing requirements cannot be met by projects that have market rate housing with only a small affordable unit count. Response The City is obligated to plan for thousands of new housing units over the next eight years under the sixth cycle of the State's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Planning and permitting infill residential development of surface parking lots with replacement structured parking contributes to meeting the City's legal obligations under RHNA. The Project directly contributes to the City's attainment of this RHNA target. 47 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR ReSDonsesto Correspondence rROUXJ Date: January 21, 2021 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Tim Stanley, Picerne Development c/o Jennifer Hernandez, Holland & Knight LLP From: Mauricio H. Escobar, P.G., Andrea Berlinghof, P.E., Roux Associates, Inc. Subject: Rebuttal to CEQA Comments Related to Contamination at Proposed Development, Lots 1, 3 and 5 (associated with buildings at 4400 Von Karman Avenue), Newport Beach, California At the request of Holland & Knight LLP (Counsel/HK Law) and for the benefit of Picerne Development (Client), Roux Associates, Inc. (Roux) has prepared this Technical Memorandum with rebuttal to comments asserting soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination in the area of Client's proposed development at Lots 1, 3, and 5 — associated with buildings at 4400 Von Karman Avenue — in the City of Newport Beach, California (Site, Roux Figure 1). Lots 1 and 3 shown in Roux Figure 2 is the location of the proposed 4400 Von Karman redevelopment; the proposed redevelopment includes multi -unit residential apartments beginning on the second or third floor, with two levels of subterranean parking and a minimum of one floor of parking or amenity spaces (Roux Figure 3); no living spaces will be constructed on the ground floor. Lot 5 shown in Roux Figure 2, is the location of a proposed multi-level, above ground parking structure with no inhabitable spaces. As confirmed by Client, the development plans do not call for dewatering. Roux reviewed the following documents provided by Client on January 15 and 18, 2021: 1) "Limited Environmental Assessment" letter, prepared by NOREAS, Inc. (NOREAS) dated January 11, 2021; and 2) "Review of Potential Soil and Groundwater Environmental Issues Related to Construction of the Residences at 4400 Von Karman" letter prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc. (EKI) dated January 11, 2021. This Technical Memorandum has been prepared in response to claims of contamination at the Site asserted in the NOREAS letter and the EKI letter. To assess the validity of the claims, Roux conducted a technical review of relevant environmental reports publicly available on the State of California's GeoTracker online database to evaluate the current documented condition of soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at the Site and potential risks those conditions may pose to Client's proposed development. Where appropriate, figures and excerpts have been borrowed from existing reports in support of the observations and conclusions presented in this Technical Memorandum; these are included as Roux Figures 1 through 3 and Attachments 1 through 3. For ease of review, Roux's rebuttal comments below have been enumerated; many of the NOREAS and EKI comments are similar in nature and in some cases, specific responses by Roux apply to multiple assertions. NOREAS Letter The NOREAS letter provides a significant amount of background, previous environmental investigations and remediations for Jazz Semiconductor, which was formerly owned by Synaptics, Inc. (formerly Conexant Systems, Inc.), and is referred to by NOREAS as "the Conexant site." The background provided 515o East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 450 ■ Long Beach, California 90804 ■ +1.310.879.4900 ■ www.rouxinc.com California ■ Illinois ■ Massachusetts ■ New Jersey ■ New York ■ Texas January 21, 2021 Page 2 in the NOREAS letter is generally consistent with Roux's understanding of the Conexant site, however, certain conclusions reached by NOREAS are unsupported by data or fact. 1. NOREAS asserts that contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at the Conexant Site "apparently resulted in the presence" of contamination in Lot 5 (below from NOREAS): Several properties with potential contamination or significant soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contamination have been identified adjacent and or in the vicinity of Lots 1, 3, and 5. Specifically, the reported level of VOC contamination in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater has been significant in the nearby former Conexant Site, which had apparently resulted in presence of soil vapor contamination in Lot 5. Although several rounds of soil vapor and groundwater remediation have been conducted at the former Conexant Site, the SVE/DPL was shut down in 2016. NOREAS's statement that VOC contamination has "apparently resulted in the presence" of contamination in Lot 5 appears to be conjecture. In fact, figures prepared by Geosyntec in 2014 show that VOC contamination in soil and groundwater at Conexant do not extend onto Lot 5 in any meaningful way (Attachment 1)1. This is further supported by soil vapor data near Lot 5 collected by RM Environmental, Inc. (RME) in May 2010, which showed little to no VOCs in shallow or deep soil vapor near the property boundary with Lot 5 (Attachment 2)2. Lastly, groundwater data collected over the past several years has consistently shown that VOC impacts to the shallow groundwater zone in wells to the north of the Conexant site are not impacted by VOCs(Attachment 3)3,4. Based on these data and facts, the assertion that significant VOC contamination extends onto the Site cannot be supported. There is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by off -Site contamination. 2. NOREAS asserts that lithology will cause rebound of VOCs in shallow soil vapor beneath the Conexant site that may affect soil vapor at Lot 5 (below from NOREAS): JHA (2019) reported presence of a significant residual contaminant mass within the "Clayey Vadose Zone". Presence of contaminated clayey soil in vadose zone makes the removal of VOCs via vapor extraction (SVE and DPE) difficult. Therefore, it is common that once the SVE/DPE operations cease, contaminant vapor concentrations build slowly back up to the initial conditions by diffusion from the residual contamination in clay because only a small fraction of the initial contaminant mass is normally removed by SVE/DPE. The last soil vapor survey at the former Conexant Site was reportedly conducted in 2006. Therefore, if a new round of soil vapor survey is conducted at the former Conexant Site, it is probable that significant concentrations of VOCs will be detected in soil vapor at various locations, including in some areas of Lot 5, where significant VOC concentrations in soil vapor had been detected in 2005-2006. NOREAS's statement that "it is probable" that VOCs "will be detected in soil vapor at various locations, including some areas of Lot 5" is a theoretical future soil vapor sampling event that appears to ignore the soil vapor data collected by RME in May 2010 (Attachment 2) and the development plans for Lot 5 (surface parking lot). NOREAS does not define the term "significant" and incorrectly portrays lithology described by JHA Environmental, Inc. (JHA)3; in fact, JHAstates that the unsaturated zone is generally comprised of very fine- to medium -grained sand, silty Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan. 18 November 2014. 2 RM Environmental, Inc. (RME). Report of Installation of Soil Gas Probes GP -11 through GP -17, and Soil Gas Vapor Sampling of Soil Gas Probes GP -2 through GP -7 and GP -9 though GP -17. 7 November 2011. 3 JHA Environmental, Inc (JHA). 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. 4 Shallow groundwater flow direction is currently inwards at the Conexant site due to a residual groundwater depression, but prior to extraction, the apparent direction of groundwater flow in the Shallow Zone beneath the site was to the southeast, cross -gradient from the Site. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 3 sand, sandy silt, and clayey sediments. The Unsaturated Zone is very heterogeneous and there is poor lateral correlation of specific layers between wells." Lastly, it is noteworthy that the SVE/DPE system at the Conexant site was reported to have reached asymptotic conditions after removing 14,188.7 cumulative pounds of VOCs and Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) to the satisfaction of the regulatory oversight agency, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SA-RWQCB)5. The assertion that lithology will cause rebound of VOCs in soil vapor that may affect development of Lot 5 appears unfounded. 3. NOREAS asserts that groundwater contamination beneath the Conexant site could affect development of Lots 1, 3, and 5 due to plume migration caused by theoretical dewatering activities as part of Site construction (below from NOREAS): As noted in the JHA Report (2019), the groundwater at the former Conexant Site is still contaminated (see Figures 6, 7, 9, and 10 in Appendix B). As mentioned previously, it is NOREAS's understanding that there are plans to develop Lots 1 and 3 into a residential building with associated subterranean parking and Lot 5 into a parking structure. However, NOREAS is not aware of the design details and the planned vertical depth of the subterranean parking structure below ground surface. If the depth of the subterranean parking is extended below the existing groundwater level, then a dewatering system may become necessary. In such case, the groundwater will likely need to be removed (pumped) and treated prior to discharge. As such, the removal of groundwater for dewatering purposes may cause a drop in groundwater level in the area of the removal and causing the existing contaminated groundwater from the former Conexant Site to move towards Lots 1, 3, and 5. This potential issue needs to be considered as part of the development plans. NOREAS appears misinformed and admits they are "not aware of the design details and the planned vertical depth of the subterranean parking structure" at Lots 1 and 3. As previously stated, proposed development plans do not call for dewatering, VOCs from the Conexant site are not present in shallow groundwater beneath the Site, and groundwater flow direction prior to remediation was to the southeast'. Therefore, the assertion that Site development activities will mobilize VOC contamination in groundwater from the Conexant site and adversely affect development cannot be supported. 4. NOREAS makes the general assertion that environmental conditions at properties other than the Conexant site could negatively affect Site development. NOREAS cites a closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case and dry-cleaning facilities located approximately 900 feet west-northwest from the Site. However, NOREAS offers no records of impacts or any data to support their assertion. Given the lack of evidence of impacts, the distance, and the proposed development plan (residents not on ground floor), these assertions cannot be substantiated. EKI Letter The EKI letter focuses on contamination, assessment, and remediation that has occurred at the Conexant site. In particular, EKI highlights pre -remediation data and cites Iithology as a possible conduit for contamination that "has migrated in the direction of the Site and could affect development. EKI's assertions are largely unsupported by fact and appear to ignore the current data on the Conexant site and off-site to the north and west. 5. EKI makes the declarative statement more than once that VOCs from the Conexant site have migrated towards the Site. 5 RME. Report of Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) Sampling and Soil Confirmation Borings. July 26, 2016. 6 JHA Environmental, Inc (JHA). 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 4 EKI has determined that historical contamination by volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") has migrated into the shallow and intermediate ground water zones which migrated to the north and west of the former Conexant site towards the Proposed development. EKI offers no specific information as to if, or how, their conclusion may affect development of Lot 5. As stated in rebuttal comment No. 1, there is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by contamination at the Conexant site. 6. EKI cites a 2017 groundwater figure and a 2020 Geosyntec groundwater figure as evidence that groundwater beneath the Site is contaminated. EKI appears to be unaware that JHA published a July 2019 report with the most recent shallow groundwater data (Attachment 3). In its July 2019 report, JHA states that shallow groundwater wells sampled in the vicinity of Lot 5 (wells M-29 and M-30) were reported to "have had consistent non -detect results over the last five years"'. EKI also appears to confuse the Geosyntec 2020 groundwater figure as being for shallow groundwater when it fact it is for the Intermediate Zone, which is found between 65 and 100 feet below ground surface, separated from the shallow groundwater zone by a 20 foot thick, laterally extensive fine grained unit known as Aquitard A'. For these reasons, EKI's assertion cannot be supported. 7. EKI asserts that migration of VOCs from the Conexant site to Lot 5 poses "two significant issue (sic)" — the need for a Soil Management Plan and "risk of indoor air contamination impacts to residents". The first issue asserted by EKI is: 1) Since earthwork and footings will be required to build the first parking structure planned in this development, and its location is near the contaminant source area on the Jazz Semiconductor property, there is a potential that the RWQCB will require the preparation of a Soil Management Plan describing specific precautions, testing, and actions that would need to be undertaken if VOC soil or groundwater impacts are encountered during this construction. The apartments that are part of this construction plan will have subterranean parking and plan to excavate 20 feet below ground surface. Though this area is further away from the contaminant source, there is a potential that groundwater and soils in that area may also be impacted. There is also a potential that any dewatering activities that might be associated with the work would draw contaminated groundwater into the area. As stated in rebuttal comment Nos. 1 and 5, there is no data or reasonable technical argument to support the assertion that development of Lot 5 with a surface parking garage may be negatively affected by contamination at the Conexant site. There is no data or information provided to support soil contamination or historical activities at Lot 5 that may have negatively impacted its environmental condition. The need for a Soil Management Plan (SMP) and regulatory oversight it wholly unsupported. Further, EKI offers no information or data to substantiate the assertion that Lots 1 and 3 may be affected by VOCs from the Conexant Site. Lastly, EKI appears unaware that development plans do not call for dewatering. EKI offers no substantive arguments to support their first "significant issue." Based on data and fact, an SMP appears unnecessary and the development plans do not call for dewatering activities. ' JHA. 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. 9 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Work Plan for Supplemental Groundwater Monitoring Well Installation. 17 March 2020. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M January 21, 2021 Page 5 The second issue asserted by EKI is: 2) The potential presence of VOCs in shallow groundwater beneath the Proposed Development creates a potential risk of indoor air contamination impacts to residents. This risk should be evaluated and potential vapor control measures may be appropriate on buildings and facilities. As discussed above, there is no indication of VOCs in shallow groundwater, soil, or soil vapor beneath Lots 1 and 3. Additionally, development plans for Lot 1 and 3 include subterranean parking levels and a minimum of one aboveground parking or amenity level below all residential units at the Site. EKI offers no substantive arguments to support their second "significant issue." Based on data and fact, there is no documented risk from vapor intrusion to future residents and therefore no need for vapor control measures. Andrea Berlinghof Senior Engineer O' Mauricio Escobar Principal Geologist Figures Roux Figure 1 — Site Location Map' Roux Figure 2 — Site Map' Roux Figure 3 — Building Sections for Residences at 4400 Von Karman10 Attachments Attachment 1 — Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E11 Attachment 2 — RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table12 Attachment 3 — JHA Figures 5 through 713 9 Figures from NOREAS letter. 10 Residences at 4400 Von Karman Entitlement Submittal. 17 December 2020. 11 Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. Supplemental Remedial Investigation Work Plan. 18 November 2014. 12 RM Environmental, Inc. (RME). Report of Installation of Soil Gas Probes GP -11 through GP -17, and Soil Gas Vapor Sampling of Soil Gas Probes GP -2 through GP -7 and GP -9 though GP -17. 7 November 2011. 13 JHA. 2019 Annual Groundwater and Remediation Progress Report. November 2019. ROUX I Technical Memorandum 3664.0001L100/M Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 FIGURES 1. Site Location Map 2. Site Map 3. Building Sections for Residences at 4400 Von Karman 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX ROUX FIGURE 1 -- J v — n t [Ilk S p.F.ig Gun Club BiikeF St v �SA j ca HrL Wa yn-L —!5E1 W- (-i r L sit i rI t?A W - 60 SITE i Map Source: Magau& a�f�t Region P SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Lots 1, 3 and 5 Koll Center Newport Newport Beach, Ca EMS542 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Drafter Figure AS AF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, INC. 05/28/2020 FinanciallyBased Environmental Solutions 1 ROUX FIGURE 3 RESIDENCES AT 4400 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA TCA # 2019-032 13.13' PIL UNIT UNIT w i Q UNIT OfI w o UNIT PARALLEL PARK'G 5.53' PARKING PARKING PARKING li \ A R C H I T E C T S 10.63' 3) SECTION C TPG (KCN) ACQUISITION LLC ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECEMBER 17, 2020 PARKING PARKING CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 13.13' PL �I LD2� wl coJI ■ 9' wl 0PARALLEL PARK' 9.80' I PL I ' UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT gj�07.13' q �I 2 (D I UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT COR. ROOF DECK STAIR 4 T Lo UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT T '-'j I PARALLEL ;� LEVEL 5 o PARK'G UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 1.88' UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR 1 o PARKING 1 + 3) SECTION C TPG (KCN) ACQUISITION LLC ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DECEMBER 17, 2020 PARKING PARKING CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR 13.13' PL �I LD2� wl coJI ■ 9' wl 0PARALLEL PARK' 9.80' I 0 T UNIT T T UNIT o T 0 AMENITY - - - - --- --- -T T 1 Q AMENITY T PARKING 0 PARKING C? 0 0' 30' 60' 120' T.O. PARAPET ------------ ROOF OL a � LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 � LEVEL 3 � LEVEL 2 h c� LEVEL 1 h BASEMENTI Ilk BASEMENT 2 � 2) SECTION B 1) SECTION A C B A KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTIONS TO.PARAPET gj�07.13' q r ROOF OL UNIT UNIT UNIT COR. ROOF DECK STAIR 4 T T ;� LEVEL 5 --- --- --_ - --_- - --� -- - UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR 1 o C 1 + LEVEL 4 _ _ +CD _ OL UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR__= = o _= ----_ __ ___ _T �- --C,5 _ _ _ LEVEL 3 OL _- UNIT UNIT UNIT CORRIDOR -= = T C5CD cc LEVEL 2 CORRIDOR _- -_ _ "' 4T O LEVEL 1 C) BASEMENT 1 OLT CD T BASEMENT 2 0 T UNIT T T UNIT o T 0 AMENITY - - - - --- --- -T T 1 Q AMENITY T PARKING 0 PARKING C? 0 0' 30' 60' 120' T.O. PARAPET ------------ ROOF OL a � LEVEL 5 LEVEL 4 � LEVEL 3 � LEVEL 2 h c� LEVEL 1 h BASEMENTI Ilk BASEMENT 2 � 2) SECTION B 1) SECTION A C B A KEY PLAN BUILDING SECTIONS Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENTS 1. Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E 2. RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table 3. JHA Figures 5 through 7 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT Geosyntec Figures 4A through 6E 3664.0001L100/CVRS ROUX D Legend • Roderik Smith (1989) ❑ JAG (2010) SIE Woodward Clyde (1984-1985) .f Jacob & Hefner ❑ TRC Envirormental Consultants (1988)s / Haley & Aldrich (2007c) ti — — Historical Source Area a 100 mg/kg Total VOCs in Soil Contours: 5 ft bgs 10 ft bgs 15 ft bgs 20 ft bgs 25 ft bgs Historical Soil Borings InterpretedTotal VOCs in Soil 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 50 25 0 50 100 Feet GeosyntecO' Figure consultants 4A Project No: HY1483 September 2014 Legend • Roderik Smith (1989) ❑ JAG (2010) SIE Woodward Clyde (1984-1985) .f Jacob & Hefner TRC Envirormental Consultants (1988)s / Haley & Aldrich (2007c) ti — — Historical Source Area a 1 mg/kg Dioxane in Soil Contours: 5ftbgs 10 ft bgs 15 ft bgs 20 ft bgs 25 ft bgs Historical Soil Borings Interpreted 1,4 Dioxane in Soil 4311 Jamboree Road Newport Beach, CA 50 25 0 50 100 Feet GeosyntecO' Figure consultants 413 Project No: HY1483 September 2014 Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 5 ft bgs Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone ----------- ---------- L ----=L L__, :A B5 9 B51 B52 B45 — B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 ES -1 3 ---------B46 • r B40 B41 NB35 ? ? ♦ B47 B38 B29 r i B30 B44 B36♦ 7B16 C� B31 ES -2 I I �B25A B25j I 1 r B18 n B26 ? `1B32 B33 I 1 SZO-2j al • LSZT-1 B27 B37I I •'SZO-1 • I B21B28 ♦ B20 B22 ' ♦ r / ♦ C'1 ♦ I / B13 I / ♦aI B52S �- - ES -3A B9 B10 IP '*" JVAI 90( B7 M-33 • ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil at 5 ft bgs) rA Geosyntec 5A Legend • Soil Samples O • L Total VOCs in Soil at 10 ft bgs Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone I———I L B5 B45 — B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 ES -1 M-38 ---------------------- B46 B34 r B40 B41 �B35 ? ? ♦ B47 ♦ - IT -5 B29 ♦ FB y B30 B44♦ ♦ �B36♦ OpW B16 C� B31 ES -2 l \ • B25A B25 ` J • cll B32 8 7B26 B1B33 I - SZO-2 • VL Cr ♦ �r61%SZT-1 B27 - B37 I r1-7 - B12 ♦ (`SZO-1/ B21 B28 �� I ri � B22 B51 B13B52N All /• w �• I B52S � '�• ES -3A B9 P t ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil 10 ft bgs) ` �M-33 s� r, Geosyntec consultants 5B Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 15 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone B45 - B48 O AEI -4A .J OW B49 ES -1 WM!38----------------- B46OB40 B41 35 ? ♦ B47 7 B30 B44 M-39: B36 ♦ �r I � / ' � - r♦ i I B31 ES -2 ♦ ♦ �B42 B25A B25 1 B18 rB26 B32 B33 J* 1 SZO-2 V ? v 4r 19 SZT-1 B27 B37' I E1-1 :1 7 - B12 INNSZO-1 B20� 21 �B28 \ ♦ O B22 7 B51 B13 / O \ ♦ / ♦ i B52N ♦ B23 B52S ES -3A _ B15 Cil B9 M-36 B5 M-33 i ---- Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (Total VOCs in Soil 15 ft bgs) rA Geosyntec 5C Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 20 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone B45 - B48 O AEI -4A .J B49 1.9 ES -1 MF%B3 --------------------------------B46 B34B40 B41 -_5 _ ♦ B47 IT -5 B38 / i B44 B30 B36 I B16 1 � B31 ES -2 B42 C�1 � B25A � B25 B26 B32 1901 SZO-218 O ?B33 ♦ EI -1 •rB19_ SZT-1 B27 B37 JOF - B12 ♦ SZO-1 B21 B28 ♦ B20 ? / ♦ O B22 / B51 B13 / B52N ♦ B23 B52S ES -3A - B15 B9 M-36 B5 M-33 i B10 ---------------------------- Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) i rA (Total VOCs in Soil 20 ft bgs) Geosyntec 5D Legend • Soil Samples O • Total VOCs in Soil at 25 ft bgs L Total VOCs in the Shallow Groundwater Zone I ---I L B45 - B48 COj AEI -4A .J OW B49 r - ES -1 B35 `s ♦ IT -5 M-39: Cs � B16 � 11 f ES -2 B25A szo-2 ♦ 40P 40P� SZT-1 ♦qqPf rl-7 B12 EI�1 ' SZO-1 40P40P f B51 Cil � \ ♦ ♦ B52N B52S ES -3A B9 M-36 B10 B5 ` �M-33 s� ------------Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) Total VOCs in Soil 25 ft bgs r, Geosyntec 5E Legend • Soil Samples O • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 5 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1---1 L M-39 s 1-7 r �B5 B5 r. B7 r �r ES -1 M-38 B46 ■ B34 � w � ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 C1 ♦ B47 I ♦ IT -5 F4� B29r B38 B44♦'B30 ? I C� B36♦ 16B31 ES2. B25A B25�'B18 B26 )B2 Z0�2rB19.- SZT-1 EI -1 �`� B27B37I B12r ♦ SZO-1 B21- �� ♦ B20 I / ♦ ti B22 I / ♦ C? I / I i 1 �-B13 ♦ B52N ♦♦I B52S. ES -3A B9 B10 M-33 i rA Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 5 ft bgs) Geosyntec consultants 6A Legend Soil Samples O • • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 10 ft bgs ———I L — — i 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1——-1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r r. B5 i "Ewe ------------ 1-9 ft M-38 err ES -1 B46 ■ � w � ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 C� � ♦ B47 SIT -5 B38 B29 ? � 'B30 B44 / B36 B16 ` B31 ES -2, B25A B25 l W4* \ B18 �B26 �B32 B33 \ \ SZ04rB19 SSZT-1 B27 B37 1 B12,K ♦ SZp-1 B21� B28 1 B20 B22 —B13 i 1 — B13 B52N B52S. ES -3A B9 B10 Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 10 ft bgs) ------------------ Mai M-33 i rA Geosyntec consultants 6B Legend Soil Samples O • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 15 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone L ----------s - IPB34 M-38 46410 ES- M -38 ■ ♦ B40- B41.. ♦B35 O O O ♦ B47 F r1T-5 638 / B29 =W B44 M-39 / B36 B16 B42 B31 ES -2. j � \ I �B25A B25 41 I B18 rB26 C7 `�B32 B33 \� SZO-2 C'1 �kl 9 1 E1_1 ISZTG1� B27 B37 �I-7 B12r ♦' SZ�O-1 B21 B28 / \ ♦ B20 B22 ' / B51 - B13_ B52N ♦ I B23 ♦♦I B50 B52S. ES -3A B15 CSI B9 M-36 B10 B5 rj M-33 i r, Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 15 ft bgs) Geosyntec consultants 6C Legend Soil Samples 0 • • 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 20 ft bgs L 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1——-1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r rj r� M-38 B46410 ES -1 ■ -------------- B40- 1341., ♦B35 O O ` B47 IT -5 B29 ■ -Ell* B44 B38 B44 / 1336 131s ` � QA7 El - B12 r B� / JML B51 to B52S M-33 i B9 CJ -3H B15 CSI rA Comparison of Total VOCs in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 20 ft bgs) Geosyntec"" consultants 6D Legend • Soil Samples 0 • L 1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 25 ft bgs 1,4 -Dioxane in the Shallow Groundwater Zone 1---1 L B5 M-39 s 1-7 r rj ---------- 1:9 rr M-38 ES -1 ■ w-------------- - OPI ♦B35 C'1 i IT -5 r, +, s Comparison of 1,4 Dioxane in Soil (2007) and Shallow Groundwater Zone (2014) (1,4 -Dioxane in Soil at 25 ft bgs) Geosyntec"" consultants 6E Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 2 RME Soil Vapor Figure and Table 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX 92AE C -.,t HRA 12.12.11 Table 1: Con exant Soil Gas in u gIM3 - 10.31-11 f.r.W r>opm pale b-le+o chlere narr. Vint[ ChleHd. mW-. Awn 1..-0khmrc c. MMe. uinw 1,1,241 5,0,2J[ Aw - 1-1.5- pWe1e 1.1i0ionioro -'2. M nerve 2•Mrt.nw.. Ch+••e[..m 1,1.1- TncMere 0-33 T11 -lb. ~0 P- i Tw- r.n.cMo 2- E*o X"- xlyry !•^[+^"^ en. Fhc.nen. b.n4ene %ytwn .-Xv- sry[w s�+�ry1 1 iu.m Txrnxny[ GP -1-S 10' s 0.5128/10 NQ .8 ND 8.2 ND 5.1 PS NQ 7.9 NO 3i NO 15 116 NO .9 N 8.0 NQ .9 28 NO 9. NO 11 15 Np 71 it 68 ND 11 HD 73 N 9.1 N B.B 18 Nfl 8.5 NQ 19 H 19 GP -9-D 15' s 05128110 NA .3 HQ 7.7 NO(4-S) 34 ND 7.4 45 NO 1d 76 NQ .4 N 7.6 NO .4 18 11 NO 10 16 ND 10 ND 82 N 10 17 N 6.fi H 8.1 24 ND(OA) NO .7 NO 18 GP -2-S 11Y s OV281t0 Nil 9.d ND 7.9 HO 4, N 11 NQ 7.8 470 ND 15 170 NO .B NO 7.7 NO .6 40 ND .3 ND(IO) 65 Nil 10 49 210 NO 10 NO 13 NO 8.6 12 38 71 N .9 NQ 19 GP -2-D 15' s 05!28110 Na 8,9 N 7.5 N 4.6 NWO) ND 7. 88 NO 14 270 NO .2 ND .3 Na .2 57 NO 8.8 N 9.8 U H 20 110 NO . NO 12 N"- 9.6 30 8A NO .3 NO t8 GP -3-S Sp' s 05/28/10 ND .S ND 7.7 ND 4.6 NOW) 54 170 170 ND ,4 Np Ai Nfi 7.d 43 N30-11 53 17 140 NO(7-7) 200 N 10 480 ND 8.6 14 47 12 ND(R.7 H 16 GP-" 15' s 05/28/70 ND 9.3 N N 4. NOW) 100 170 149 NQ .4 ND 7.0 79 42 ND .7 32 53 29 NO .7 150 N 10 18 NO 8.8 12 19 11 No 9.7 NQ 18 GP -4 5' s OSR8170 Np 70.0 9.2 H 5. NO 71 NO 33 Np 15 139 Nfl 8.0 NO 6.2 H 8.0 32 NQ .9 NO(I f 29 ND 17 17 B6 ND 11 N 14 NQ 9.3 NO .8 16 NO 6.8 NO 10 ND(2D) GPI -5 5' 05!28179 (4D 8.8 N .3 ND 4.5 N 50.0NO MN0s.O NQ 28 HD 1d 79 HD .0 Np .2 NQ .0 19 NO 8.7 ND 9. 11 NO .5 8.4 46 ND .7 H 1 Z NO NO 13 N 7- ND 9.2 NO(M GP -8 5' 05!28119 N f0. S.fi 5.9 NQ 11 50 HD 15 210 NQ 8.0 NO 2 84 53 HO .9 N{] 71 37 26 91 NO 51 ND t4 NO .3 NQ .8 18 NQ B.8 NQ 70 NQ 2GP•7 5' OS12811p N 9.t N 7.8 N 4. NO 1 N 29 N 14 7Y 77 N9 7.4 2l0 23 NO 9.0 NQ 70 29 35 99 NQ 1 N 1 Ha 8.5 ND .0 20 HD S.0 ND 9.5 NO 1GP-8•S f0' s 05128/10 N 8.3 ND 7. ND 4.3 N 9.5 68 NQ 13 90 HO . NA .8 NQ 6. 3S HD 0.2 NO 43 28 160 NO 9.2 ND 71 Nfl 12 40 11 NO S. NO 1 GP -e -p 15' s 05128/19 NO 8. ND .5 Np 4-8 Nfl 10 . 46 NO td 12D NO .2 NO .3 HD 7. 42 ND 8.8 NO 9.6 43 tl 160 NO .8 ND(M NA 8.3 11 19 11 NQ 9.3 NO 1 GP -9.6 10' s 05/28/10 Np 98 NO 82 NO 51 NO 110 NO 79 NO 310 NO t50 H 240 NQ 9 ND 80 ND 9 NO 58 INNOD HD 110 190 87 780 NO 11 NO(130 NE)91 H 86 NO 86 NQ 8B ND 10 NQ 19GP-9•D 15' 05!28110 Na 44 NQ 37 23 HA 50 NO 3$ Np 14 H 66 ND 110 ND NO 38 Nb 35 Nil 26 NO 43 N 48 290 a 2t9 ND d8 NQ ND 41 H 39 b9 ND 39 H 4B NDGA•1D-S 70' s 05!28170 NO 8. NO .2 NO 4,$ NQ .6 ND .9 92 N i3 61 Np e. NQ 7.1 ND 6.4 19 H B.5 ND 5 3313 HN, 110 N 9.5 ND 1 ND 8.0 7.7 2S Np -$ Np Np 17GP-10.3 15' s 05128/70 152 81 19 3313 110 NO 1 7.7 2SGP-10.O 15' 05128/10 ND 8.7 ND .7 NO 4.2 NO 9. Np 8.5 Np 25 NQ 1 88 NO .5 ND B-8 Np 8.5 45 N S.0 ND 8.9 6.2 5, 190 ND 8.9 200 NQ .5 NO 7.1 18 ND .f ND .1 GP -1-S 10' 3 08111/11 NS NS NS NS HS HS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS S HS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS GP -1.O 75' 08111111 NS NS I NS NS NS NS NS NS NS HS NS NS NS NS NS S NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS GP -2-S 10' 08/11/71 2.2 1.00 ND [1,51 ND 1.1 NQ 0.79 N 3.7 NO 1.5 15 NA .79 Np 0.81 NO .79 9.2 ND 0.98 ND 1,1 8.1 3.3 9.9 NO 1.4 1.4 3.5 9.1 3.8 1.8 2-8 3,0 GP -2•0 75's 08/11/71 2,1 0.92 ND 0.57 NA 1.1 ND(Q 79 N 3.] N 1.5 12 NOM-79) ND 0.87 NO 0.79 2.9 Np 0.95 NO 1.1 9.7 HO 1.1 3.6 10 NO 1.4 0.82 4.9 9.0 4.1 3.3 3.7 4.1 GP -3-6 10 bas 08/11111 3.1 1.4 1 NO(O.61) 1.4 1 NE)0.7 8.2 1 NO0.51 26 ND ,7 NO 0.81 ND(Oltl 9.2 ND .98 Nl)1.] 8.65 NO l �D. 2.6 6.1 NQ 1.4 1.7 1.4 5.1 2.5 1.3 2.3 3.0 GP -3.0 15'bgs 04/11111 3.0 1.4 NO 0.57 1.3 ND 0.79 3.2 Nr)1.5 11 ND .79 ND 0.81 ND ,79 4.0 N.. .98 NQ 1.1 t.f N 1 1 2.0 7.8 NO 1,4 F7 0.82 1.6 GPJ 5' bgs 08111!7 7 3.3 "DL, 83 N 0.51 4.4 Na 0.79 N 3.1 ND 1.5 15 NO 0.79 NOM.81 ND 0.79 7.6 NZ)0.98 ND 1.1 1.2 NO(1.1 2.3 14 NQ 1.4 D(0.82 1.9 5.7 P.6 2.4 1.7 NO GP -5 OH111111 1.4 HD 0.83 H 0.51 1.5 ND 0.79) N .l NO(1.5) 8.S NQ 0.79 0.91 NO 0.79 3.3 N❑ .9B N 7.1) 1.2 20 1,6 6.8 SS b 0.62 1.5 5.0 2A 1.6 2.0 2.3 GP$ _Ebls 5' bgs 08175!11 3.8 NQ 2.8 27 H 7.8 NO 3.8 50 14 3.0 160 6.8 NO d N 2. NWA) 249 NQ 2.0 4.3 ND .4 ND 2.0 N 2.2 2.6 ND(2-2 HD .1 ND .5 ND 4. GP -7 5' kgS 08/17111 NOf22) ND 18 ND 14 ND 25 NO 18 NQ?6) NQ 34 69 56 ND $B 750 N 73 N NO(24) ND 14 S.200 ND 18 NO.UA ~NE 93 NQ 18 NO 9 NQ 19 NO(IS) N 1 NO H 44 GP•5-S 10' bos 08/11117 NS NS h5 NS NS N5 NS HS NS NS NS NS NS HS HS N$ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS HS NS GP -8-p 15' s 08111!17 NS NS NS NS NS N$ N$ NS NS NS NS NS NS H$ NS NS NS NS NS NS NS N5 NS 148 N8 NS GP-" 10' bus 06111!17 I NO .5 690 NQ 4.9 ND 11 ND .6 ND 30 NO 15 87 NO .6 NQ 7.8 ND 7.6 11 NO .4 NQ 1D 180 NQ 10 NQ .9 48 ND 13 ND -9 13 1 24 NQ 8.3 8.3 NOMA N 19 G" -D 15' bgs 08111/11 3.2 ND 2.1 NO 1.3 ND 2.6 ND(2-0 Nb 7.6 N 3.8 17 j ND .0 NOR -0) Nb 2.0 7.3 NQ .4 ND 2.7 32 NO .7 NO ,0 10 Nl)3.4 ND 2.0 S.7 &a 4.1 4.5 3.8 5.1 GP -10-S 10' W5 D6111111 4-2 Nb 2.7 NQ 1.3 4.7 ND .0 NO .8 N 3.8) 22 NQ .0 ND .0 ND 2.0 8.9 4.i 8.9 4.2 200 2A 16 750 ND 3.1 7.7 4.0 2,7 2.7 ND(4-9) GP -10-s 15' s 05Y2WIO 5.2 H 2.1 NO 1,3 5.7 NO(2.0) NQ .6 ND 3.8 23 ND 2.0 NO ,0 NQ 2.0 10.0 4.1 8.9 5.2 201 2A 16 SSt NQ 2.0 S.1 7.7 4.0 2.7 3.7 7.1 GP•10.0 15'bg5 0511 V71 2.8 N 2.1) NQ 1.3 4.1 ND .0 NO .8 N 3. 15 2A ND .0 3.2 4.9 4.7 18 2.2 410 2.8 t2 270 ND 2.0 NO S,7 32 2.2 NW. ND 4,9 GP -11-S IS - Ns 08/19/11 3.7 HQ 2.8 ND 7. N 3.4 3.4 16 100 290 HD .7 ND .8 NO(Z.7) 140 12 0.5 2.8 29 41 1 49 26 3.9 7A 24 7.6 7.8 3.9 NO .8 GP41.0 20' bgs 08/19/11 4-2 N 2.1) H 1.3 H 2.8 2.7 NO .8 62 160 NO(2.0) NQ A 18 71 7.1 2.9 3,2 28 33 46 15 3.5 6.8 21 6.4 6.6 2.7 ND 4.9 GP -12-S 11),bas 08!19111 3.1 H 2.1 ND 7.3 9.5 HD .0 12 75 260 ND 2.0 NO N 60 M(2.4 ND S.6 6.0 31 56 12 4.7 13 43 13 11 6.9 7.6 GP -12-D 15'bgs 06119/11 Y.8 1.8 NO -51 4.9 1A 32 26 60 2.8 2,0 78 23 5.4 NO 7.1 24 19 31 120 1 3.6 3.9 21 59 17 23 5.9 5.4 GP -1 3,-S Wbgs 06719/71 4.3 1 NW -11 ND 7.3 26 55 1 11 276 70 12 2.4 64 15 3.3 ND(2 3.9 370 4.3 65 98 ND 2.0 7.4 21 6.4 9.4 4,7 GP.13-D 15' Ns 06719/11 3.2 H 2.1 ND 7.3 35 79 25 360 190 30 4.8 290 67 4A NQ .7 11 520 31 730 130 4.8 18 68 17 1S 7.9 6.6 GP -14-S I(Fbgs 08119171 3.2 1.1 Na .51 12 2.1 15 24 100WNO�0-81) 0.81 ND 0.79 24 4A NO 1.7 8.2 7.2 19 110 7.1 3.6 17 49 16 17 9.0 7.5 GP•14-0 55' S 08[79171 3.2 3.8 Ni) .S4 t3 ND 0.79 31 0.81 0.85 20 74 NDO-1) 18 18 18 480 9.5 2.9 18 47 14 23 S,0 N 2.0 GF -1 5-S 10' s 08119/11 3.3 ND .83 ND 0.5F 2.6 H 0,79 32 NOO 0.81 NO 0.79 2S N 0.98 NQ 7.4 31.6 ND 7.1 4.5 35 N 9.4 5.3 8.7 26 8.0 11 3.1 8A GP -15-D 15' s 06719/11 3.3 ND(2 1 NO 1.3 15 3.8 14 O .0 ND 2. 25 2.8 ND 10 S.S SS 170 4.6 2.9 19 54 15 1s 6.8 5.2 GP -16•S 10, $0120111 3.9 1.5 0.183 3.2 0.363 1.33 Z-F;ND D 0.61 NO 0.91 6.0 0.455 NO 1.1 73 4.9 4.3 SS 6.2 0.82 6A 16 4.9 3.8 5.2 6.5 Is' 10720/11 0.93 0.69 0.32 14 0.81 13 0.25 3.3 8-1 , NO 0.98 NQ 1.1 9.6 75 HD 1.1 73 � 22 1.3 1.9 5.3 18 2.3 2.4 N 3.GP-17-5 19' 10120171 1.1 0.69 1.2 1,9 ND(O.79) 0.80.1 Ot0.81) NQ(0.79) 17 1.6 NO(1.1) 41 NO[1A O{p.82 76 0.84J 2.0 Yd 16 5.4 4.7 S.6 ND(3.0) GP•17•D 15' tD120177 I).78J 1.7 NQ11.3) ND(2.8) . ND 1.4 2A,} NDC3.8) 23 D .0 ND 1.97 8.8 NO(2A) ND(21) 78 NO (2.5) ND(2.0) 170 1.4J N 2.0) 14 21 7.2 12 12 1 N .3) $vil-Gds ug1m3 ProVCL Staiislies Pelvo+a am.. �+.4..�. h.ne vin[n Chie+541 T[Iw.m nuem 1.1AICMe[e Graben .. % 1,1,25'1 1,2.2*Fr Aexoir [•1,x• Oiehlele rhe.. 1,1J1ichle[e c1,2• xhaM chie+o 2A.rt.- CManWxn t,1.F- i+ichlom g.na.n. Trichlom lan4r 1 1.- eihen. !•�"o'• Te[•aclb 2• ca^ EInH [n p 6 m- %ylm. e-%y1.n1 5[y1.m 4ad.M Tolum. Trimxlryt Max @ Depth tr h 9 is +b 15 +s +5 is +0 5 15 5 +v 10 +5 5 10 1A 5 s 15 [5 +1 is +a Max 1 5.2 690 23 35 791 470 360 290 56 4.8 750 140 14 53 296 5200 45 210 270 4BUI 2459 47 23 12 7.6 MEAN 3.19] 51.61 5.-0 1001 151] 51.32 117.5 90.91 1275 2227 13ts Flag 5.542 17.17 33.65 375.2 1521 8+38 5837 4443 9.2 49.25 15.93 9.339 -0.621 1.921 50 --- - 0.94a 153.6 6873 19.E 27.37 x391 114 75.56 +701 1609 27 08 26,10 -51 4W5 18.51 57.55 1970 s2a 65.70 T979 12+6 T+R4 5888 13.01 3843 2813 1933 95% UCL 3.45 89.99 2.08 8.8611 14.171 53.23 57.62 137.8 6.58 1.166 -F4-08,-43 - 3.791 89.9 408 20.21 1271 36.6 71.7 8.61 20.9 23.3 8.57 5.09 4.64 Figure 4: Boring Locations Uptown Newport Facility Site .'� GP' 17 GP_55 CP -t3 GP- "I a ■ a r GP,9 Gil 16 GP -14 ■ ..10 GP -11 � GF GP4 0, I r .., ' I GP -7 ■ GP -5 I r � -I I !> ! I I ■ 14 a GP -2 �r �I�.•.:�. . 4i !W :011 R M Environment -al. Inc. itvjrts No. 10-6"9 FIGURE 1 I Technical Memorandum 4400 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660 ATTACHMENT 3 JHA Figures 5 through 7 3664.0001 L100/CVRS ROUX 0 J m Q U Q 1 BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 E X P L A N A T I O N O SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL M-33 • SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL ES -413 (NOT IN OPERATION) 6 DPE TEST WELL SZO-2 SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU EISB-S1 BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL NOT MONITORED 25.03 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL (ms1) CONTOUR OF EQUAL GROUNDWATER ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MSL NM NOT MONITORED N GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=200 0 100 200 400 O O I zE O E, a r�awx WWzw� 04 W Ga Z O d E- f� �ocoz W W O N O a a x rn E X P L A N A T I O N C \^/ L1t O SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL • SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL (NOT IN OPERATION) W • DPE TEST WELL SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU A E--� s BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL z %� EISB-S1 NOT MONITORED ,''4. A O Q � ti WELL IDENTIFICATION � � p u i ST q ES -2 m�F'r BENZENE 0.92 W W Z W M 29 VOLTILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) N 0 w ND CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PQ pq PER LITER (ug/L) Oa d O _ ` ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY <11 a ~' METHOD DECTION LIMIT I__ M-30 W W co ND M-25 J ANYALYTE DETECTED AT A CONCENTRATION z 04 4 Z Q BELOW THE REPORTING LIMIT "-' O M-39 M_ ND AND ABOVE THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT v) G4 U TRICHLORETHENE 0.11. S-1 Z Q M-3 EIS 1 � M-36 M O cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.82 P4 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.23J SZO SZT-1 O-1 3.2 0 J P� M- S- z SKO- 9 O KSKO O ER SIT O M-33 B I DING 02 -40 ES -46 Z -45 TEOR BUI ArG503) ~ o M-45 ES -5 ES -6 r; CHLOROFORM 0741 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.23 ES -6 H z� cis- 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.1 rT, trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.15J M -48R TRICHLOROETHENE 0.141 B ND Ln M-24 ES -4B �0�/ � �- 1. cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 10 04 V O trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.311 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.86 N z M-37 ES -5A VINYL CHLORIDE 7.4 M-37 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.8 4 -DIOXANE 0.361 C 7 11,4 -DIOXANE HLOR0.681 ACETONE 9.6J r Z Z CHLOROETHANE 0.371 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.26 Q � � � 0 -BUTANONE 3.61 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.20 r ARBON DISULFIDE 0.41 O CHLOROFORM 0.111 ,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.061 UPTOWN NEWPORT PHASE 1 GRAPHIC SCALE 1 "=200 P 0 100 200 400 BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 KSKO-1 iINYL CHLORIDE 0.151 .1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.79 .1-DICHLOROETHENE 1.3 is-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 46 ans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.7 -RICHLOROETHENE 25 KSKO-2 M-40 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.82 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 6.8 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 57 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 7.9 TETRACHLOROETHENE 13 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 2.6 TRICHLOROETHENE 220 VINYL CHLORIDE 0.301 BENZENE 0.095) CHLOROFORM 0.171 SZO-2 M-40 ACETONE 1000 1,2-DICHLOROBENZEN 320 1,4 -DIOXANE 970 VINYL CHLORIDE trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.741 2_gUTANONE TRICHLOROETHENE 3.21 CHLOROBENZENE 37 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 2.41 t,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 4.41 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 700 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 2.31 DI -ISOPROPYL ETHER 4.SJ ETHYLBENZENE 35 METHYLENE CHLORIDE B.OJ m,p-XYLENE 74 o -XYLENE 45 TOLUENE 15 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 18 M-38 M-40 1.9 TETRACHLOROETHENE 1.4 TRICHLOROETHENE 67 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 18 1,4 -DIOXANE 0.531 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.741 2_gUTANONE 2.21 CHLOROETHANE 4.2 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.161 CHLOROFORM p.1gJ L.1 DICHLOROFTHFNF 0.231 M-38 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 1.9 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.261 ACETONE 4.SJ TRANS-I,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.086) ES -1 SZT-1 0.381 ETHYLBENZENE 130 CHLOROETHANE 900 CHLOROBENZENE 900 TOLUENE 11 1,2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 290 TRICHLOROETHENE 5.7 1,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 52 VINYL CHLORIDE 24 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 19 m,p-XYLENES 110 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 20 o -XYLENES 31 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 5.41 1,4 -DIOXANE 15 1,3 -DICHLOROBENZENE 5.31 n-PROPYLBENZENE 1.61 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 3.91 ISOPROPYLBENZENE 2.11 ES -1 CHLOROFORM 0.381 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 8.0 trans-l,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.281 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.381 TRICHLOROETHENE 1.9 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.451 ES -3A TRICHLOROETHENE 0.191 ACETONE 4.SJ cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.491 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.056) trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.161 M-33 SZO-1 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.151 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.281 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 22 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.70 TRICHLOROETHENE 2.5 VINYL CHLORIDE 0.451 1,4 -DIOXANE 0.381 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.451 ES -2 SZO-1 BENZENE 0.251 1.2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 3.9 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.87 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 0.191 pis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 16 trans-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.82 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.321 TRICHLOROETHENE 4.6 VINYL CHLORIDE 11 1,4 -DIOXANE 51 M-24 SZO-1 0.191 ACETONE 2300 CHLOROETHANE 7.2 1,2 -DICHLOROBENZENE 82 1,4 -DICHLOROBENZENE 2.61 2-BUTANONE (MEK) 361 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 8.2 ETHYLBENZENE 39 DI -ISOPROPYL ETHER (DIPE) 1.21 CHLOROBENZENE 190 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 1.31 VINYL CHLORIDE 5.4 o -XYLENE 17 m,p-XYLENES 31 TOLUENE 3.91 1,4 -DIOXANE 1100 cis-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 3.61 M-24 CHLOROFORM 0.191 1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.181 1,3,5-TRIMETHYLBENZENE 0.121 TETRACHLOROETHENE 0.331 TRICHLOROETHENE 0.201 NAPHTHALENE 0.591 1 � BASE MAP DERIVED FROM HALEY & ALDRICH, 2007 ANNUAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING REPORT, JUNE 2007 E X P L A N A T I O N p SHALLOW ZONE MONITOR WELL SHALLOW ZONE EXTRACTION WELL (NOT IN OPERATION) 1K DPE TEST WELL O SHALLOW ZONE ENHANCED IN-SITU BIOREMEDIATION INJECTION WELL EISB-S1 NOT MONITORED ND NOT DETECTED ABOVE LABORATORY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT 23 TOTAL VOLITILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (ug/L) CONTOUR OF EQUAL TOTAL VOC (VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND) CONCENTRATION IN MICROGRAMS PER LITER (ug/L) DASHED WHERE INFERRED NM NOT MONITORED N GRAPHIC SCALE 1"=200 0 100 200 400 m 0 a I 0.i H W � a A w A E'' o za W�zx W� U GQ w I� r, �4 Z z 0 H 0 H Residences at 4400 Von Karman Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR Responses to Correspondence ATTACHMENT B: FLOOD CONTROL I TAI T RISING TO THE CHALLENGE p:71 41560/8200 www.tait.com MEMORANDUM 701 N. Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Date: January 21, 2021 To: The Picerne Group, LLC. From: Tait & Associates, Inc. Subject: RE: Koll Center Residences at 4400 Von Karman And Related Parking Structure The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to Forward Counsel's Letter. The Proposed Flood Control System Will Create Hazards For The 4340 Property While Attempting To Mitigate Them For The Project The proposed project maintains the existing drainage pattern of the site and does not increase the total flows to the storm drain system or the overall pervious/impervious ratio for the site. Existing drainage from north of the structure will be intercepted at the North-East corner of the parking structure and will be connected to the existing 66" Storm Drain System to match existing conditions and will not affect the drainage conditions to the south of the structure. The proposed storm drain improvements for the project also includes water quality devices and a detention system located to the south of the parking garage. The proposed detention system is designed to capture and treat the low flow water quality volumes, however, all peak flow drainage will be directly conveyed to the existing storm drain system. As a result, the proposed water quality feature will not increase flooding risk in this area, and instead significantly decreases the risk of flooding and increases the hydraulic efficiency of the existing system. As a result, the proposed water quality improvements and detention system will have a positive impact on the existing drainage conditions and there is not a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the subject project. Proposal to Mitigate the Impacts of the Structure Parking The proposed alternate location of the parking structure has detriments to the existing site layout which are noted below: a) Insufficient distance between existing parking structure to property line — The separation between existing eastern parking structure edge and property line is approximately 121 ft. The width of the proposed parking structure is currently 128 ft. Thus, the parking structure would need to be redesigned to fit within the existing site parameters. b) Existing Fire Access — The existing fire access route would be terminated by the proposed building location. In order to maintain a fire access, the building footprint will need to be revised to provide a fire access lane adjacent to the structure. Subsequently, the width of I TAI T RISING TO THE CHALLENGE p:71 41560/8200 www.tait.com 701 N. Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 the building will be decreased and the length increased in order to maintain the proposed parking stall counts. c) Increased Conflict With Existing Storm Drain — As a result of the above noted increased length of the building, a longer portion of the existing 66" RCP storm drain would full under the parking garage creating further conflicts with the columns of the parking garage. d) Existing utility infrastructure - utilities such as water, electrical, telecommunications, and other unknown items would be in conflict with the structure and will need to be relocated. Based on the above material presented, it is our belief that current location of the parking structure will not pose a risk for additional flooding in the vicinity of the subject project. In fact, the proposed water quality devices and detention units will improve the existing drainage condition. Additionally, the proposed alternate location of the parking structure is infeasible due to the existing site constraints. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, David Sloan, PE Vice President - Director of Engineering (714) 560 - 8643 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2021-2 was duly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 261h day of January, 2021; and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Mayor Brad Avery, Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon, Council Member Noah Blom, Council Member Joy Brenner, Council Member Diane Dixon, Council Member Duffy Duffield NAYS: None RECUSED: Council Member Will O'Neill IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 27th day of January, 2021. r Leilani I. Brown City Clerk Newport Bea California 0'T3 �