February 2019 Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2017101067 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) City of Newport Beach Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Contact: Jaime Murillo, Senior Planner 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 949.644.3209 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 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents Section Page W 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR .................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................. 1-2 2. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...................................................................................................... 2-1 3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ..................................................... 3-1 APPENDICES Appendix A. FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Appendix B. Evaluation of Key Intersections and Roadways for 2024 With Project Conditions February 2019 Page i NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107)FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Page ii PlaceWorks 1. Introduction 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132, the FEIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the Draft; (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the DEIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Newport Crossing Mixed Use Project during the public review period, which began November 30, 2018, and closed, January 14, 2019. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FEIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR; copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. To facilitate review of the responses, each comment letter has been reproduced and assigned a number: A-1 through A-14 for letters received from agencies and organizations, and I-1 for letters a received from one individual. Individual comments have been numbered for each letter and the letter is followed by responses with references to the corresponding comment number. February 2019 Page 1-1 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1. Introduction Section 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR. This section contains revisions to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received by agencies and interested persons as described in Section 2, and/or typographical errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. The responses to comments contain revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. City of Newport Beach staff has reviewed the revisions and determined that none of the revisions constitute significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the revisions indicate that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204 (d) also states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” Section 15204 (e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the environmental impact report. Page 1-2 PlaceWorks 2. Response to Comments Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency (City of Newport Beach) to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written responses received on the DEIR and the City of Newport Beach’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. Agencies & Organizations A1 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance December 3, 2018 2-3 A2 Irvine Ranch Water District December 6, 2018 2-7 A3 Orange County Fire Authority December 19, 2018 2-11 A4 Department of Toxic Substances Control January 3, 2019 2-15 A5 City of Irvine January 7, 2019 2-23 A6 The Kennedy Commission January 10, 2019 2-27 A7 Santa Ana Unified School District January 10, 2019 2-33 A8 South Coast Air Quality Management District January 11, 2019 2-39 A9 California Department of Transportation January 11, 2019 2-47 A10 Airport Land Use Commission January 14, 2019 2-51 A11 OC Public Works January 14, 2019 2-57 A12 Wittwer Parkin, LLP (for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters) January 14, 2019 2-61 A13 Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation December 17, 2018 2-89 A14 State Clearinghouse January 15, 2019 2-93 Jim Mosher January 14, 2019 2-105 Individuals I1 February 2019 Page 2-1 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-2 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A1 – California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance (1 page) February 2019 Page 2-3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-4 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A1. Response to Comments from California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Patricia Martz, President, dated December 3, 2018. A1-1 The commenter concurs with the findings, conclusions and mitigation measures outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources. The commenter also suggests that a culturallyrelated Native American monitor be retained to periodically monitor ground-disturbing activities at the project site. No impacts to tribal cultural resources were identified. As described in Section 5.15, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR, no Native American tribes responded to the City’s AB 52 consultation request or requested mitigation measures. In response to this comment, however, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL-1 February 2019 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project 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, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally-/culturally-affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleño Band of Mission IndiansKizh Nation, Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis 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 Page 2-5 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments as the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton. Page 2-6 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A2 – Irvine Ranch Water District (1 page]) February 2019 Page 2-7 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-8 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A2. Response to Comments Irvine Ranch Water District, Fiona. M. Sanchez, Director of Water Resources, dated December 6, 2018. A2-1 February 2019 The commenter noted that the project site is outside of the Irvine Ranch Water District’s (IRWD) service area and, as such, the project would not impact IRWD. As confirmed in Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, the City of Newport Beach Water Services, and not IRWD, provides water to the project site. Page 2-9 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-10 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A3– Orange County Fire Authority (1 page) February 2019 Page 2-11 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-12 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A3. Response to Comments from Orange County Fire Authority, Tamera Rivers, Management Analyst, dated December 19, 2019. A3-1 February 2019 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. Page 2-13 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-14 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A4 – Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages) February 2019 Page 2-15 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-16 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-17 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-18 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A4. Response to Comments from Department of Toxic Substances Control, Chia Rin Yen, Environmental Scientist, dated January 3, 2019. A4-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) summary of the project description is acknowledged. A4-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. DTSC summary of the project site history and site investigations and findings is acknowledged. A4-3 Responses to the individual comments raised by DTSC’s are provided herein. A4-4 The typographical error under the Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 discussion on page 5.7-8 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil-vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/L (that is, 0.73 part per billion), above the California Health Hazard Health Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.71, Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7-1). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present. A4-5 February 2019 DTSC is recommending the following additional studies and analysis be conducted for the project site: • Soil vapor samples be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. • Additional soil samples be collected site-wide for analysis of OCPs. • Additional soil vapor samples be collected in accordance with DTSC Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigation and DTSC Final Guidance for Evaluation and Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. Page 2-19 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments • Groundwater samples be collected to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts. Following are response to the additional studies and analysis requested by DTSC: • DTSC’s statement that “based on Appendix F3 (Phase II Investigation Report, dated April 22, 2013), soil vapor samples were not collected beneath the former Enjay Cleaners but along the project site boundary” is not accurate as the report does present results for three sub-slab samples that were collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners. These soil vapor sample results were at low levels and are not indicative of a release to soil having occurred. In order to confirm that a release did not occur, soil samples from the beneath the former Enjay Cleaners should be collected after demolition of the existing structures in that area. • Because much of Orange County was used in the past for agricultural land, residual pesticides can often be detected at low concentrations in near-surface soil. The City agrees with the conclusion of the Phase I report that redevelopment of the site has likely further reduced these concentrations. However, because a public park is planned and the DTSC will be concerned with dermal contact, it may be prudent to collect surface (or near-surface) soil samples from the proposed park area to document the absence of, or presence of, low concentrations of residual pesticides. The area of the Project planned for the public park is currently under asphalt or existing buildings. Sample collection for analysis of OCPs would be completed in the area where the park will be constructed after demolition of the existing structures. Based on our experience sampling similar sites for residual OCPs, it is likely that concentrations will be below levels of concern or at levels that do not pose significant human health risks to future site development. In the unlikely event that OCPs are discovered and are determined to be RCRA hazardous waste or California-only hazardous waste, affected soils will be removed consistent with State protocols. • PCE in soil gas appears to be a result of downward migration of vapors. This is supported by two facts: (1) soil vapors are lowest in the sub-slab vapor and the highest in the deeper soil gas samples collected at 15 feet bgs (groundwater may be encountered at approximately 20 feet bgs); and (2) there were no detections of PCE in any soil samples collected from the soil vapor sample locations. The average PCE concentration in soil vapor at 15 feet bgs is less than 3 µg/I. For PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/I. 1 To verify this, AECOM back-calculated the equilibrium concentration (Ceq) expected after 5 years for a GW concentration of 5 µg/L of PCE (MCL). The Ceq would be 1 Sources: https://iavi.rti.org/attachments/Resources/Hartman__Soil_Gas_Sampling_Methods_and_Approaches_for_VI_Assessments.pdf and file:///C:/Users/jestrada/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/S840ZOHA/The%20Downward %20Migration%20of%20Vapors.htm. Page 2-20 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments approximately 180 µg/L. Multiplying by the dimensionless Henry’s Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a corresponding soil gas concentration of approximately 135 µg/L. This supports the statement that for PCE, soil gas levels may not become a threat to impact groundwater until they exceed 100 µg/L. For the project site, the greatest soil vapor concentration of PCE was 4.4 µg/L (and was fairly near groundwater). Dividing by Henry’s Law Constant for PCE (0.754) gives a Ceq of less than 6 µg/L and an expected PCE concentration in groundwater of less than 0.2 µg/L after 5 years. If contact time with groundwater is less than 5 years, which is more typical, the expected PCE concentration in groundwater at this Site would be less than 0.01 µg/L. Collection of groundwater samples to show that PCE in deeper soil gas is associated with regional groundwater impacts is not warranted because the planned passive ventilation system will be installed to mitigate vapors already detected. A4-6 In response to this comment, PCE in soil gas is more likely a result of downward migration of vapors and not associated with regional groundwater impacts. Any increase in the estimated cancer risk for the residential land use scenario shown by further soil vapor samples would be reduced through the passive ventilation system. It is anticipated that these results will not significantly affect the current design of the planned vapor mitigation system, as required by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1. A4-7 In response to the commenter, the text for regulatory requirement RR HAZ-1 on pages 5.7-15 and 5-7-16 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. RR HAZ-2 Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. Transportation of hazardous waste will also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 13. February 2019 Page 2-21 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A4-8 After demolition of existing structures, additional soil and soil gas sampling in the area of the former Enjay Cleaners may be warranted to determine if concentrations are decreasing, limited in extent, and in soil or soil gas or both. With limited soil removal and/or soil vapor extraction, levels which are suitable for unrestricted use of the land could be achieved and a land use covenant would not be required. If the vapor mitigation measure is implemented in accordance with DTSC Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Advisory, an operation and maintenance (O&M) plan should be prepared and include general guidelines for monitoring, including establishing baseline conditions and number and frequency of monitoring events necessary to meet the performance goals and measures. A4-9 In response to the commenter, the following mitigation measure has been added to further reduce the significant impact already identified under Impact Statement 5.7-2, of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Subsection 5.7.7, Mitigation Measures, of Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The additional mitigation measure does not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the Draft EIR and does not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Also, the revisions do not constitute the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 MM HAZ-2 Page 2-22 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5-acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A5 – City of Irvine (2 pages) February 2019 Page 2-23 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-24 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A5. Response to Comments from City of Irvine, Justin Equina, Associate Planner, dated January 7, 2019. A5-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A5-2 The commenter requested that three additional intersections, beyond those analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project, be analyzed, and that the arterial segments include certain City of Irvine roadways. The TIA, which is included as Draft EIR Appendix J, includes the relevant study area intersections in Irvine. As noted in the Study Area subsection/discussion of the TIA (see page J-9), the study area locations were selected in consultation with the City of Irvine. The project’s trip distribution, as presented in the TIA, shows nominal AM and PM peak-hour projectrelated traffic on the intersections and segments along Jamboree Road in Irvine that were not analyzed, including those requested by the commenter. Approximately five percent of the project’s total traffic would travel on Jamboree Road north of Dupont Drive, which is approximately 6 AM peak-hour trips (5 northbound and 1 southbound), 4 PM peakhour trips (2 northbound and 2 southbound), and 54 daily trips. Furthermore, the project’s traffic volume contribution is less than 0.001 of the peak-hour lane capacity and daily segment capacity of Jamboree Road. As such, the project would not significantly impact the intersections of Jamboree Road/Dupont Drive, Jamboree Road/Michelson Drive, and Jamboree Road/I-405 ramps, or the Jamboree Road segment north of Dupont Drive. In addition, the project is not anticipated to add vehicles to Dupont Drive or Michelson Drive. Based on the preceding, the project study area is not required to be expanded to include additional Irvine intersections or segments. A5-3 In response to the commenter, the text on page 5.14-4 of Draft EIR Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings, conclusions, or recommendations of the TIA or Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC City of Irvine In Irvine, LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. At Irvine intersections, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required to bring intersection back to February 2019 Page 2-25 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Also, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable level of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Page 2-26 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A6 – The Kennedy Commission (3 pages) February 2019 Page 2-27 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-28 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-29 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-30 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A6. Response to Comments from Kennedy Commission, Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, dated January 10, 2019. A6-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach acknowledges the commenters support of the proposed project. A6-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A6-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. February 2019 Page 2-31 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-32 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A7 – Santa Ana Unified School District (2 pages) February 2019 Page 2-33 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-34 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A7. Response to Comments from Santa Ana Unified School District, Jeremy Cogan, Director of Facilities Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A7-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A7-2 The comment states the number of students potentially generated by the project. As requested in Comment A7-3, the Draft EIR has been revised to reflect the updated student generation factors and resultant student generation numbers. See response to Comment A7-3, below. A7-3 The commenter requests that the student generation numbers provided in Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, be revised to reflect the District’s updated student generation estimate. As requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Impact Analysis: The proposed project is estimated to generate about 39 180 students— using SAUSD student generation factors for multifamily units—consisting of 22 83 elementary school students, 8 43 intermediate students, and 9 54 high school students (see Table 5.12-3). Table 5.12-3 Units) School Level Elementary (K-5) Intermediate (6-8) High (9-12) Total Estimated Project Student Generation (350 Proposed Multifamily Generation Factor per Household (multifamily attached units)1 Students Generated 0.0620 0.2367 0.0229 0.1218 0.0251 0.1533 22 83 8 43 9 54 0.11 — 39 180 Source: Cogan 20182019. The three schools serving the project site have sufficient capacities for the proposed project’s student generation, as shown in Table 5.12-4. Project development would not require SAUSD to add school capacity as the schools serving the project site would have more than adequate capacity. February 2019 Page 2-35 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Table 5.12-4 School Monroe Elementary School McFadden Intermediate School Century High School Project Impacts on School Capacities Existing Available Capacity (from Table 5.12-2)1 Project Student Generation (from Table 5.12-3) Available Capacity After Project Student Generation 191 22 83 169 108 609 8 43 601 566 127 9 54 118 76 Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at LAUSD SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), A7-4 The comment states that the Draft EIR should be updated to reflect the State Allocation Board’s most recent adjustment to level-on residential school fees. As requested, the text on page 5.12-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.12 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. Additionally, the commenter noted that while developer fees are intended to help offset the students generated by the project, the fees may not be sufficient to provide adequate comprehensive school facilities. As noted under impact statement 5.12-3 (pages 5.12-13 and 5.12-14) of Draft EIR Section 5.12, pursuant to 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.” Page 2-36 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments 5.12 PUBLIC SERVICES Regulatory Background Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50) SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to impose mitigation for a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district’s school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. On February 24, 2016 September 17, 2018, the State Allocation Board adjusted the maximum level-one residential school fee to be $3.48 $3.79 per square foot for residential development; $0.56 and $0.61 per square foot for commercial, industrial, and senior housing projects; and $0.406 per square foot for hotel/motel projects. Development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” A7-5 The commenter concurs with the mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. Also, in response to the commenter’s minor edit requested, the text on page 5.12-13 of Section 5.12 has been revised, as shown in response to Comment A7-3, above. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the FEIR. A7-6 As requested, the City will continue to provide the District with all CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.2, and to the attention of the Assistant Superintendent of Facilities & Government Relations. February 2019 Page 2-37 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-38 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A8 – South Coast Air Quality Management District (4 pages) February 2019 Page 2-39 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-40 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-41 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-42 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A8. Response to Comments from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Lijin Sun, Program Supervisor CEQA IGR, dated January 11, 2019. A8-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) summary of the project description is acknowledged . A8-2 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD’s summary of the potential air quality impacts of the project and mitigation measures is acknowledged. A8-3 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. SCAQMD’s summary of the goals of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), including the substantial nitrogen oxides (NOx) reductions necessary to achieve the 2023 and 2031 targets, is acknowledged. A8-4 SCAQMD requests changes to Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities. As identified in response to Comment A8-7 below, the commenter’s recommendation to utilize certain construction equipment that meets the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emissions standards has been incorporated into Mitigation Measure AQ-3. A8-5 The comment requests that the City provide written responses to all of the SCAQMD’s comments. As requested, responses to SCAQMD’s comments are provided herein in accordance with the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines. A8-6 The comment questions whether any construction activities would overlap with project operation. As noted in Subsection 3.3.4, Project Phasing and Construction, of Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project would be constructed in one phase. There would be no overlap of project operation with project-related construction activities. No revisions are necessary to the air quality modeling; and additional mitigation measures are not warranted to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. A8-7 The comment requests that Mitigation Measure AQ-3 be revised to require the use of certain construction equipment that meets the EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, use of Tier 3 construction equipment would be sufficient to reduce emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, in an effort to further reduce NOx emissions during construction activities, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been revised to require the construction contractor to utilize construction equipment with engines that achieve the US EPA Tier 4 rating. The mitigation text on pages 5.2-32 and 5.2-33 of Section 5.2, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR and do not February 2019 Page 2-43 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Impact 5.2-2 AQ-3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPA’s Tier 34 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than of 50 horsepower or greater for all building and asphalt demolition, building and asphalt demolition debris hauling, rough grading, and rough grading soil hauling activities phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 34 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment over of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. A8-8 Page 2-44 The comment requests that various additional mitigation measures should be required. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, additional mitigation measures are not necessary to reduce impacts below the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The SCAQMD AQMP emissions forecast include emissions from construction activities in the air basin. The additional measures identified by the commenter would not eliminate the fact that construction activities would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. As substantiated in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, the request to require zero-emissions or near-zero-emission on- PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments road haul trucks is potentially not feasible for a project with a buildout in year 2023 as these types of trucks are in the “demonstration” phase and not readily available by most construction sub-contractors at this time. SCAQMD Rule 403 already requires that onsite activities be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). This is an existing regulation that requires project applicant compliance and therefore is, not required as a mitigation measure. Similarly, the California Vehicle Code requires that trucks hauling dirt are tarped/covered and/or maintain six inches of freeboard and the California Air Resources Board’s in-use off-road diesel vehicle regulations prohibit non-essentially idling for more than five consecutive limits. These are also existing regulations that the project applicant would have to comply with and not required as mitigation measures. February 2019 Page 2-45 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-46 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A9 – California Department of Transportation (2 pages) February 2019 Page 2-47 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-48 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A9. Response to Comments from California Department of Transportation, Scott Shelley, Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning, dated January 11, 2019. A9-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A9-2 The commenter requested that the City consider the recommended Class II (on-street) bicycle facility along Dove Street, which forms the southwestern boundary of the project site. Specifically, the recommended Class II bicycle facility is called out in Figure 5-1 (Recommended Bicycle Facilities Network) of the City’s Bicycle Master Plan (2014). The project does include improvements to the sidewalk along Dove Street, which would be demolished and reconstructed to City standards, and the project will provide new ADA compliant curb access ramps at Dove Street/Scott Drive in accordance with City standards. Further, although designated bike lanes are not located on the local streets surrounding the project site (i.e., Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Scott Drive, and Dove Street), Class II bicycles lanes are provided on both sides of Campus Drive–Irvine Avenue from MacArthur Boulevard to Cliff Drive in the vicinity of the project. However, the recommendation for a Class II bicycle facility along Dove Street remains conceptual at this time and has yet to be determined feasible through a study and public outreach process, which would be initiated by the City. The recommended Class II bicycle facility along Dove Street is not planned for implementation at this time in connection with the proposed project. A9-3 The comment is acknowledged. The proposed project does not require an encroachment permit as no work is being proposed on, adjacent to, or in proximity of a State Highway System. February 2019 Page 2-49 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-50 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A10 – Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County (2 pages) February 2019 Page 2-51 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-52 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A10. Response to Comments from Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County, Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Director, dated January 14, 2019. A10-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A10-2 Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.17, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides a discussion of the FAR Part 77 Notification Area and the potential impacts to JWA navigable air space resulting from the proposed project’s building heights. See Response to Comment A10-3, below, regarding the discrepancy in the proposed building height. As noted in that response, the building heights noted in the Daft EIR were incorrect. The correct building height proposed is 130 feet AMSL, which is well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit for the project site. Therefore, it is not necessary to use the Notice Criteria Tool to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the Part 77 Notification Area, as the building would not penetrate notification area. However, in response to the commenter, a formal submittal was made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to determine if the proposed building would penetrate the notification surface and require filing Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. Upon submittal, the FAA conducted an aeronautical study, which revealed that the proposed building does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (see Appendix A). The FAA-issued “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” is provided as Appendix A to this FEIR. Applicant submittal of FAA Form 7460-2 form will be ensured through the City’s site development review process, as it will be included as a condition of approval. A10-3 The commenter stated the project’s maximum building height would be 153 AMSL, which is text directly taken from page 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Adding the proposed building height of 153 feet AMSL with the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet AMSL would result in the building reaching the maximum FAA allowed height for the site of 206 AMSL, which is of concern to the commenter and JWA operations. The building height of 153 feet AMSL referenced on Draft EIR page 5.7-14 is incorrect. The maximum height would be approximately 130 AMSL, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest ground level of the site of 53 feet AMSL. This would put the proposed building height well below the 206 foot AMSL height limit. The text on pages 5.7-14 and 5.7-20 under Impact Statement 5.7-3 of Draft EIR Section 5.7 has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR February 2019 Page 2-53 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments and do not result in the identification of any new or increased significant impacts. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Airport-Related Hazards The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) issued by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in 2008. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). There are no heliports within one mile of the project site other than JWA (Airnav.com 2018). The proposed project is also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, the maximum structure height proposed onsite would be based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height permitted on-site is about 153 feet above ground level plus the proposed building height. Impact Analysis: The project site is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). The proposed project does not propose any land uses prohibited or discouraged by the AELUP and would not subject people on the ground to substantial hazards from crashes of aircraft approaching or departing JWA. The project site also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under FAA Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet amsl (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height permitted onsite is about 153 feet above ground level is approximately 130 amsl, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest elevation of the site of 53 feet amsl. This would put the proposed building height well below Page 2-54 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments the 206 foot amsl height limit for the site. The proposed buildings would be approximately 55 feet high for residential living spaces, with limited ancillary structures to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers architectural features (including parapets), parking, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. The proposed project would conform with structure heights permitted on-site under FAA regulations and would not adversely affect navigable airspace surrounding JWA. A10-4 As provided in the Draft EIR, the comment states that the project site is within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour and within Safety Zone 6 of the JWA, and acknowledges that the Draft EIR includes a discussion of measures intended to address safety and noise concerns for the project. The comment is acknowledged. A10-5 The commenter concurs with the noise requirements outlined in Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise, including those related to the project applicant’s requirement to prepare an acoustic study to ensure that airport-related noise impacts are adequately addressed for future residents. It should be noted that the reference to the need for an acoustic study was provided for reference purposes only (see regulatory requirement SC NOI-1 on page 5.1414), and not in response to any of the impact statements/questions of Section 5.10. Under CEQA, a project’s impact on the environment are required to be analyzed; however, an analysis of the environments impact on a project is not required. A10-6 The commenter stated that a referral to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) may be required for the proposed project due to its close proximity to JWA. The City of Newport Beach General Plan was found consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport by ALUC on July 20, 2006. As such, the City of Newport Beach is considered a consistent city. Per Policy LU 3.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, and per ALUC Referral Requirements for Consistent Cities, projects within the JWA planning area that include the adoption or amendment of a general plan, zoning code, specific plan, or planned community development plan require review by ALUC. The policy also states that development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level require ALUC review. The proposed project does not meet either of these criteria, and therefore, does not require ALUC review. Also, see responses to Comments A10-2 and A10-3, above. Based on these responses, no ALUC review is necessary. February 2019 Page 2-55 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-56 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A11 – OC Public Works (1 page) February 2019 Page 2-57 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-58 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A11. Response to Comments from OC Public Works, Richard Vuong, Manager, Planning Division, dated January 14, 2019. A11-1 February 2019 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. Page 2-59 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-60 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A12 – Wittwer Parkin, LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (14 pages) February 2019 Page 2-61 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-62 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-63 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-64 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-65 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-66 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-67 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-68 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-69 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-70 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-71 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-72 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-73 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-74 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A12. Response to Comments from Wittwer Parkin LLP representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Southwest Carpenters), Nicholas Whipps, dated January 14, 2019. A12-1 The comment does not concern the content or adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment is acknowledged. A12-2 The commenter made a general statement that the significance conclusions provided in the Draft EIR are incorrect and that the Draft EIR is confusing, missing key analysis, and does not provide sufficient support for the less-than significant findings, as discussed in more detail in Comments A12-3 through A12-17. No evidence was provided in this comment to support this general statement. Please refer to responses to Comments A123 and A12-17 below. A12-3 The Draft EIR adequately identifies all cumulative projects causing related impacts in the area that will be affected by the proposed project. See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v County of Ventura (1985) 176 CA3d 421, 429. The information provided in the cumulative projects list is sufficient to identify reasonably foreseeable and approved projects and analyze the proposed project’s potential cumulative impacts. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, of Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, identifies all of the cumulative projects within the relevant geographic area, describes the land use for each project, and specifies the number of dwelling units and/or total non-residential square footage for each project. Figure 4-3, Cumulative Developments Location Map, illustrates the location of each cumulative project relative to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(2), the cumulative analysis considers the nature of the resource affected and the location of the project, as well as the type of project under review. For example, the cumulative projects considered in connection with the public services analysis reflect the fact that potential public service impacts are specific to the boundaries of the project’s service providers (e.g., Newport Beach Fire Department and Newport Beach Police Department). Although not stated with the degree of specificity that the commenter may prefer, all of the information regarding each project is provided and may be used, as desired by the commenter, to seek additional information. Additional information regarding the cumulative projects is publicly available, much of it provided on the City’s website. However, the information provided in the Draft EIR regarding the cumulative projects is sufficient to allow for analysis of the cumulative impacts and of the project’s contribution to that cumulative impact. The commenter also has not identified how the omission of more detailed information regarding these projects has misled the public or otherwise resulted in prejudice. A12-4 February 2019 Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, provides a quantified analysis of the project’s potential air quality impacts based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for projects within the South Coast Air Basin Page 2-75 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments (SoCAB) in order to inform decision-makers and the public about the project’s potential environmental impacts. The commenter states that the air quality analysis is not informative because the Draft EIR does not assess potential impacts associated with the increase in population from redevelopment of a commercial site under Impact 5.2-1. As stated under Impact 5.2-1, projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the air quality-related regional plan. Impact 5.2-1 refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, which concludes that the project would be permitted under the existing land use and zoning designations of the City’s general plan (including bonus density units). Impact 5.2-1 also refers readers to Draft EIR Section 5.11, Population and Housing, which demonstrates that the project with the bonus density would not induce substantial population growth. Furthermore, the long-term emissions generated by the proposed project would not generate criteria air pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds, which also substantiates the conclusion that the project would not conflict with the AQMP. The Draft EIR identified various regulatory requirements that the proposed project is required to adhere to. These regulations were adopted by SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, and other agencies to reduce air pollutant, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and energy use. Subsection 5.2-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, “Level of Significance before Mitigation”. Subsection 5.2.1.1, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQMD regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.2-10 shows the project’s maximum daily regional operational emissions of the project with implementation of the regulatory requirements identified in Subsections 5.2.1.1 and 5.2-3 and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. As substantiated under Impact 5.2-1, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAQMD air quality management plan. A12-5 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not adequately examine cumulative air quality impacts. In particular, the commenter claims that the evidence does not support a conclusion that the proposed project will result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts because the Draft EIR does not disclose whether any of the listed cumulative projects have been found to have significant and unavoidable impacts. Page 5.2-1 of Section 5.2, Air Quality, states, “Cumulative impacts related to air quality are based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB.” Subsection 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of Draft EIR Section 4, Environmental Setting, also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. Page 2-76 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Similar to GHG emissions impacts, the air quality impact analysis is also a cumulative impact analysis because regional emissions (lbs/day) generated by the proposed project describe the potential for the project to cumulatively contribute to the SoCAB’s nonattainment designations (see page 5.2-31). Impact 5.2-2 (construction) and Impact 5.23 (operation) of Section 5.2 evaluate emissions of the project compared to the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds in order to determine if the project would result in project-level and cumulative impacts. The findings of these impact statements are reiterated in the subheadings under Subsection 5.2.5, Cumulative Impacts. As identified in this section, criteria air pollutants generated during construction (with mitigation) and operation of project would not exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds; and therefore, would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to the nonattainment designations of SoCAB. Additionally, as stated on pages 4-14 and 5.2-31 of the Draft EIR, cumulative air quality impacts were analyzed based on the regional boundaries of the SoCAB, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the “list of projects” approach and the “summary of projections” approach. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b).) Consistent with the latter of these approaches, the Draft EIR analyzes cumulative air quality impacts in accordance with SCAQMD’s methodology, which considers a project cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the regional emissions thresholds shown in Table 5.2-5. Here, with incorporation of mitigation, the Draft EIR finds that the project’s contribution to air quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. The comment also states that the segregation of air quality impacts associated with construction from those associated with operations makes it difficult to understand the total emissions that will be produced. Again, the Draft EIR’s analysis of cumulative air quality impacts was done in accordance with established SCAQMD methodology, which method is regularly used to assess air quality impacts in the SoCAB. The comment does not indicate that a potentially significant cumulatively considerable impact would result from using a different methodology, but instead insists that the EIR should have disclosed whether each project in the cumulative projects list, alone, would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact. Such project-level analysis of the impacts of each project in the cumulative project list is not useful to the evaluation of the proposed project’s cumulative impacts and is not required by CEQA. Further, such analysis of each of the cumulative projects is available to the public as part of each project’s separate CEQA analysis. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment A12-3. February 2019 Page 2-77 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A12-6 The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not clearly identify or analyze applicable regulations and plans in the context of the project. Specifically, the commenter cited the Newhall Ranch decision where the court found there was no analytical connection between the state-wide reductions of the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2008 Scoping Plan (which applies to new development and existing development) and the percent reduction that would be needed for new projects. This decision is not directly applicable to the proposed project since the project does not utilize significance thresholds that are tied to CARB’s GHG emissions forecasts and the Scoping Plan. As identified under Subsection 5.6.2, Thresholds of Significance, of Section 5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, SCAQMD’s Working Group identified a significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent (MTCO2e) based on a 90 percent capture rate of CEQA projects in the SoCAB. This methodology was identified in the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association 2008 Whitepaper, CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Consequently, the threshold is both based on new projects and projects within the SoCAB region. Impact 5.6-2 analyzes GHG plans that have been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan because it is a plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The City of Newport Beach has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. As identified in the Draft EIR, the individual measures in the Scoping Plan are not directly applicable to local governments because they are mandates for state agencies. None-theless, the regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. These regulations are described in detail in Subsection 5.6.3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, and under Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Setting. Regarding the applicability of the targets of the Scoping Plan to new development, new development is substantially more energy efficient than existing development. The Scoping Plan forecast includes emissions from both new development and existing development. The state’s goal is to reduce emissions below existing levels despite growth anticipated in the state. In order to achieve the GHG reductions goals, the state must substantially reduce emissions from existing development and implement increasingly more stringent building energy efficiency regulations to reduce emissions from new development. Efficiencies in building energy efficiency from new development alone do not achieve the steep reductions needed to achieve the State’s GHG reduction goals of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To emphasize this point, the Scoping Plan relies on top-down measures, such as improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency standards, penetration of zero emission vehicles into the marketplace, low carbon fuel standards, renewables portfolio standard (RPS), and carbon neutrality in the energy sector which has a much greater effect on reducing the Page 2-78 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments magnitude of emissions from existing land uses within the state than the magnitude of reductions in building energy efficiency that only apply to new development. If greater magnitude of reductions is needed from existing land uses to achieve the State GHG reduction goals, CEQA cannot disproportionately require that incremental increase from new development provide more than their fair share of reductions necessary to achieve this “gap” because the extractions must bear a “rough proportionality” to the project’s adverse impacts. Despite new development being more efficient, the measures in the Scoping Plan affect existing development to a much greater extent because they are top down. Consequently, thresholds that are derived from the 2017 Scoping Plan and CARB’s emissions forecast may be applicable despite the fact that the measures in CARB’s scoping plan do not clearly identify the percent reduction achieved from existing and new development. While the Scoping Plan may assume that new development on a per capita basis may be more efficient than existing development because of the greater building energy efficiency, this diminishes over time as our energy system becomes carbon neutral under SB 100 (50 percent RPS by 2030) and Executive Order B-55-18 (carbon neutrality by 2045). Likewise, the reductions applied to the transportation sector apply evenly across new development and existing development. The per capita efficiency goals cited in the 2017 Scoping Plan reduce per capita emissions below existing levels. Since the measures in the Scoping Plan reduce existing emissions and a zero threshold is not an appropriate significance threshold (i.e., one molecule" of contribution to a cumulative condition is not significant); the efficiency thresholds identified in the Scoping Plan that result in a reduction from existing may be overly stringent if CEQA only requires emissions not result in a substantial increase. A12-7 See also Response to Comment A12-4 above regarding the description of regulations applicable to the project. Regulations adopted by the state agencies (e.g., CARB, California Energy Commission, etc.) have the potential to reduce existing and new emissions generated in California. Subsection 5.6-3, Regulatory Requirements and Standard Conditions, details the measures that are listed in the section under the Impact Statement, “Level of Significance before Mitigation”. Subsection 5.6.1.2, Regulatory Background, also provides additional detail on the SCAQMD regulations that are in place that have the potential to reduce emissions associated with the proposed project. Table 5.6-7 shows the project’s operational GHG emissions with implementation of the identified regulatory requirements, and demonstrates that impacts would be less than significant. A12-8 See also response to Comment A12-6 above regarding the threshold used to evaluate the proposed project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impacts. Page 5.6-1 states, “Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis.” Subsection 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR also describe the methodology regarding cumulative impacts. Emissions February 2019 Page 2-79 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments (MTCO2e/yr) generated by the project describe the potential for the project to cumulative contribute to the GHG emissions in California. Subsection 5.6.1, California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution, describes existing GHG emissions based on the Scoping Plan sectors. Existing levels of GHG emissions in the City or in the vicinity of the project are not directly relevant for describing the project’s cumulative contribution to GHG emissions impact in the State. The City has not adopted a GHG reduction plan. A12-9 See responses to comments A12-6 through A12-8, above. The proposed project would have a less than significant contribution to GHG emissions impacts since emissions would not exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e significance threshold. As a result, mitigation measure are not warranted for GHG emissions impacts. A12-10 The commenter stated that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient enforcement mechanisms for mitigation of impacts to biological and cultural resources. The mitigation measure outlined in Section 5.3, Biological Resources, regarding impacts to migratory birds, and the mitigation measures outlined in Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, regarding archeological and paleontological resources, will be enforced by the City through the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which will be presented to the City’s approval body for adoption. The measures will also be enforced by the City as conditions of approval, as all mitigation measures of the adopted MMRP will be included as conditions of approval. Therefore, sufficient enforcement will be provided and the applicant compliance with all mitigation measures of the MMRP will be ensured. The commenter stated that Mitigation Measures BIO-1 does not provide a requirement for the City to monitor the protection of migratory birds. As noted in this mitigation measure, the completed survey report/memorandum, if one is required to be prepared, will be submitted to the City by the monitoring biologist. Pursuant to the adopted MMRP, the City will ensure that the monitoring and all related activities and findings have been conducted in accordance with this mitigation measure and under the purview of a qualified biologist. The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2, do not explain what would should occur if the find is identified as important or Native American in origin. Both of these mitigation measures provide clarification to this point. For example, as noted in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, if archaeological resources are encountered, the archaeologist is required to assess the find for importance and whether preservation in place without impacts is feasible. The measure further states that 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. Similarly, Mitigation Measure CUL-2 states that if fossils are encountered, the paleontologist shall assess the find for importance. The measure further states that any resource encountered is required to be curated at a public, nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials. Page 2-80 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that, consistent with CEQA’s requirements, a culturally-related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground-disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL-1 A12-11 February 2019 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project 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, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally-/culturally-affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleño Band of Mission IndiansKizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis 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. The commenter states that conclusionary statements provided in Draft EIR Section’s 5.9, Land Use and Planning, and 5.11, Population and Housing, are inconsistent. Specifically, the analysis in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9 concludes that the project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan; however, under Subsection 5.11.5, Cumulative Impacts, of Section 5.11, it is noted that “most of the proposed development is consistent with the general plan”. The statement provided in Page 2-81 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Subsection 5.11.5 is incorrect. As substantiated in Section 5.9, the project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. The statement provided in Subsection 5.11.5 has been revised to correct this discrepancy, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. The commenter also points out that Draft EIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary, states that in order to be constructed, the proposed project “must” receive a density bonus and accompanying development concessions and waivers. The commenter also states that the land use section of the Draft EIR does not explain how the project meets the requirements for density bonus units. The commenter is incorrect as a statement to this affect is not provided in Chapter 1, or anywhere else in the Draft EIR. As clearly stated in Subsection 1.4, Project Summary, the proposed project would be providing density bonus units and based on the provision of affordable housing, development incentives are available to developers pursuant to Chapter 20.32 of the City’s zoning code and Government Code Section 65915(d)(1). As further clarified in Subsection 3.3.1.3, Affordable Housing and Development Incentives/Concessions and Waivers, of Section 3, Project Description, “As encouraged by the Residential Overlay and pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the City’s zoning code and Government Code Section 65915 (Density Bonus Law), with a 30 percent allocation for lower-income households, the proposed project is entitled to the maximum 35 percent density bonus…”. Through the provision of affordable units onsite, which is encouraged and permitted, the project is entitled to development incentives/concessions and waivers. Subsection 3.3.1.3 also clearly explains how the project qualifies for a density bonus. Further, in various places of Section 5.9, it clarifies how the project meets and qualifies for the density bonus. For example, refer to the consistency analysis text provided under Policy 6.2.3 of Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-18). The commenter pointed out a statement made in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9, regarding rent prices, and stated that the Draft EIR does not provide any assurance that the City will require that the project provide an appropriate number of affordable units. As noted in Table 5.9-1 (page 5.9-12) under Goal H2.1, “Exact rent prices have not been determined at this time.” This is a general statement provided in the response to Goal H2.1 of the General Plan Housing Element and is not needed to show consistency with this goal. Goal H2 states, “Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households”. As stated under the consistency analysis of this goal, the proposed project is consistent with this goal as the proposed project includes 78 new housing units that would be affordable to lowerincome residents. Through its site development review process, the City is working with the developer to ensure that the appropriate number of affordable units are provided. Page 2-82 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Also, in order for the City to issue the development incentives/concessions and waivers requested for the project, the appropriate number of affordable units must be provided. Further, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that the project cannot be consistent with the zoning code density limitations due to the application of the density bonus, that is incorrect. See Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, where the court determined that modifications required by the density bonus law do not render a density bonus project inconsistent with applicable development standards. Finally, the commenter stated that Draft EIR Section 5.9 does not explain how the project qualifies for a waiver for building heights, or the requirements for unit size mixes, where these requirements are derived from, and why the project does not have to comply with them. The commenter is correct, this information was inadvertently left out of Section 5.9. In response to the commenter, the analysis under the zoning consistency analysis discussion on page 5.9-25 of Section 5.9 has been revised, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING Zoning Code Consistency As stated above, the project site is zoned Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11). PC-11 allows for residential development, with a minimum of 30 du/ac and a maximum of 50 du/ac, consistent with the MU-H2 land use designation. More specifically, the project site within PC-11 is designated General Commercial Site 6. The General Commercial designation allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site also has a residential overlay option given its general plan designation of MU-H2. The projects consistency with the Residential Overlay development standards of the NPPC, which apply to the project site and function as zoning for the site, is discussed below. The proposed retail, restaurant, and residential uses under the proposed project are allowed under the existing zoning, and no zone change is required or proposed. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. See also RR LU-1 and RR LU-2. Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards Consistency Development standards for utilization of the NPPC’s rResidential oOverlay, which applies to the project site, are found on Page 46 of the PCDP in the NPPC development February 2019 Page 2-83 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments standards. Table 5.9-2 demonstrates the proposed project’s consistency with those development standards. Table 5.9-2 1 NPPC Consistency Analysis Development Standard Required Project Consistency Minimum Site Area None N/A Density (base units)1 30–50 units/acre 50 units/acre Minimum Percent Affordable 30 percent Maximum Building Height 55 feet (exceptions allowed) Minimum Street Setback Minimum Interior Setback Parking 30 feet 10 feet See Chapter 3 30 percent 77 feet, 9 inches (livable space would be 55 feet max) 30 feet 10 feet (to park) See Chapter 3 Density bonus units are allowed to increase a project’s gross density to be higher than that required for the project’s “base” units. Additionally, as noted in Table 5.9-1, the Residential Overlay of the NPPC, which applies to the project site, implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which creates an exception to the 10-acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. In addition to the site size exception and affordable housing requirements, the NPPC details additional residential development regulations addressing setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping, signs, utilities requirements, and amenities and neighborhood integration. With the exception of the unit mix and building height requirements, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with the NPPC development regulations. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project’s Affordable Housing Implementation Plan includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height, as described below.  Page 2-84 Development Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.F.1 of the Residential Overlay, “Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole.” In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one-bedroom units, as illustrated in Table 3-2 of Chapter 3. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reduction by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two- PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility.  Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a waiver of the 55-foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, roof-top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet, 63 of the 91 density bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to 55 feet would result in elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary for marketing purposes to meet expectations of prospective tenants and market-rate rents, provide the level of onsite amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. Approval of the aforementioned concession and waiver would not result in a land use conflict with the regard to the NPPC development standards. 5.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Newport Beach. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG’s 2016 Growth Forecast. Development activity in the City includes residential projects (see Table 4-1 in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting). Most of the proposed development The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would therefore be expected to be consistent with SCAG’s growth projections. A12-12 The analysis of the proposed project’s compliance with regulatory requirements RR LU1 and RR LU-2, which outline the City’s development standards applicable to the project, is provided under Impact Statement 5.9-2 (see pages 5.9-25 and 5.9-26) of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. See also response to Comments A12-11 and A12-13. A12-13 See response to comment A12-6 regarding the required scope of cumulative analysis and analysis of projects in cumulative projects list. As stated on pages 4-17 and 5.9-27 of the Draft EIR, cumulative land use and planning impacts were analyzed based on applicable February 2019 Page 2-85 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments jurisdictional boundaries and related plans, including the City of Newport Beach General Plan and applicable regional land use plans, not by reference to the specific projects identified in Table 4-1. This type of approach is permissible under CEQA, which sets forth two methods for satisfying the cumulative impacts analysis requirement: the “list of projects” approach and the “summary of projections” approach. (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b).) Consistent with the latter of these two approaches, the Draft EIR finds that cumulative projects would be subject to the same regional and local plans, and that it is reasonable to assume these projects would implement local and regional planning goals and policies. Based on this regional analysis, the Draft EIR finds that, upon implementation of any cumulative development, cumulative adverse land use impacts would be less than significant. With respect to the Draft EIR’s statement that the surrounding Airport Area is transitioning from strictly nonresidential uses to a wider range of mixed uses, including residential uses, the Draft EIR explains that such transition is anticipated by the Newport Beach General Plan and would not represent a cumulative adverse land use impact. The Draft EIR’s conclusion that this transition is “creating rather than dividing a community” is not illogical. This finding is described in more detail on page 5.9-10, which explains that, given the distance and physical separation of existing residential communities from the project site, development of the project would not divide an established residential community. Instead, over time, with development of mixed uses in the area, a more cohesive community actually would be created. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the amount of information provided in the cumulative projects list in Table 4-1, please refer to Response to Comment A12-3. A12-14 The commenter stated that the Draft EIR, specifically Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, does not clearly identify the cumulative projects included in the traffic analysis, nor does it explain how the City reached the less than significant conclusions. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Assumptions Regarding Cumulative Impacts summarizes the CEQA requirements for cumulative project analysis. As detailed in this section, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130[b][1]) state that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources: A. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency. B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions. The traffic analysis is based on Method A. As stated under Impact Statement 5.14-1 (page 5.14-15), the traffic study included traffic from 25 projects in Newport Beach and 30 Page 2-86 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments projects in Irvine. The detailed lists and location maps for these projects are included in Draft EIR Appendix J, Traffic Impact Analysis, pages J20 to J27. In addition to evaluating the potential traffic impact of 55 related development projects, and traffic analysis conservatively added an ambient growth rate of traffic of 1 percent per year (5 percent total) for MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road and Irvine Avenue. The analysis fully complies with CEQA requirements. The commenter also stated that the conclusions in the Draft EIR do not align with the information in the traffic study. For example, the commenter stated that under the Future Year 2022 Plus Project scenario, the traffic study found that Macarthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive and Macarthur Boulevard/Campus Drive would operate at LOS F and E, respectively, and that no further explanation was provided in the traffic study regarding LOS E being acceptable. With respect to the MacArthur Blvd/Campus Drive intersection, LOS E is considered acceptable by the City of Irvine, as noted on page 6 of the traffic study. Under the year 2022 baseline (no project) and with project analysis, the MacArthur Boulevard/Michelson Drive intersection is forecasted to operate at LOS F with a V/C increase of 0.002, which is not considered a significant impact. Therefore, the analysis and significance findings and conclusions in the Draft EIR and traffic study are in alignment. As explained under footnote 2 on Draft EIR page 5.14-15, the traffic analysis was based on a projected opening year of 2022 for the project. The estimated opening date was revised to 2023 after the draft traffic study was completed. To confirm whether the study results would still be valid for the updated opening year, an analysis was performed at key intersections for 2024 (since the City of Newport Beach evaluates potential conditions for one year after project opening). The analysis to verify conditions for the year 2024 is summarized on Draft EIR page 5.14-23 and the level of service calculations performed for this analysis are included as Appendix B of this FEIR. A12-15 The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s alternatives analysis is insufficient because the underlying evaluation of environmental impacts is inadequate. Therefore, the commenter claims, the alternatives analysis does not identify feasible alternatives that lessen adverse impacts or examine whether the alternatives would mitigate or avoid impacts. To the extent that the comment reiterates concerns regarding the Draft EIR’s evaluation of environmental impacts, please refer to Responses to Comments A12-4 through A1214, above. Given the adequacy of the underlying environmental analysis, the Draft EIR’s evaluation of alternatives likewise is sufficient. An EIR only must evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the extent they would avoid or substantially lessen any of the project’s significant effects and feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a); see also In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163.) Here, the Draft EIR evaluated two alternatives: (1) a “no project” alternative; and (2) a “reduced height February 2019 Page 2-87 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments and density” alternative. Each alternative would lessen certain environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. The “no project” alternative, however, would not achieve project objectives, and while the “reduced height and density alternative” would achieve project objectives, it would do so to a lesser extent. Together, these two alternatives comprise a reasonable range of alternatives, and the commenter does not otherwise allege any particular deficiency in the alternatives analysis Page 2-88 A12-16 The commenter requested that the Draft EIR be updated to address the comments raised in this comment letter and that the Draft EIR be recirculated. See individual responses to Comments A12-1 through A12-15, above. Based on responses provided to the individual comments, the revisions to the Draft EIR outlined above, and the findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR and this Final EIR, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. A12-17 The commenter requested that they be notified of any additional notices related to the proposed project pursuant to Section 21092.2 of the Public Resources Code, Section 21167(f) of the Public Resources Code, and Section 65092 of the Government Code. The commenter also requested that they be added to the list of interested parties for the proposed project. The City will continue to provide the commenter with all planning and CEQA-related project notices and documents in accordance with these requirements. The City will also add the commenter to the list of interested parties. PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A13 – Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation (1 page) February 2019 Page 2-89 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-90 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A13. Response to Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, LLP, Nicholas Whipps, dated December 17, 2018. A13-1 This letter requests tribal consultation with the City in accordance with AB52. However, dated December 17, 2018, it appears to be written in response to the Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR. The AB 52 tribal consultation process conducted for this project is described in Draft EIR Section 5.15., Tribal Cultural Resources. Emails notifying tribes of the project and inviting early consultation were sent to each of the tribes on January 3, 2018. No comments or requests for consultation were received. The 30-day noticing requirement under AB 52 was completed on February 3, 2018. Therefore, the City completed its noticing requirements in accordance with the requirements of AB 52. (See Pub. Resources Code § 21082.3(d).) In response to the current letter (12/17/18), on December 20, 2018, the City’s Project Manager, Jaime Murillo, forwarded the commenter copies of Draft EIR Sections 5.4 and 5.15, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources, respectively. The Cultural Resources Technical Memo supporting the Draft EIR was also forwarded (Draft EIR, Appendix D). In the letter, Mr. Murillo also offered to meet with the commenter to discuss the EIR analysis and recommended mitigation in more detail. And finally, Mr. Murillo followed up with a phone call to Mr. Salas. To date, there has been no response back from the commenter. Further, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 on pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11 of Draft EIR Section 5.4, Cultural Resources, has been revised to provide clarification that a culturally-related Native American monitor shall be allowed to monitor ground-disturbing activities at the project site, as follows. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision has shown below, does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2 CUL-1 February 2019 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project 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 Page 2-91 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally-/culturally-affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleño Band of Mission IndiansKizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis 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. Page 2-92 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER A14 – State Clearinghouse (9 pages) February 2019 Page 2-93 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-94 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-95 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-96 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-97 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-98 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-99 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-100 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-101 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-102 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments A14. Response to State Clearinghouse, Scott Morgan, Director, dated January 15, 2019. A14-1 The comment acknowledges that the City of Newport Beach has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for the Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA. The comment also acknowledges that the State Clearinghouse received the Draft EIR and accompanying Notice Availability and submitted them to select state agencies for review. The comment is acknowledged and no response is necessary. A14-2 Please refer to comment letter A9 for responses to comments raised by Caltrans. A14-3 Please refer to comment letter A4 for responses to comment raised by DTSC. February 2019 Page 2-103 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-104 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments LETTER I1 – Jim Mosher (6 pages) February 2019 Page 2-105 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-106 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-107 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-108 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments February 2019 Page 2-109 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Page 2-110 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1. Response to Comments from Jim Mosher, dated January 14, 2019. I1-1 The Draft EIR (including the format) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Article 9 (Contents of Environmental Impact Reports) of the CEQA Guidelines, which covers Sections 15120 to 15132. As stated in Section 15120, “Environmental Impact Reports shall contain the information outlined in this article, but the format of the document may be varied. Each element must be covered, and when these elements are not separated into distinct sections, the document shall state where in the document each element is discussed.” As further stated in in Section 15122, “An EIR shall contain at least a table of contents or an index to assist readers in finding the analysis of different subjects and issues.” A table of contents is provided at the beginning of the Draft EIR, which helps guide readers to the various chapters and sections of the Draft EIR. Also, the digital version (PDF) of the Draft EIR provided on the City’s website allows the reader to use the “search and find” tool to help navigate the reader through the Draft EIR. Further, the CEQA Guidelines do not enumerate a page limit (either minimum of maximum) for EIRs. I1-2 The commenter seems unhappy with the overall format, organization, and content of the Draft EIR. However, the format, organization, and content are in line with the requirements of Article 9 of the CEQA Guidelines, as noted in response to Comment I11, above. Also, the format and pattern of the Draft EIR topical sections is consistent with and follows the outline provided on page 5-2, under Organization of Environmental Analysis. The commenter appears confused as to the source of the impact statements used in the Draft EIR. However, as noted by commenter, the source of the impact statements is noted as being Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Commenter does not challenge or otherwise question the use of these thresholds of significance for the analysis in the Draft EIR. With respect to the NOP, as noted by the commenter, the Draft EIR states that “The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Notice of Preparation disclosed potential impacts.” Commenter seems to confuse this statement as meaning that the thresholds are contained in the NOP, when, in fact, the statement is noting only that the NOP did not scope out the impact thresholds from detailed analysis in the Draft EIR because the NOP disclosed that the impacts could be potentially significant and so required further analysis in the EIR. This is consistent with Public Resources Code § 21080.4. Regarding standard conditions and regulatory requirements, these will be enforced by the City as conditions of approval, which will be required to be adhered to through its site development review and building plan check process. Therefore, sufficient enforcement will be provided and the applicant compliance with all standard conditions and regulatory requirements will be ensured. February 2019 Page 2-111 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-3 No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that many of the policies noted in Table 5.9-1 of Draft EIR Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning, are subjective and the conclusions rather arbitrary. The comment is acknowledged. In response to the comment about the projects consistency with General Plan Policy LU 6.15.14, the proposed location, layout, and improvements of the 0.5-acre park are consistent with the requirements of this policy. As stated in Table 5.9-1 under the consistency analysis of Policy LU 6.15.14, the proposed park space would be clearly public due to the lack of perimeter fencing and signage and would be easily accessible to residents and the neighboring community through pedestrian connections. The park would be bordered by streets on two sides, would include a parking area, and would be visible (and accessible) from Dove Street and Martingale Way. As noted in Table 5.9-1 of Section 5.9, the Residential Overlay of the NPPC that applies to the project site, implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which states that the City shall maintain an exception to the 10-acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. As the comment states, Ordinance No. 2012-14 amended the Newport Place Planned Community to include the Residential Overlay and includes the 10-acre site exception required to be maintained by General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. Section V.F (Amenities and Neighborhood Integration) of the Residential Overlay includes a requirement that the residential development include sufficient amenities (e.g. parks, clubhouse, pool, etc.) for the use of the residents and incorporate necessary improvements (e.g. pedestrian walkways, open space, recreational space, pedestrian, and bicycle connections) to allow integration into the existing community and larger residential developments in the future. This determination is implemented through the City’s site development review process. In addition to the 0.5-acre public park and as detailed in Subsection 3.3.1.6 of Draft EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, the project provides extensive onsite recreational amenities, including separate pool, entertainment, and lounge courtyards with eating, seating, and barbeque space; a rooftop terrace; a fifth-level view deck; a club room for entertainment and gatherings; and a fitness facility. In addition, a public plaza is located in front of the retail shops facing the main corner of the project at Corinthian Way and Martingale Way. The provided amenities total 22,696 square feet (65 square feet per unit), exceeding the 15,400 square-foot (44 square feet per unit) onsite recreational amenities requirement, and lessening the demand on existing recreational facilities in the City. Page 2-112 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-4 The Draft EIR is not misstating the intent of the park acreage per resident requirement. As stated under Impact Statement 5.13-1 (page 5.13-6), “…the City’s five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons requirement, as set forth in the City’s Park Dedication Fee Ordinance (Chapter 19.52 [Park Dedication and Fees] of the City’s Municipal Code) and General Plan Policy R1.1 do not apply to the proposed project, as the project is not a residential subdivision. The project does not involve or require a subdivision map because it is a for-lease apartment development. Subdivision maps are associated with for-sale residential developments, both single- and multifamily. Therefore, the ordinance is not applicable to the proposed project. However, as detailed above, the proposed project would provide a half-acre park in accordance with the requirement of General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13.” Further, the City’s case log indicates that the application originally included a request for a tentative tract map because the initial request included the ability to sell each unit as a condominium, which would have necessitated a tentative tract map approval; however, the application was later revised to include for-rent apartment units only. Therefore, a tentative tract map was no longer required and a lot line adjustment is only needed to reconfigure the existing underlying parcels. I1-5 In response to the commenter, the project site consists of three legal lots (Lot 1 of Tract No. 7770, M.M. 299/15-16, and Parcels 1 and 2 of P.M.B. 53-13), but four tax parcels (APNs 427-172-02, 03, -05, and -06). Therefore, the information provided in the NOA and Draft EIR are correct and no discrepancy exists. I1-6 Subsection 4.2.2, Regional Planning Considerations, of Draft EIR Section 4.2, Environmental Setting, states (not “promises”, as noted by the commenter) that the proposed project’s consistency with SCAG’s regional planning guidelines and policies is provided in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. As stated on page 5.9-2 of Section 5.9, “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.” In response to the commenter and the statement provided in Section 5.9, the text in Subsection 4.2.2 (page 4-2) has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 4. Environmental Setting SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The SCS outlines a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, would reduce February 2019 Page 2-113 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions reduction targets identified by the California Air Resources Board. However, the SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with the SCS; instead, it provides incentives to governments and developers for consistency. The proposed project’s consistency with the applicable relation to SCAG’s 2016-2040 RTP/SCS policies is analyzed in detail discussed in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. I1-7 Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, of Draft EIR Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, identifies all of the cumulative projects within the relevant geographic area of the project site. Figure 4-3, Cumulative Developments Location Map, illustrates the location of each cumulative project relative to the proposed project. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(2), the cumulative projects consider the nature of the resource affected and the location of the project, as well as the type of project under review. As stated on page 4-14 of Chapter 4, “Cumulative impact analyses for several topical sections are also based on the most appropriate geographic boundary for the respective impact.” With regard to cumulative traffic impacts, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic, identifies the cumulative projects included in the traffic analysis, which includes projects in the City of Irvine. As stated on page 4-14 of Chapter 4, “Several potential cumulative impacts that encompass regional boundaries (e.g., air quality and traffic) have been addressed in the context of various regional plans and defined significance thresholds.” Additionally, the list of cumulative projects provided in Table 4-1 of Draft EIR are not outdated or inaccurate. The list of cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 were provided by the City of Newport Beach and are those that were available at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), as further detailed below. As noted on page 4-13 of the Draft EIR, “The City compiled a list of cumulative projects for analysis under CEQA. …The list has two parts: Reasonably Foreseeable Projects and Approved Projects.” The comment states that the Ford Road project should have been included in the Draft EIR’s list of reasonably foreseeable projects for purposes of conducting a cumulative impacts analysis. While an application for Ford Road was submitted on October 30, 2017, it was not entered into the City’s records system until November 3, 2017, two days after circulation of the NOP for the proposed project. The City treated circulation of the NOP as the cutoff date pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; therefore, the Ford Road project was not identified in the cumulative projects list. Similar approaches have been upheld by courts. (See Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1127 [holding that lead agency has discretion to set date of application as a reasonable cutoff date for determining what other projects are pending and should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis]; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61 [same].) In addition, the Ford Road project proposes only 21 residential condominium units, which represents a very small percentage (less than 1%) of the total number of dwelling units identified in the cumulative projects list and Page 2-114 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments utilized for purposes of analyzing cumulative impacts. (See Concerned Citizens of South Central L.A. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 837-838 [upholding cumulative housing impacts analysis where petitioners were able to show only a small amount of housing loss in addition to that identified in the cumulative impact analysis].) The ENC Preschool project was a minor use permit approval to allow a preschool/general day care with approximately 72 students. The development includes the construction of a 6,498-square-foot facility. The cumulative traffic analysis of the proposed project’s traffic study analyzed the addition of 72 students (see Appendix J of the Draft EIR). The Villas Fashion Island project was a 524 apartment project. However, the project referenced in the table was the 2012 approval of an amendment to the North Newport Center Planned Community Plan (NNCPC) increasing the residential development allocation from 430 units to a total of 524 units (increase of 94 units) and allocating the units to the San Joaquin Plaza sub-area of the NNCPC. The addendum to the General Plan Update EIR and traffic study analyzed the 94 unit increase. The construction permits for the Villas Fashion Island apartments was finalized on October 6, 2017. As also noted above, the City treated circulation of the NOP as the relevant date for identifying those projects that would be included as cumulative projects. Although Villas Fashion Island was listed as an “approved project” on the cumulative projects list, construction permits for that project actually were finalized on October 6, 2017 (as noted above), approximately four weeks prior to circulation of the NOP. Therefore, with final construction permits in place prior to issuance of the NOP, Villas Fashion Island was an existing condition and not a cumulative project for purposes of the Draft EIR’s environmental analysis. I1-8 The environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration) that was prepared for the 380-unit Residences at Newport Place project has no relevance to the proposed Newport Crossings project or the environmental analysis conducted as a part of an included in the project’s Draft EIR. I1-9 No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that the aesthetic analysis provided in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, does not provide adequate discussion as to how the propose project will blend in with its surroundings. A detailed discussion that describes the visual change in the environment due to project development as well as how the project would fit in to the surrounding environment is provided under Impact Statement 5.1-2, starting on page 5.1-8. I1-10 The commenter is correct that 0.73 ug/L of PCE is equivalent to approximately 110 ppbV. However, this does not affect the vapor intrusion risk assessment results (as concentrations in ug/L are used) and is not expected to impact the design of the vapor mitigation system membrane at these relatively low levels. February 2019 Page 2-115 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments Also, the statement provided on page 5.7-16 of Draft EIR Section 5.7 is correct. Thresholds HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 were determined to have no impacts, as substantiated in Draft EIR Chapter 8, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant. In response to this comment and to correct a minor error, the text on page 5-7-8 of Draft EIR Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, has been revised, as follows. The revisions are also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The text revisions do not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 5.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil-vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/L (that is, 0.73 part per billion), above the California Health Hazard Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.71, Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.7-1). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present. I1-11 Page 2-116 CEQA requires that a project’s impact on the environment be analyzed; however, it does not require an analysis of the environments impacts on a project be analyzed. Also, the requirement for the preparation of an acoustic study is pursuant to the provisions of City’s the Noise Ordinance and Municipal Code Section 20.48.130.E, Mixed-Use Projects Sound Mitigation, as stated on page 5.10-14 of the Draft EIR Section 5.10, Noise. The City requires acoustic studies to be prepared for projects such as the proposed Newport Crossing project to ensure that future project residents will not be exposed to excessive noise sources and that the buildings are designed and constructed to meet the City’s noise regulations. The acoustic study is required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of building permits for each structure. Through its review process, the City will ensure that all noise attenuation measures are incorporated into the project’s buildings, in compliance with the findings of the acoustic study. PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-12 As stated on page 5.12-2 of Draft EIR Section 5.12, Public Services, Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax) of the City’s Municipal Code outlines the need for collecting necessary funds to provide adequate fire stations and fire-fighting equipment, public City libraries, and public City parks—which cannot be met by the City’s ordinary revenues—through an excise tax upon the construction and occupancy of residential, commercial, and industrial units or buildings in the City. The funds collected under Chapter 3.12 do not apply to police services or facilities. I1-13 As discussed in Draft Section 5.12, the project site is within the boundaries of and would be served by the Santa Ana Unified School District (District). The District has indicated that it can serve the school needs of the students generated by the project. Section 5.12 also substantiates the District’s schools that serve the project site have capacity for to accommodate the project’s students. Further, irrelevant of the school district that serves the project site, the project applicant/developer will be required to pay school impact fees under per Senate Bill 50. I1-14 The analysis provided under Impact Statement 5.16-6 of Draft EIR Section 5.16, Utilities and Service Systems, is in response to the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines questions regarding wastewater treatment which are listed on page 5.14-6. As stated on Page 5.14-6, according to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project (emphasis added). I1-15 U-2 Would 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. U-5 Would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. No evidence was provided in this comment to support the commenters general statement that the description of alternatives provided in Draft EIR Chapter 7, Alternatives, is muddled. The comment is acknowledged. In response to the commenter’s confusion of how the environmental superior alternative is selected and why the No Project Alternative was not selected as the superior alternative over the proposed project, please refer to the explanation provided in Subsections 7.1.1, Purpose and Scope, of Draft EIR Chapter 7. As stated in the third bullet point of Subsection 7.1.1 (page 7-1), “…If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]). February 2019 Page 2-117 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2. Response to Comments I1-16 In response to the commenter, the missing response to the fourth question regarding growth-inducing impacts outlined on page 9-2 of Draft EIR Chapter 9, Other CEQA Considerations, is probed below. The revision is also provided in Chapter 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of the Final EIR. The revision does not change the findings or conclusions of the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in bold underlined text to signify additions. 9. Other CEQA Considerations Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Implementation of the proposed project would encourage or facilitate economic effects. During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until the project is constructed over two years. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. The construction phase would be temporary and the buildings are being developed based on market demand. Buildout of the proposed project would not increase employment in the project area by a substantial amount. The project’s 7,500 square feet of retail and restaurant uses is estimated to generate approximately 12 permanent jobs, while the apartment complex is estimated to generate approximately 4 permanent jobs. Total estimated employment generation by the proposed project is about 16 jobs. Also, the proposed apartments would introduce up to 550 additional residents. The increase in residents could spur new economic investment in commercial uses serving the project site. Future residents would also represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses in the area. While the proposed project would have an indirect growth-inducing effect, this would be accommodated by the surrounding Airport Area and its ability to absorb local business growth. Page 2-118 PlaceWorks 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the DEIR based on (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of DEIR publication; and/or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional clarification and/or revisions to mitigation requirements included in the DEIR. The provision of these revised mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the DEIR. Changes made to the DEIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.2 DEIR REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the DEIR. Pages 2-10 and 2-11, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. The following text is revised to correct a minor error. 2.5 FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION This DEIR is being circulated for public review for 45 days. Interested agencies and members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the DEIR to the City address shown on the title page of this document. Upon completion of the 45-day review period, the City will review all written comments received and prepare written responses for each. A Final EIR (FEIR) will incorporate the received comments, responses to the comments, and any changes to the DEIR that result from comments. The FEIR will be presented to the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission for potential certification as the environmental document for the project. All persons who comment on the DEIR will be notified of the availability of the FEIR and the date of the public hearing before the City. 2.6 MITIGATION MONITORING Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that agencies adopt a monitoring or reporting program for any project for which it has made findings pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081 or adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to 21080(c). Such a program is intended to ensure the implementation of all mitigation measures adopted through the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. February 2019 Page 3-1 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Newport Crossings Mixed Use project will be completed in conjunction with the Final EIR, prior to consideration of the project by the Newport Beach City Council Planning Commission. Pages 1-9, 1-10, 1-13, 1-15 and 1-16 of Table 1-2, Chapter 1, Executive Summary. The following mitigation measures are revised/added in response to Comment A1-1 from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Comment A4-9 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and Comment A8-7 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Table 1-2 Mitigation Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.2 Air Quality Impact 5.2-2: Potentially significant AQ-3 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’S threshold criteria for NOX. Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use Less than significant with equipment that meets the EPA’s Tier 34 emissions mitigation standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than of 50 horsepower or greater for all building and asphalt demolition, building and asphalt demolition debris hauling, rough grading, and rough grading soil hauling activities phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 34 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment over of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Page 3-2 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 1-2 Mitigation Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Environmental Impact Level of Significance Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact 5.4-2: Project development could result in an impact on archaeological resources. Potentially significant CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Less than significant with Newport Beach, the project applicant shall retain a mitigation qualified archaeologist to periodically monitor grounddisturbing 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, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally-/culturally-affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis 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. 5.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 5.7-2: The Potentially significant HAZ-2 project site is on a list of hazardous materials sites. February 2019 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and Less than significant with soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath mitigation the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5-acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Page 3-3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Pages 5.2-32 and 5.2-33, Section 5.2, Air Quality. The following mitigation measure is revised in response to Comment A8-7 from the Air Quality Management District. 5.2.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.2-2 AQ-3 Construction contractors shall, at minimum, use equipment that meets the EPA’s Tier 34 emissions standards for off-road diesel-powered construction equipment with more than of 50 horsepower or greater for all building and asphalt demolition, building and asphalt demolition debris hauling, rough grading, and rough grading soil hauling activities phases of construction activity, unless it can be demonstrated to the City of Newport Beach Building Division with substantial evidence that such equipment is not available. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by Tier 3 4 emissions standards for a similarly sized engine, as defined by the California Air Resources Board’s regulations. Prior to construction, the project engineer shall ensure that all construction (e.g., demolition and grading) plans clearly show the requirement for EPA Tier 34 emissions standards for construction equipment over of 50 horsepower or greater for the specific activities stated above. During construction, the construction contractor shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the construction site for verification by the City of Newport Beach. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and numbers of construction equipment onsite. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Construction contractors shall also ensure that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Pages 5.4-10 and 5.4-11, Section 5.4, Cultural Resources. The following mitigation measure is revised in response to Comment A1-1 from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance. 5.4.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.4-2 CUL-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach, the project 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, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including traditionally- Page 3-4 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR /culturally-affiliated Native American tribes (e.g., Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation), to access the project site on a volunteer basis 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. Page 5.7-8, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A4-4 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Comment I1-10 from Jim Mosher. Soil Vapor Sampling and Testing: 2013 The 2013 Phase II investigation included three subslab soil-vapor samples collected from directly beneath the slab below the former dry cleaner at 4250 Scott Drive. In addition, seven subsurface soil vapor samples were collected from the property perimeter at depths of 5 feet bgs. The PCE concentration in one of the three subslab samples was 0.73 µg/L (that is, 0.73 part per billion), above the California Human Health Hazard Screening Level (CHHSL) of 0.48 µg/L for residential land use; concentrations in the other two samples were below the CHHSL. The location this sample was taken from is shown in Figure 5.7-1, Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Locations. Soil vapor samples from two of the seven locations sampled on the site perimeter yielded PCE concentrations of 1.5 and 1.4 µg/L, respectively, also above the CHHSL for residential use. One location is on the northwest site boundary, and the other is on the northern part of the eastern site boundary (see Figure 5.71). The concentrations of PCE detected indicated groundwater contamination may be present. Page 5.7-14, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A10-3 from the Airport Land Use Commission. Airport-Related Hazards The proposed project is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) issued by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission in 2008. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). There are no heliports within one mile of the project site other than JWA (Airnav.com 2018). February 2019 Page 3-5 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR The proposed project is also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet above mean sea level (amsl) (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, the maximum structure height proposed onsite would be based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height permitted on-site is about 153 feet above ground level plus the proposed building height. Pages 5.7-15 and 5.7-16, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A4-4 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. RR HAZ-2 Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of nonhazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the Orange County Environmental Health Department, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention, (4) Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank Program. Transportation of hazardous waste will also be transported in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 13. Page 5.7-20, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following text is revised in response to Comment A10-3 from the Airport Land Use Commission. Impact Analysis: The project site is in Safety Zone 6 designated in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. Outdoor stadiums and similar uses with very high intensities are prohibited in Zone 6. Children’s schools, large day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes should be avoided. Residential uses and most nonresidential uses are permitted (OCALUC 2008). The proposed project does not propose any land uses prohibited or discouraged by the AELUP and would not subject people on the ground to substantial hazards from crashes of aircraft approaching or departing JWA. The project site also in an area surrounding JWA where structure heights are regulated under FAA Regulations Part 77 for preservation of navigable airspace. The maximum structure height permitted at the project site is 206 feet amsl (OCALUC 2008). The elevation onsite ranges from 48 feet amsl at the southwest corner of the site to 53 feet amsl at the northeast corner. Thus, based on the higher of those two elevations, the maximum structure height permitted onsite is about 153 feet above ground level is approximately 130 amsl, which is the sum of the maximum proposed building height of 77 feet 9 inches (tallest structure proposed) plus the highest elevation of the site of 53 feet amsl. This would put the proposed building height well below the 206 foot amsl Page 3-6 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR height limit for the site. The proposed buildings would be approximately 55 feet high for residential living spaces, with limited ancillary structures to 77 feet 9 inches for stair towers architectural features (including parapets), parking, roof decks, elevator shafts, and mechanical equipment. The proposed project would conform with structure heights permitted on-site under FAA regulations and would not adversely affect navigable airspace surrounding JWA. Page 5.7-22, Section 5.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The following mitigation measures has been added in response to Comment A4-9 from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. 5.7.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.7-2 MM HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, soil and soil vapor samples shall be collected from beneath the former Enjay Cleaners and soil samples shall be collected from beneath the proposed 0.5-acre public park site and tested for PCE and OCPs, respectively. The results shall be submitted to the Orange County Health Care Agency and City Building Official. In the event that soil concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, affected soils shall be removed and properly treated/disposed of. Should soil vapor concentrations exceed site-specific cleanup goals, short-term soil vapor extraction and treatment shall be performed to reduce soil vapor concentrations. Page 5.9-25, Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning. The following text is revised in response to Comment A12-11 from Wittwer Parkin, LLP. Zoning Code Consistency As stated above, the project site is zoned Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11). PC-11 allows for residential development, with a minimum of 30 du/ac and a maximum of 50 du/ac, consistent with the MUH2 land use designation. More specifically, the project site within PC-11 is designated General Commercial Site 6. The General Commercial designation allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site also has a residential overlay option given its general plan designation of MU-H2. The projects consistency with the Residential Overlay development standards of the NPPC, which apply to the project site and function as zoning for the site, is discussed below. The proposed retail, restaurant, and residential uses under the proposed project are allowed under the existing zoning, and no zone change is required or proposed. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. See also RR LU-1 and RR LU-2. February 2019 Page 3-7 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards Consistency Development standards for utilization of the NPPC’s rResidential oOverlay, which applies to the project site, are found on Page 46 of the PCDP in the NPPC development standards. Table 5.9-2 demonstrates the proposed project’s consistency with those development standards. For example, as noted in Table 5.9-2, the Residential Overlay of the NPPC, which applies to the project site, implements General Plan Housing Element Program 3.2.2, which creates an exception to the 10-acre site requirement for residential development projects in the Airport Area that include a minimum of 30 percent of the units affordable to lower income households. Residential developments, such as the proposed project, that qualify for the residential overlay are subsequently exempt from General Plan Land Use Policy LU 6.15.6 and have no minimum site area requirement. In addition to the site size exception and affordable housing requirements, the NPPC details additional residential development regulations addressing setbacks, building height, parking requirements, landscaping, signs, utilities requirements, and amenities and neighborhood integration. With the exception of the unit mix and building height requirements, the proposed project would be developed in accordance with the NPPC development regulations. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the project’s Affordable Housing Implementation Plan includes a request for one development concession for the unit mix and one waiver for the height, as described below.  Development Concession (Unit Mix). Pursuant to Section V.F.1 of the Residential Overlay, “Affordable units shall reflect the range of numbers of bedrooms provided in the residential development project as a whole.” In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a unit mix that includes a greater percentage of studio and one-bedroom units, as illustrated in Table 3-2 of Chapter 3. Granting this incentive will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual project cost reduction by reducing the long-term rental subsidy costs associated with the two-bedroom units and affording additional rental income for the project to ensure financial feasibility.  Waiver/Concession of Development Standard (Height Increase). Pursuant to Section V.A of the Residential Overlay, the maximum building heights are limited to 55 feet, but may be increased with the approval of a site development review after making certain findings for approval. Government Code Section 65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus project at the density permitted under the density bonus law. In the case of the proposed project, the project applicant is requesting a waiver of the 55-foot building height limit to 77 feet 9 inches in order to accommodate the parapet, roof-top mechanical equipment, elevator shafts, emergency staircase, rooftop terrace, and a portion of the parking garage. Without the height allowance for the stairs, elevators, mechanical equipment, and parapet, 63 of the 91 density bonus units would need to be eliminated. Furthermore, limiting heights to 55 feet would result in elimination of the rooftop amenity deck and upper level of parking structure, which are necessary for marketing purposes to meet expectations of prospective tenants and market-rate rents, provide the level of onsite amenities encouraged by the Residential Overlay, and reduce the impact of parking availability on neighboring streets. Page 3-8 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Approval of the aforementioned concession and waiver would not result in a land use conflict with the regard to the NPPC development standards. Page 5.11.10, Section 5.11, Population and Housing. The following text is revised in response to Comment A1211 from Wittwer Parkin, LLP and to provide a minor revision. 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts The area considered for cumulative impacts is the City of Newport Beach. Impacts are analyzed using General Plan projections in SCAG’s 2016 Growth Forecast. Development activity in the City includes residential projects (see Table 4-1 in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting). Most of the proposed development The proposed project is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would therefore be expected to be consistent with SCAG’s growth projections. Page 5.12-11, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text is revised in response to Comment A7-4 from the Santa Ana Unified School District. Regulatory Background Senate Bill 50 (Chapter 407 of Statutes of 1998) (SB 50) SB 50 sets forth a state school facilities construction program that includes restrictions on a local jurisdiction’s ability to impose mitigation for a project’s impacts on school facilities in excess of fees set forth in Education Code 17620. It establishes three potential limits for school districts, depending on the availability of new school construction funding from the state and the particular needs of the individual school districts. Level one is the general school facilities fees imposed in accordance with Government Code Section 65995 as amended. Level two and three fees are alternate fees that are intended to represent 50 percent or 100 percent of a school district’s school facility construction costs per new residential construction as authorized by Government Code Sections 65995.5, 65995.6, and 65995.7. On February 24, 2016 September 17, 2018, the State Allocation Board adjusted the maximum level-one residential school fee to be $3.48 $3.79 per square foot for residential development; $0.56 and $0.61 per square foot for commercial, industrial, and senior housing projects; and $0.406 per square foot for hotel/motel projects. Development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed by Section 65996 of the California Government Code to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.” Page 5.12-13, Section 5.12, Public Services. The following text is revised in response to Comments A7-3 and A75 from the Santa Ana Unified School District. Impact Analysis: The proposed project is estimated to generate about 39 180 students—using SAUSD student generation factors for multifamily units—consisting of 22 83 elementary school students, 8 43 intermediate students, and 9 54 high school students (see Table 5.12-3). February 2019 Page 3-9 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Table 5.12-3 Estimated Project Student Generation (350 Proposed Multifamily Units) School Level Elementary (K-5) Intermediate (6-8) High (9-12) Total Generation Factor per Household (multifamily attached units)1 Students Generated 0.0620 0.2367 0.0229 0.1218 0.0251 0.1533 22 83 8 43 9 54 0.11 — 39 180 Source: Cogan 20182019. The three schools serving the project site have sufficient capacities for the proposed project’s student generation, as shown in Table 5.12-4. Project development would not require SAUSD to add school capacity as the schools serving the project site would have more than adequate capacity. Table 5.12-4 Project Impacts on School Capacities School Monroe Elementary School McFadden Intermediate School Century High School Existing Available Capacity (from Table 5.12-2)1 Project Student Generation (from Table 5.12-3) Available Capacity After Project Student Generation 191 22 83 169 108 609 8 43 601 566 127 9 54 118 76 Source: Cogan 2018. Additionally, the need for additional school services and facilities is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50, also known as Proposition 1A. SB 50—codified in California Government Code Section 65995—was enacted in 1988 to address how schools are financed and how development projects may be assessed for associated school impacts. To address the increase in enrollment at LAUSD SAUSD schools that would serve the Proposed Project, the project applicant/developer would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts to the school system, in accordance with SB 50. These fees are collected by school districts at the time of issuance of building permits. As stated in Government Code Section 65995(h), Page 5.14-4, Section 5.14, Transportation and Traffic. The following text is revised in response to Comment A5-3 from the City of Irvine. City of Irvine In Irvine, LOS E (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 1.00) is considered acceptable in the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) intersections. At other study area intersections in Irvine, LOS D (peak hour ICU less than or equal to 0.90) is acceptable. At Irvine intersections, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable levels of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. At Irvine intersections and, if project traffic causes the study area intersection level of service to drop from acceptable to unacceptable level of service, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring the intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project Page 3-10 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF IRVINE 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR conditions. Also, if the intersection would operate at unacceptable level of service and the project contribution is 0.02 or greater, mitigation is required, where feasible, to bring intersection back to an acceptable level of service or to no project conditions. Page 9-3, Chapter 9, Other CEQA Considerations. The following text is revised in response to Comment I1-16 from Jim Mosher. Would this project encourage or facilitate economic effects that could result in other activities that could significantly affect the environment? Implementation of the proposed project would encourage or facilitate economic effects. During project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. This would last until the project is constructed over two years. Construction related jobs would not result in a significant population increase because they would be filled by workers in the region. The construction phase would be temporary and the buildings are being developed based on market demand. Buildout of the proposed project would not increase employment in the project area by a substantial amount. The project’s 7,500 square feet of retail and restaurant uses is estimated to generate approximately 12 permanent jobs, while the apartment complex is estimated to generate approximately 4 permanent jobs. Total estimated employment generation by the proposed project is about 16 jobs. Also, the proposed apartments would introduce up to 550 additional residents. The increase in residents could spur new economic investment in commercial uses serving the project site. Future residents would also represent an increased demand for economic goods and services and could, therefore, encourage the creation of new businesses and/or the expansion of existing businesses in the area. While the proposed project would have an indirect growthinducing effect, this would be accommodated by the surrounding Airport Area and its ability to absorb local business growth. February 2019 Page 3-11 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-12 PlaceWorks NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Appendix A. FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks Aeronautical Study No. 2018-AWP-17902-OE Prior Study No. 2014-AWP-7280-OE Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 02/07/2019 Dan Vittone Starboard Realty Partners 1301 Dove Street Suite 1080 Newport Beach, CA 92660 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Location: Latitude: Longitude: Heights: Building Newport Crossings Newport Beach, CA 33-39-59.30N NAD 83 117-51-57.56W 50 feet site elevation (SE) 80 feet above ground level (AGL) 130 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met: It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e-filed any time the project is abandoned or: _____ At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) __X__ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 2. This determination expires on 08/07/2020 unless: (a) (b) (c) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. Page 1 of 3 A-1 NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure. If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (424) 405-7643, or karen.mcdonald@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2018AWP-17902-OE. ( DNE ) Signature Control No: 391674963-396012618 Karen McDonald Specialist Attachment(s) Map(s) Page 2 of 3 A-2 TOPO Map for ASN 2018-AWP-17902-OE [1.3 . Page 3 of 3 A-3 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix Appendix B. Evaluation of Key Intersections and Roadways for 2024 With Project Conditions February 2019 NEWPORT CROSSINGS MIXED USE PROJECT (PA2017-107) FINAL EIR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Appendix This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks Intersections 1. MacArthur Blvd/Campus Dr (PM Peak Hour) 13. MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Rd (PM Peak Hour) 18. MacArthur/I-405 NB (AM peak hour, HCM) 20. MacArthur/Michelson Dr (PM peak hour). Roadway Segment 1. MacArthur Blvd between I-405 SB Ramps to Michelson Dr 0.88 D *From LSA Study B-1 0.88 D Future Year 2022* No Project With Project V/C LOS V/C LOS 0.917 E 0.917 E 0.811 D 0.813 D 42.0 D 41.9 D 1.050 F 1.052 F Summary Table 0.89 D No Project V/C LOS 0.929 E 0.825 D 42.7 D 1.058 F 0.90 D Future Year 2024 With Project V/C LOS 0.929 E 0.826 D 42.7 D 1.059 F 0.01 ICU Increase 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 No Sig Impact? No No No No Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Movement Number of Lanes 1,600 6,400 1,600 1,600 6,400 1,600 3,200 4,800 1,600 3,200 4,800 0 Capacity 140 1434 86 214 1361 763 355 621 69 184 1213 0 0.48 0.11 0.25 - - 0.09 0.929 0.00 0.929 E - - V/C Ratio 0.09 0.22 0.05 0.13 0.21 0.48 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.25 - Critical V/C P.M. Peak Hour Volumes 09/19/2018 Date: GEOMETRIC : Future 2024 (No Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing City of Newport Beach MacArthur Blvd Campus Dr TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization B-2 Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 Number of Lanes 1,600 6,400 1,600 1,600 6,400 1,600 3,200 4,800 1,600 3,200 4,800 0 Capacity 09/19/2018 Future 2024 (+ Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing 140 1446 86 214 1375 763 355 621 69 184 1213 0 0.09 0.23 0.05 0.13 0.22 0.48 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.06 0.25 - Ratio V/C P.M. Peak Hour Volumes City of Newport Beach MacArthur Blvd Campus Dr Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Date: GEOMETRIC : TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.48 0.11 0.25 - - 0.929 0.00 0.929 E - - 0.09 V/C Critical Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 4 1 3 3 1 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Movement 3,200 4,800 1,600 3,200 4,800 0 3,200 6,400 1,600 4,800 4,800 1,600 Capacity 341 911 398 192 1904 0 280 1110 137 596 1116 176 0.825 0.00 0.825 D 0.11 >> 0.40 0.09 0.23 - V/C Ratio 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.06 0.40 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.23 0.11 Critical V/C P.M. Peak Hour Volumes 09/19/2018 Number of Lanes Date: GEOMETRIC : Future 2024 (No Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing City of Newport Beach MacArthur Blvd Jamboree Rd TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization B-3 Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2 3 1 2 3 0 2 4 1 3 3 1 Number of Lanes 3,200 4,800 1,600 3,200 4,800 0 3,200 6,400 1,600 4,800 4,800 1,600 Capacity 09/19/2018 Future 2024 (+ Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing 341 915 398 192 1907 0 284 1110 137 596 1116 176 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.06 0.40 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.12 0.23 0.11 Ratio V/C P.M. Peak Hour Volumes City of Newport Beach MacArthur Blvd Jamboree Rd Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Date: GEOMETRIC : TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization 0.826 0.00 0.826 D 0.11 >> 0.40 0.09 0.23 - V/C Critical HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 19: MacArthur Boulevard 9 l-405 NB Ramps Movement WBL Lane Con?gurations Traf?c Vol me [vehih i 999 Future IJolume [rehth] 999 Initial Ireh 0 Ped-Bike Adi[A_pr] 1.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.09 IAiork Zone On Approach No Ad] Sat Flow, uehr'htln 1973 Adi Flow Rate. vehe'h 949 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Percent Heaw Veh, 35 2 Cap, Irehi'h 1299 Arrive On Green 9.42 Sat Flow, irehth 3092 Volumeln'], vehr'h 949 Sat 1549 Ct 5 25.9 Cycle 5 25.9 Prop ln Lane 1.99 Lane Capfc}, irehi'h 1299 WC RatiolX] 0.73 Avail Cap{c_aj, vehi'h 1299 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.99 Up5tream FilterEl] 1.99 Uniform Dela?r 5"-reh 24.2 Incr Delay mien 2.1 Initial 9.9 %ile 9.9 Un5ig. Movement Dela'i', 5"5eh Del 29.3 LOS Approach Vol, uehi'h 2212 Approach Dela'i'. 5e'1'eh 99.5 Approach LOS Tim?Assigned 1 Ph5 Duration 5 11.2 Change Period 5 4.5 Max Green Setting [Gmaxt 5 9.7 Max Clear Time 5 7.7 Green Ext Time 5 9.9 tntersedion Summary HCM 9th Delay HCM 91h L09 WBR 14' 1973 1299 42.9 5.5 37.3 33.9 3.2 net 1111 1954 1954 9 1.09 No 1973 2957 9.95 2 2147 9.75 5991 2957 1439 31.9 31.9 2147 9.99 2147 2.99 9.49 12.9 9.9 9.9 4.3 19.9 2544 1 7.2 42.99 1973 4 97 9.95 2 931 SBL BET 1111 1535 1539 19.3 1799 24 .9 54.9 45.5 22.2 12.5 49.9 4. 9 42.9 44. 9 9.9 9971972919 B-4 HCM 5th Signalized Intersection Summary 18: MacArthur Boulevard 9 l-405 NB Ramps (- Movemnt WBL Lane Con?gurations 1? Traf?c Volume [n'eha'm 904 Future 1."olume [?J'Ehi'lh] 994 initial Q10bt.ueh 9 Fed-Bike AdifA_prji 1.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.99 Work Zone On Approach No Adj Sat Flow, 1973 Adi Flow Rate, 1reh."h 952 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 Percent Hea?n? Veh, 35 2 Cap, vehJ'h 1299 Arrive On Green 9.42 Sat Flow, vehith 3992 1i'olumeln'], 'u'eha'h 952 Sat 1549 5 25.9 Circle Clear[g_ct, 5 25.9 Prop In Lane 1.99 Lane Caplc},1reh7h 1299 WC RatiolX] 9.73 Avail uehIh 1299 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.99 Upstream Filterflt 1.09 Uniform 575eh 24.3 Incr Delay 5Areh 2.2 Initial 9.9 Dl'bile In 9.9 Un5ig. Movement Delar. 51'1'eh Delay'fdtahreh 29.5 LOS Approach Vol, vehIh 2219 Approach Delay. 51?u'eh 99.4 Approach L09 ?ner-Assigned P115 1 P115 Duration 11.1 Change Period 5 4.5 Max Green Setting [Gmax}, 9.9 Max Clear Time 5 7.7 Green Ext Time 5 9.9 mtersection Sumac; HCM 9th Delay HCM 9th LOS WBR n! 1293 1293 9 1.99 1.99 1973 1299 42.9 37.4 33.9 3.3 NET 1111 1959 1 959 9 1.99 No 1973 2992 0.95 2 2153 9.75 5991 2992 1439 19.9 2594 17.2 421.99 1.99 1973 59 2 9.95 2 934 9. 75 2499 SBL ?t'i 179 179 1.99 1.99 1973 79 .4 SET 1111 1 549 1 5411 1.99 No 1973 1921 0.95 2792 9.4 9 5991 1 921 1439 19.3 1999 25.2 54.9 49.5 22.2 12.9 49.9 42.5 41.9 5.11 997192919 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 4 1 2 4 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Movement Number of Lanes 1,700 6,800 1,700 3,400 6,800 0 3,400 1,700 1,700 3,400 1,700 1,700 Capacity 187 2303 147 502 1564 6 351 95 117 406 119 711 0.42 - 1.008 0.05 1.058 F - - 0.34 0.15 0.10 V/C Ratio 0.11 0.34 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.42 Critical V/C P.M. Peak Hour Volumes 09/19/2018 Date: GEOMETRIC : Future 2024 (No Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing City of Irvine MacArthur Blvd Michelson TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization B-5 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 1 4 1 2 4 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Adjustment for Lost Time Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Level of Service ( LOS ) Westbound Eastbound Southbound Northbound Movement 1,700 6,800 1,700 3,400 6,800 0 3,400 1,700 1,700 3,400 1,700 1,700 Capacity 09/19/2018 Number of Lanes Date: GEOMETRIC : Future 2024 (+ Proj) PM Peak Hour Existing City of Irvine MacArthur Blvd Michelson TRAFFIC SCENARIO: EAST-WEST STREET : NORTH-SOUTH ST. LOCATION: Intersection Capacity Utilization 187 2315 147 502 1578 6 351 95 117 406 119 711 0.42 - 1.009 0.05 1.059 F - - 0.34 0.15 0.10 V/C 0.11 0.34 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.42 Critical V/C Ratio P.M. Peak Hour Volumes 1. MacArthur Blvd between I‐405 southbound ramps  72,000 to Michelson Drive Capacity 64,274 B-6 0.893 D 377 Future Year 2024 ADT V/C LOS Project ADT 64,651 0.898 D Future Year 2024 With Project ADT V/C LOS 0.005 V/C  increase