HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-50 - General Plan Amendment - 2000-2016 East Balboa BlvdRESOLUTION NO. 2010 -50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION NO. ND2010 -001 AND APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2009 -001 AND
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. LC2009 -001 FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2000 THROUGH 2016 EAST BALBOA
BOULEVARD (PA2009 -067).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by David Beauchamp of Peninsula Point Properties, LLC,
with respect to property located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard and legally
described as Lots 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22 of Tract 756, as shown on a map recorded
in Book 23, Pages 7 & 8 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County,
California in requesting approval of a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal
Program Coastal Land Use Plan amendment.
2. The applicant proposes the adoption of a General Plan amendment and Local
Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan amendment to change the land use
designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential
Detached) and RSD -B, respectively. The property is currently used as a private
tennis club and the Amendments would allow for future redevelopment of
dwelling units.
3. The subject property is located within the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zoning
District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is currently Parks and
Recreation (PR).
4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan category is currently Parks and Recreation (PR).
5. A public hearing was held on March 4, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and
purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
6. At the March 4, 2010, hearing, the Planning Commission received public
comments and voted (7 ayes and 0 noes) to recommend adoption of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment.
7. public hearing was held by the City Council on May 25, 2010, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice
of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the
Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented
to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment
period beginning on January 12, 2010, and ending on February 10, 2010. The
contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in its review of the
proposed project.
3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project,
with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the
environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human
beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental
goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts
anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified
and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible
and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant
level.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B ". The document and all supporting
materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are
on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, California.
5. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations
and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition,
project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As
project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is
appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against
any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys'
fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
Tmplt: 01/14/10
SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
Council Policy A -18 (CPA -18) requires that proposed General Plan amendments
be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a
General Plan amendment (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a
10 -year span) generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of
non - residential floor area, or exceeds 100 dwelling units in a statistical area
beyond what is allowed in the General Plan, a vote of the electorate would be
required if the City Council approves the General Plan amendment.
2. The General Plan does not provide a density /intensity limit for the proposed RS-
D land use designation nor does it include a specific floor area limit or FAR for
the Parks and Recreation land use designation but allows for incidental buildings.
No increase in non - residential floor area is proposed by this amendment;
therefore, the non - residential floor area threshold will not be impacted. Since
there is an increase of 0.41 peak hour trips, the 100 -peak hour trip threshold will
not be exceeded. The amendment would allow up to five additional dwelling
units. This is well below the 100 - dwelling unit threshold. This is the first General
Plan amendment in Statistical Area D4 since the General Plan update in 2006.
There are no prior amendments in this statistical area. None of the thresholds to
require a vote pursuant to CPA -18 would be exceeded.
3. The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula where public services and
infrastructure are available to serve the additional dwelling units under the
proposed land use changes.
4. The amendment is in the public interest pursuant to Section 65358 of the
California Government Code and CPA -18. The amendment would allow for
additional dwelling units which would contribute to the City's assigned share of
moderate or above moderate dwelling units for the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).
5. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate
tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were
provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on February 10, 2010.
The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to
respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a
shorter time period. The response period ended on May 11, 2010 and no
requests for consultation were received.
Tmplt: 01/14/10
SECTION 4. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
AMENDMENT.
1. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the City prepared a Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for property lying within the Coastal Zone of the
City of Newport Beach. In October of 2005, the California Coastal Commission
certified the CLUP and the City Council subsequently adopted it in December of
2005.
2. On February 17, 2010 and May 14, 2010, notices of the availability of a draft
amendment of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan were provided in
accordance with Section 13515(c) of the California Code of Regulations. This
notice was mailed to approximately 122 affected property owners, occupants,
interested parties, and public agencies in order to provide public participation and
comments.
3. This Amendment of the Local Coastal Program CLUP is intended to be carried
out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. Additionally,
the Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies
of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. The
current use of the project site is a private recreational use within the Coastal
Zone and the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program CLUP
amendments allow the development of the property as was permitted prior to the
1988 General Plan update. The conceptual development plan would comply with
the density requirement of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre as required by the
Residential Single Unit Detached (RSD -B) land use designation of the Local
Coastal Program CLUP.
SECTION 5. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The City Council hereby removes the final sentence of the first paragraph as shown
on Page 2 -6 of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 that reads,
"However, this environmental document would cover the approval of a future
subdivision tract map and final development plan, provided they are in substantial
conformance with the conceptual development plan."
2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Mitigated Negative
Declaration No. ND2010 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Mitigation Monitoring
Report Program as depicted in Exhibit "B" of this resolution.
3. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan
Amendment No. GP2009 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "C ".
Tmplt 01/14/10
4. Amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use
Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any
required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments.
5. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Local Coastal
Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 to update the
Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan as depicted in Exhibit "D ".
6. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the
Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment to the California Coastal Commission
for formal review and approval.
7. Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment No. LC2009 -001 shall not become
effective until after California Coastal Commission approves it and subsequent
action is taken to adopt the Amendment by the City Council.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on
the May 25, 2010.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Tmplt: 01/14/10
MAYOR
Exhibit "A"
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tmplt: 01/14/10
Notice of Intent to Adopt
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal
Land Use Plan Amendments
City of Newport Beach
Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) to amend the existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single -
Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and to amend the existing Coastal Land Use Plan designation of
Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) for the properties located at
2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The proposed project would involve the
following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach:
• Amendment to General Plan. An amendment to General Plan land use designation of Parks
and Recreation (PR) to be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D).
• Amendment to Local Coastal Program. An amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use
designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached
(RSD -B).
Because the proposed land use changes would allow the conversion of the existing land use from a
private tennis club to single -unit dwellings, the mitigated negative declaration includes the analysis of a
conceptual development plan to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the land use change.
The R -1 (single - family residential) Zoning District allows for the development of a maximum of five
dwelling units on the subject properties. The project applicant, David Beauchamp, proposes a
conceptual development plan for the construction of a maximum of five, detached, single -unit dwellings
that would comply with the maximum floor area limit as required by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code.
On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant
impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of an MND. The MND reflects
the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental
evaluations, and standard construction and engineering practices, requiring review and reevaluation of
future projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project site does not include any
sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list complied pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5.
The MND is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning January 12, 2010 and ending February
10, 2010. Copies of the document are available for review at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach,
CA 92658 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can
also be accessed online at: htto:// www. newr)ortbeachca .00v /index.asi)x ?oaae =942. Any written
comments on the proposed project must be received no later than February 10, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. to the
attention of Makana Nova at the address listed below.
The City's Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to consider this item at a regular meeting to be
held on March 4, 2010, at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658. For additional information, please contact Makana Nova, Assistant Planner,
at (949) 644 -3249 or at mnova(o-newgortbeachca.aov.
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal
Land Use Plan Amendments
Prepared for:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach CA 92658
Contact: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
949/644 -3202
Prepared bv:
ICF Jones & Stokes
1 Ada, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact: Nicole Williams
949/333 -6600
January 2010
ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010. Initial studyldraft mitigated negative declaration for
the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments.
January. (ICF J &S 00846.07.) Irvine, CA. Prepared for City of Newport Beach,
Planning Department, Newport, CA.
Table of Contents
Chapter1
Introduction ............................................................... ............................1 -1
Overview..................................................................... ............................1
-1
Authority...................................................................... ............................1
-1
Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration .....................1
-2
ImpactTerminology .................................................... ............................1
-2
Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration.................................................................. ............................1
-3
Chapter 2
Environmental Setting and Project Description .... ............................2
-1
Project Overview ......................................................... ............................2
-1
Objectives of the Proposed Project ............................ ............................2
-1
Proposed Project Location .............................................. ........................
2 -1
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ... ............................2
-2
RegulatorySetting ...................................................... ............................2
-3
California Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use Plan ..........................2
-3
City of Newport Beach General Plan .................... ............................2
-3
City of Newport Beach Zoning Code .................... ............................2
-4
Description of the Proposed Project ........................... ............................2
-4
Land Use Amendments ..................................... ................ ...............
2 -4
Conceptual Development Plan ............................. ............................2
-5
Construction Assumptions .................................... ............................2
-6
Chapter 3
Initial Study Environmental Checklist .................... ............................3
-1
I. Aesthetics .......................................................... ............................3
-5
II. Agricultural Resources ....................................... ............................3
-7
III. Air Quality .......................................................... ............................3
-9
IV. Biological Resources ........................................ ...........................3
-18
V. Cultural Resources ........ ..............................................................
3 -21
VI. Geology and Soils ............................................. ...........................3
-23
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................... ...........................3
-27
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................ ...........................3
-32
IX. Land Use and Planning .................................... ...........................3
-37
X. Mineral Resources ............................................ ...........................3
-39
XI. Noise ................................................................. ...........................3
-40
XII. Population and Housing ............................. ..................................
3 -47
XIII. Public Services ................................................. ...........................3
-49
XIV. Recreation ........................................................ ...........................3
-52
XV. Transportation/ Traffic ........................................ ...........................3
-54
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative j
Declaration ICF Jas 00e46.os
City of Newport Beach Table of Contents
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ............................ ...........................3 -57
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................. ...........................3 -61
Chapter 4 References ................................................................ ............................4 -1
Printed References ............................ ................ ................ ......... ....... ..... 4 -1
Personal Communications .......................................... ............................4 -4
Chapter 5 List of Preparers ....................................................... ............................5 -1
City of Newport Beach ................................................ ............................5 -1
ICFJones & Stokes .................................................... ............................5 -1
Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and Operational Emissions
Calculations
Appendix B General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Appendix C Noise Analysis
Appendix D General Plan Noise Element Land use Noise Compatibility Matrix
Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration ICF AS 00846.09
City of Newport Beach
Table of Contents
Tables
Table
Page
2 -1
Summary of Proposed Dwelling Units ........................ ............................2
-5
3 -1
Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions ........... ...........................3
-12
3 -2
Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions .......... ...........................3
-13
3 -3
Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions ............. ...........................3
-14
3 -4
Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions ............ ...........................3
-15
3 -5
Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(pounds per day) ........................................................ ...........................3
-16
3 -6
Short Term Sound Level Measurements ................... ...........................3
-41
3 -7
Potential Noise Levels from Construction Phases ..... ...........................3
-43
3 -8
City of Newport Beach Public Tennis Courts ...... ......... ....... ................
..3 -53
3 -9
City of Newport Beach Private Tennis Courts ........... ...........................3
-53
3 -10
Landfill Capacity ........................................................ ...........................3
-60
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration ICF AS 00846.09
City of Newport Beach
Table of Contents
Figures
Figure Follows Page
2 -1 Regional Location ....................................................... ............................2 -2
2 -2 Local Vicinity Map ....................................................... ............................2 -2
2 -3 Existing Conditions ..................................................... ............................2 -2
2 -4 Existing Development ................................................. ............................2 -2
2 -5 Existing and Proposed General Land Use Plan
Designations............................................................... ............................2 -6
2 -6 Existing and Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan
Designations............................................................... ............................2 -6
2 -7 Proposed Project — Conceptual Development Plan ...... ............................2 -6
3 -1 Designated Public Viewpoints .................................... ............................3 -6
3 -2a Surrounding Residential Uses .................................... ............................3 -6
3 -2b Surrounding Residential Uses .................................... ............................3 -6
3 -3 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Area ........ ...........................3 -24
3 -4 Flood Hazards ........................................................... ...........................3 -36
3 -5 Tsunami Evacuation Routes ........................ ....... ............................... ...3 -36
3 -6 Noise Measurement Locations .................................. ...........................3 -42
3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities ............... ...........................3 -50
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative iv
Declaration ICF AS 00846.09
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADTs
Average Daily Trips
AELUP
Airport Envrions Land Use Plan
APN
Assessor's Parcel Number
AQMP
Air Quality Management Plan
Basin
South Coast Air Basin
BMPs
best management practices
CalEPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal /OSHA
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CCR
California Code of Regulations
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CHn
methane
CNEL
Community Noies Equivalent Level
COZ
carbon dioxide
COZe
equated carbon dioxide
dBA
A- weighted sound level
DAMP
Drainage Area Management Plan
du /ac
units per acre
EIR
environmental impact report
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA
Environmental Study Area
FTA
Federal Transit Administration
GHGs
greenhouse gas emissions
ITE
Institute of Transportation Engineers
IS /MND
Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
IPS
inches per second
LOS
level of service
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative v
Declaration ICF Jas oosas.os
City of Newport Beach Table of Content
LST
localized significance threshold
MGD
million gallons per day
MLD
most likely descendent
MZR
Mineral Resource Zones
NESHAPS
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
03
ozone
OCFCD
Orange County Flood Control District
OPR
Office of Planning and Research
OCSD
Orange County Sanitation District
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
proposed project
Riverside Park Outdoor Development Project
PPV
peak particle velocity
PR
Parks and Recreation
RCP
Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCNM
Roadway Construction Noise Model
SARWQCB
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
RS -D
Single -Unit Residential Detached General Plan Designation
RSD -B
Single -Unit Residential Detached Coastal Land Use Plan
Desigation
R -1
Single - Family Residential Zone
SCAG
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SLM
Sound Level Meter
SWPPP
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TMDLs
total maximum daily loads
TPO
Traffic Phasing Ordinance
V/C
vehicle to capacity
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
WQMP
Water Quality Management Plan
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative yj
Declaration iCF Jas oosas.os
Chapter 1
Introduction
Overview
Authority
Chapter 1
Introduction
The City of Newport Beach has prepared this Initial Study /Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS /MND) to evaluate the potential environmental
consequences associated with the Beauchamp General Plan Land Use Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments (proposed project), located at 2000 -2016
East Balboa Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach. As part of the permitting
process for the City, and prior to consideration of the project by the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the proposed project is required to undergo an
environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The preparation of this IS/MND is governed by two principal sets of documents:
CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.).
One of the main objectives of CEQA is to disclose to the public and decision
makers the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. CEQA
requires that the lead agency determine whether a project is subject to CEQA
review or exempt under statutory exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 18,
Sections 15260 et seq.) or categorical exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 19,
Section 15300 et seq.). The City determined that the project is not exempt from
CEQA and therefore proceeded to the preparation of an initial study to determine
whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated
negative declaration is appropriate. The City is the lead agency for the proposed
project under CEQA.
The preparation of initial studies is guided by Section 15063 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, and Sections 15070-15075 of Article 6 guide the process for the
preparation of an MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding
of the issues, reference will be made to the statute, the State CEQA Guidelines,
or appropriate case law.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 1. Introduction
This IS /MND meets CEQA content requirements by including a project
description; a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental
impacts, and mitigation measures for any significant effects; discussion of
consistency with plans and policies; and names of preparers.
Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration
This IS/MND evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource
topics:
• aesthetics,
• agricultural resources,
• air quality,
• biological resources,
• cultural resources,
• geology and soils,
• hazards and hazardous materials,
• hydrology and water quality,
Impact Terminology
• land use planning,
• mineral resources,
• noise,
• population and housing,
• public services,
• recreation,
• transportation/traffic, and
• utilities and service systems.
The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of
impacts.
■ A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the
project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.
■ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it
would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires
no mitigation.
■ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if
the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to
the environment with the inclusion of enviromnental commitments that have
been agreed to by the applicant.
■ An impact is considered potentially signifcant if the analysis concludes that
it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 1.2
Declaration icF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 1. Introduction
Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration
The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of
CEQA. The report contains the following sections.
■ Chapter 1, "Introduction," identifies the purpose and scope of this IS/MND
and the terminology used in the report.
■ Chapter 2, "Project Description and Environmental Setting," identifies the
location, setting description, background, and planning objectives of the
project and describes the proposed project in detail.
■ Chapter 3, "Initial Study Environmental Checklist," presents the CEQA
environmental checklist and responses for each resource topic within the
checklist. This section includes a brief setting section for each resource topic
and identifies the impacts of implementing the proposed project.
■ Chapter 4, "References," identifies all printed references and individuals
cited in this IS /MND.
■ Chapter 5, "List of Preparers," identifies the individuals who prepared this
report and their roles in the project.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 1.3
Declaration icF Jas 00M&o9
Chapter 2
Project Description and
Environmental Setting
Chapter 2
Project Description and
Environmental Setting
Project Overview
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Costal Land Use
Plan Amendment to two existing parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APNs]
048 - 240 -20 and 048 - 240 -23) located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the
City of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan land use designation of Parks
and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached
(RS -D) and the existing Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and
Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD-
B). These two land use amendments would be consistent with the current Single -
Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing parcels. Details regarding the
project objectives, location, environmental setting, conceptual site plan, and
discretionary actions are included in this chapter.
Objectives of the Proposed Project
The objectives for the proposed project include:
■ creating consistency between the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan
land use designations and the Zoning Code; and
allowing for the potential development of up to five single -unit dwellings on
land currently zoned for such a purpose in accordance with the existing
Zoning Code.
Proposed Project Location
The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula at the Peninsula Point
Racquet Club in the City of Newport Beach. Newport Bay, Balboa Island, and
Pacific Coast Highway are located to the north of the proposed project site, the
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -1
Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description
Harbor entrance channel is located to the east of the proposed project site, the
Pacific Ocean is located south of the proposed project site, and Balboa Peninsula
and the terminus of the 55 Freeway are located to the west of the proposed
project. Figure 2 -1 depicts the regional location of the project area. The
Peninsula Point Racquet Club is located on two Assessor's parcels consisting of
five lots and 26,662 gross square feet (approximately 0.6 acres) at 2000 -2016
East Balboa Boulevard. East Balboa Boulevard is located immediately south of
the proposed project site. East Bay Avenue, a private drive, is located to the
north, and L Street, also a private drive, is located to the west of the proposed
project site and provides ingress /egress to East Balboa Boulevard. To the east of
the proposed project site are single - family residential homes and Seville Avenue.
Figure 2 -2 shows the local vicinity of the proposed project site. A detailed
discussion of surrounding land uses follows.
Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses
The entire site is occupied by the Peninsula Point Racquet Club, which is a
private tennis club that was established by a use permit for a private tennis club
in 1963. The site is flat and primarily covered with impervious surfaces. The
site has minimal amounts of ornamental landscaping along the tennis court
fences and to the west of the courts. Figure 2 -3 identifies the existing conditions
on the project site and surrounding area.
Facilities located on the site include: two hard - surface tennis courts, an 800 -
square -foot clubhouse, and a 2,850- square -foot area identified as the "garden" to
the west of the tennis courts with some ornamental landscaping. Court 1 is
located on assessor's parcel number (APN) 048- 240 -20, and Court 2 is located
on APN 048 - 240 -23. Figure 2-4 identifies the existing parcel configuration. The
clubhouse consists of small men's and women's lockers /restrooms and a small
space with a sink, refrigerator, and coffee machine. The club is open seven days
a week and operates Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The club
employs one person. Depending on the weather conditions, the tennis courts are
cleaned with a water broom about every six weeks. The club has approximately
83 active, private members. Members park their vehicles on East Balboa
Boulevard, as there is no designated parking for the tennis club.
The clubhouse is also made available one evening per month to the Peninsula
Point Neighborhood Association for monthly meetings.
As shown in Figure 2 -3, the surrounding community is composed primarily of
single - family detached residential homes. There is no direct coastal access from
the Peninsula Point Racquet Club to Newport Bay or the Pacific Ocean. The
nearest public coastal access point is approximately 0.25 mile east of the
proposed project site, generally at the intersection of Channel Road and Granada
Avenue (shown on Figure 2 -3). Two neighborhood parks are in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed project: L Street Park and M Street Park (also shown on
Figure 2 -3).
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -2
Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9
nster
Beach
/_1I1
Costa
San Joaquin
Irvine
Project Location CoronatlelMa fate Beach Ne po Coast
PACIFIC OCEAN
N
A
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Source: ESRI StreetMap
North America (2008)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Crystal Cove State
Paoli Ocean
USA
MEXICO
Figure 2 -1
Regional Location
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Newport Bay _
aSeo Irvine Terrace Park 1r
�P -
� Saatlrify�t.;`a
Marapata
9if4
�a
T
Sa6^ ahr
9aL aiafa a\\a
aaP a Pig 'Po e
Pao a�,a
Po
INatar front
�a
far
tak
d�
ea
A
al
c
` Begonia Pan
J- Ur 2
E Bay Ave ` Bay>ide Drive r
441 E Balboa Blvd
OL 0, a
a e
Mtrah7a� �S e6tParkTwo v Granada 'L O� sa
i
I ay
J Miramar Harbor a
y Br slice r Oda eO'L
ocean p
Oceanfron t v
Jetty Vie, P,,k v
\
\
CiUrOJla del Mar Sta tc Ea.
1
PACIFIC OCEAN 1
N
A
0 375 750
Feet
Source: ESRI Streed0ap
North America (2008)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 2 -2
Local Vicinity Map
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
N
L
C C
L K
a> a
N
U
E O
Balboa
m
tj Balboa
N
!E
c0
o
U
The Grand Canal
a n
c n
E rn
Park
Park
m
C
m
U N
o
U m o
yfront
n
¢
¢ Bayfront
Newport Bay _
aSeo Irvine Terrace Park 1r
�P -
� Saatlrify�t.;`a
Marapata
9if4
�a
T
Sa6^ ahr
9aL aiafa a\\a
aaP a Pig 'Po e
Pao a�,a
Po
INatar front
�a
far
tak
d�
ea
A
al
c
` Begonia Pan
J- Ur 2
E Bay Ave ` Bay>ide Drive r
441 E Balboa Blvd
OL 0, a
a e
Mtrah7a� �S e6tParkTwo v Granada 'L O� sa
i
I ay
J Miramar Harbor a
y Br slice r Oda eO'L
ocean p
Oceanfron t v
Jetty Vie, P,,k v
\
\
CiUrOJla del Mar Sta tc Ea.
1
PACIFIC OCEAN 1
N
A
0 375 750
Feet
Source: ESRI Streed0ap
North America (2008)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 2 -2
Local Vicinity Map
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
ones& Figure 2 -3
J
1 C F Stokes Existing Conditions
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
1 j
I �
j � I
r r
O
�EAUGkktF`P
p E91pENoE
6X1°TI'IN� :•� 3'.•J:'I�'' .... BKIS'n NEp I &xlsl-ING
REriloelJOF '{'ES(DeN�E 2ESID�NCE
R55+/fioR I
.e. l�" PAR�F7r I
0
I - WI�V11f POL0 I
— — — ---- 0--'---------- --------------- - - - --- - ---- -- - - -- -' ?Ay AveNUZ;
"_ __
-_-
1 /_______ - -__- �Pt�1VF't -E DR14B�
� x
o I r I I I "��•
B D
PnP -c�.l- m PAKCI -1 Exlsnt -Y�
ZO (I wr) I 23 41.ors) RESIDENG$
SAK¢� TeNNS caUR M ?$NNISI CoUfz' 10-
o
9 ,I
N � i �i C4U6 H0 USE °o
m I \ PUA PEA tl
o :G.
-- — .— .l�.b ..o. BAL "LVL. —.�
0
3
u
z
ICFJones& Figure 2 -4
Stokes Existing Development
°f ^e Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
Regulatory Setting
Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description
California Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use Plan
The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451 -1464) declares it a
national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or
enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development
1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the
California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established
the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and
management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment,
land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act
policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal
Program by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the
Coastal Commission.
The City has a Coastal Land Use Plan, which has been certified by the California
Coastal Commission, which governs land use within the coastal area. However,
the City of Newport Beach does not have the jurisdiction to issue coastal
development permits because the City does not have a certified Local Coastal
Program. The City is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation
Plan for the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Because the City does not have
permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for
consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning
regulations before an applicant can file for a coastal development permit with the
California Coastal Commission. The City relies on the California Coastal
Commission to issue development permits.
The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern
the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach.
The private tennis club is currently designated as PR under the Coastal Land Use
Plan. The PR category applies to land use for active public or private
recreational use. Permitted uses include parks, golf courses, marina support
facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar
facilities (City of Newport Beach 2009a). Surrounding properties are all
designated RSD -B north of East Balboa Boulevard or RSD -C south of East
Balboa Boulevard, allowing single -unit residential detached land uses at different
densities. The RSD -B density requirement is 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac). The RSD -C density requirement is 10.0 to 10.9 dwelling units per acre.
The policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan cannot be interpreted to allow a
development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its
implementing ordinances.
City of Newport Beach General Plan
The City of Newport Beach approved a comprehensive update to the General
Plan in November 2006. The General Plan has ten elements: Land Use Element,
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -3
Declaration icF Jas OOM&oe
City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description
Harbor and Bay Element, Housing Element, Historical Resources Element,
Circulation Element, Recreation Element, Arts and Cultural Element, Natural
Resources Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element. The General Plan and
these elements present a vision for the City's future and goals and policies to
implement that vision.
The proposed project site is designated PR per the General Plan Land Use
Element and is located within Service Area 2 for Recreational Facilities pursuant
to the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The PR General Plan land use
designation provides for active public or private recreational opportunities such
as neighborhood parks and beaches and also provides for open space areas such
as Upper Newport Bay. The surrounding property and neighborhoods all have a
land use designation of RS -D, which is intended for single unit residential
detached land uses. The proposed project site is not located within the airport
zone of the John Wayne Airport as defined by the General Plan Safety Element
and Noise Element.
City of Newport Beach Zoning Code
The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code is created to carry out the policies of
the City of Newport Beach General Plan. It is the intent of the Zoning Code to
promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public
health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social
and economic vitality of the neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial
development of the City. The proposed project site currently is zoned Single
Family Residential (R -1), which is not consistent with the land use designations
under the General Plan Land Use Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan of PR.
The R -1 zoning district provides for detached single - family residential
development.
Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land
Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the proposed project
site from recreational to single -unit residential land use. Because the proposed
land use changes would allow the conversion of the existing land use from a
private tennis club to single -unit dwellings, this environmental document
includes the analysis of a conceptual development plan to analyze the potential
environmental impacts of the land use change. Both the land use plan
amendments and the conceptual development plan are discussed further below.
Land Use Amendments
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land
Use Plan Amendment to change the existing PR land use designations to RS -D
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2_4
Declaration iCF JaS OOM&os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description
and RSD -B land uses, respectively. The RS -D land use under the City's General
Plan would allow for single -unit dwellings. The RSD -B land use under the
Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to provide primarily for single -unit residential
detached development on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums
or cooperative housing. Figure 2 -5 and 2 -6 shows the existing land use
designations and the proposed land use designations.
Conceptual Development Plan
The conceptual development plan includes the development of five single -unit
dwellings. Figure 2 -7 illustrates the conceptual development plan. Details of
these dwelling units are shown in Table 2 -1 below.
Table 2 -1. Summary of Proposed Dwelling Units
Existing Parcel
Proposed
Buildable
Maximum Floor
Primary
Parcel No. Size (sf)
Lot No.
Area (sf)
Area Limit* (sf)
Access
048 - 240 -20 6,462.5
1
4,112.5
8,225
L Street
4,700
2
2,975
5,950
L Street
4,700
3
2,800
5,600
L Street
048 - 240 -23 5,800
4
4,080
8,160
Bay Avenue
5,800
5
4,080
8,160
Bay Avenue
*Maximum floor area limit
is identified by
Zoning Code Section 20.10.030 (M) as two
times the buildable area for
each parcel consistent with R -1 Zoning provisions.
The five proposed single -unit dwellings of the conceptual development plan are
based on the maximum allowable density of the R -1 zoning and would comply
with the development standards of the R -1 Zoning District per Section 20.10.030
(Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) of the Zoning Code,
except as discussed below. The proposed five, single -unit dwellings would each
comply with the 24/28 -foot height limitation zone as specified in Chapter 20.65
of the Zoning Code. Each single -unit dwelling would have minimum side yard
setbacks of 3 or 4 feet; minimum rear yard setbacks of 10 feet; and, minimum
front yard setbacks of 20 feet. The proposed lot configuration would require a
re- subdivision of existing lots and a deviation of design standards per Section
19.24.130 of the Zoning Code because proposed lot numbers two and three
shown on the conceptual plan do not meet the minimum lot size of 5,000 square
feet, and proposed lot numbers two through five on the conceptual plan do not
meet the minimum lot width of 50 feet. In order to approve the deviation of
design standards as part of the Tract Map application, the findings in Section
19.24.130 (C) are required. The deviation would not include a separate
discretionary action, and would be included as part of the subdivision tract map
filing, analysis, and action, which is described below. Each single -unit dwelling
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -5
Declaration icF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description
would provide the required two -car parking, as required by Chapter 20.66 (Off-
Street Parking) of the Zoning Code.
Should the applicant decide to pursue the conceptual development plan in the
future, a subdivision tract map would need to be filed and approved by the City
of Newport Beach prior to approval and construction. The proposed project
currently includes only the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land
Use Plan Amendment, the subdivision tract map is not currently part of the
proposed discretionary approval. However, this environmental document would
cover the approval of a future subdivision tract map and final development plan,
provided they are in are in substantial conformance with the conceptual
development plan.
Construction Assumptions
It is assumed for the purposes of analysis that construction of the proposed
conceptual development plan would begin in 2010. All five single -unit dwellings
are assumed to be constructed concurrently. Construction would last
approximately eight months. The construction schedule generally would include
the following activities:
■ Approximately two weeks for demolition of the tennis courts and clubhouse.
■ Approximately two weeks for general site grading.
■ Approximately seven months for construction of the five dwelling units.
■ Approximately two weeks for planting and post - construction activities to
occur simultaneously with the final two weeks of construction.
The current topography of the proposed project site is flat, and the proposed
single -unit dwellings would not include subterranean parking; therefore, ground
disturbance associated with construction would be minimal. Soil would not be
imported or exported to or from the proposed project site. All single -unit
dwellings would comply with all applicable codes, including those related to
seismic activity. Construction crews would work no more than eight hours per
day and would restrict their activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Per
the Municipal Code, construction would not occur on Sundays or federal
holidays.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2.6
Declaration icF JaS OOM&os
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Legend
/ / _ Project Boundary
General Plan Designation -
j -v
f ��. VV
Parks and Recreation
ltl
— H as General Plan Designation -
A.1'ENLJE CAST Single Unit Residential Detached
r- R -' Zoning - Single Family
y _ Residential
BABLBOA BLVD EAST
UJ s
_aZA. DEL NORTE r Q OF
art
t� —J
Proposed General Plan Amendments
Legend
Project Boundary
General Plan Designation -
I RS -D Single Unit Residential
F- - Detached
tA.ST
R -7 Zoning - Single Family
/ Residential (to remain)
BAM 130A BLVD EAST
i
LLLIJ LLJ
i
0A
l
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 2 -5
Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Legend
Project Boundary
.
-- _
Parks and Recreation
i W
RSD -B
AVENUE EAST
Single Unit Residential
Detached
RSD -B
RSD -B
_
BAR! ROA
BLVD
EAST
RSD -C
RSD -C
L
_4ZA DEL NORTE
i
QI
4 A zi �£t
ui
LU
¢+
LU
SUS
RSD -C
U'
GF ?A
J
u]
i4
4Q
w
W
_
Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments
Legend
Project Boundary
w W
RSD -B
Single Unit Residential
Detached
AVENUE F- EAST
RSD B
RSD -B
RSD B
BABLBOA
BLVD
EAST
RSD -C
RSD -C
to
LA2A DEL NORTE
z
4'
LU
—
UiJ
e. F
J)
(!! �NAOA
p,V�
RSD -C
n
rn
L-
m
W
X
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 2 -6
Existing and Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Designations
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
i
i
I L - - -�
BEb7I V6 N MP
KE5i0CE
V'XI' ING
RES 19E146%
ICJones& Figure 2 -7
F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
N
o
to
u
4o
roo
80'
���r�9i. ���.
�i17' G��ill'r•'W
�%���
e'd."?fi�'
�i.�7N ��G
—
S6ViQv!l�Ryir�r,�pics�w.�lil
-I a��e�,
u►�s�Fl�
'
;,mar
ICJones& Figure 2 -7
F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
N
o
to
u
4o
roo
80'
ICJones& Figure 2 -7
F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Chapter 3
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Chapter 3
Initial Study Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
S. Description of Project:
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
10. Other Public Agencies Whose
Approval Is Required:
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendments
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach CA 92658
Makana Nova, Assistant Planner
949/644 -3249
rmiova@uewportbeachca.gov
The proposed project site is located on two parcels
comprising approximately 0.6 acres, at 2000 -2016
East Balboa Boulevard, on Balboa Peninsula, in the
City of Newport Beach. The site is occupied by
the Peninsula Point Racquet Club.
David Beauchamp
Beauchamp Enterprises
151 Kalmus Suite B 150
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Parks and Recreation (PR)
Single - Family Residential (R -1)
See Chapter 2, Project Description and
Environmental Setting.
See Chapter 2, Project Description and
Environmental Setting.
California Coastal Commission
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -1
Declaration ICF AS 00846.09
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by this project (i.e., the project
would involve at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact), as indicated by the checklist on
the following pages.
❑
Aesthetics
❑
Agricultural Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
❑
Hydrology /Water Quality
❑
Land Use/Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population/Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
TransportatiowTraflic
❑
Utilities /Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or
® agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially
significant' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has
❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
❑ applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.
01. om(t0
Signature Date
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -2
Declaration ICF JLS 00848.09
City of Newport Beach
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.
A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the
impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault
rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained if it is based on project- specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project- specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with
mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is
required.
4. "Less- than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less -than-
Significant Impact " The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less - than - significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII,
"Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced.)
Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In
this case, a brief discussion should identify the following.
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less- than - Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -3
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&oe
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's
environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
(a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
(b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -4
Declaration icF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
I. AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
❑
®
❑
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
❑
❑
❑
but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings along a scenic highway?
C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character
❑
❑
®
❑
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
❑
❑
®
❑
that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. Figure 3 -1
Designated Public View Points identifies the existing public view points and coastal view roads
identified in the General Plan. There are no identified public view points on the proposed project site
or in the surrounding area, and none of the surrounding streets are identified as coastal view roads
(City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project site is composed of two tennis courts, a
clubhouse, a generally vacant area (identified as the "garden" on the conceptual plan, Figure 2 -7), and
ornamental landscaping. The tennis courts are surrounded with fencing approximately 10 feet high.
Nonnative vines are growing on the face of the fencing, and it is covered in green nylon fabric,
typical of public and private tennis courts in other locations. Views of Newport Bay and Pacific
Ocean in this area are currently blocked by the existing tennis court fence and/or by residences.
There are no scenic vistas in the general proximity of the proposed project site and the proposed land
use change and subsequent future development of the site with single -unit dwelling would not
substantially alter or obstruct existing views of the bay or the ocean. Therefore, the proposed project
would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; impacts would be less than significant.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings along a scenic highway?
No Impact. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project
(California Department of Transportation 2009). Furthermore, the proposed project site does not
consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality or historic buildings on site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not damage a scenic resource along a scenic highway and no
impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -5
Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings because the proposed project is located in a developed
residential area and would not damage any scenic resources. The proposed project site is located in
an area that is primarily single - family residences and zoned for residential use. Figure 3 -2a and 3 -2b
Surrounding Residential Land Uses depicts several of the existing residences in the immediate area.
The proposed project site does not provide scenic qualities to the surrounding area, nor does the site
provide any coastal access. The proposed project would include land use changes to allow single -unit
dwellings, which would be aesthetically consistent with the surrounding residential community per
the Zoning Code. There is an existing Home Owner Association (Balboa Peninsula Point
Association), but it does not enforce Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions or apply design review
committee conditions to which the proposed project would be subject. These land use changes and
subsequent future development of the site also would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations for the surrounding properties. Although the aesthetic
and visual quality of the proposed project site would change from that of a private tennis club to five,
single -unit dwellings, the change does not represent a substantial degradation of the existing visual
character of the area, as development would be consistent with surrounding land use designations and
surrounding development patterns; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime
views in the area?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As mentioned in Response I(c) above, the project is located in an
area that is primarily developed with single - family residences. The tennis courts are not currently
lighted for nighttime use. Any lighting associated with the proposed single -unit dwellings would not
add significant amounts of lighting to the project area and would consist of standard residential
outdoor porch lighting. All lighting would be developed in accordance to Zoning Ordinance;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -6
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
rt xs weo Rr iR.ixe
SAY
EK
i
\ `C
w:d
Legend PreR
1
Public Vew POlnt ^4CIFIC OCEAN
Coastal View Read w>onr cosy
Shoreline Heigh[
� Limitation Zone
^/ City Boundary
OCounty srAre PARK
PAIAIP RAAK`
n os i
Source: City of Newport Beach, 2005
ICFJs &
Stoonekes
Figure 3 -1
Designated Public Viewpoints
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Southwest Corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Seville Avenue
Northern view of L Street at East Balboa Boulevard and L Street
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 3 -2a
Surrounding Residential Uses
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Northern view of Seville Avenue at East Balboa Boulevard and Seville Avenue
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 3 -2b
Surrounding Residential Uses
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts on agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,
lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural
use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or
conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment
that, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use?
Discussion
Would the project:
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less -than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?
No Impact. The proposed project would not convert any farmland to a non - agricultural use. The
proposed project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (California Department of Conservation 2009).
The proposed project site and the surrounding land are identified as "urban and built -up land" by the
California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore,
the proposed project site is located in a developed urban setting with no agricultural uses on or
surrounding the site; therefore, no impacts would occur.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural use. The
proposed project site is currently zoned R -1 for single - family residential, which does not allow
agricultural uses. The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of least 20 acres of Prime
Farmland or at least 40 acres of farmland not designated as Prime Farmland. The proposed project
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3-7
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
site is not located in a Prime Farmland designation, nor does it consist of more than 40 acres of
farmland. Therefore, the site is not eligible to be placed under a Williamson Act Contract, and no
impacts would occur.
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use?
No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural
use. The proposed project site is not currently used for agriculture. The proposed project site is not
located near or adjacent to any areas that are actively farmed. Therefore, the proposed project would
not disrupt or damage the operation or productivity of any areas designated as farmland, and no
farmland could be affected by the proposed land use changes. No impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative g_g
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
III. AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
When available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
❑
❑
❑
applicable air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
❑
❑
®
❑
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
❑
❑
®
❑
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is a nonattainment area for an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑
❑
®
❑
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
❑
❑
®
❑
number of people?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality phut?
No Impact. The proposed project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air
Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone
[03], and particulate matter equal to or less than 10 and less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PMte and
PM2.5, respectively]). As such, the project would be subject to the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies
directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are
developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino,
and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community
development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3_9
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters
that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These
documents are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in
the AQMP. Both the RCP and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and
City General Plans.
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Local Costal Program Amendment to
two existing parcels in the City of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan land use designation of
Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), and the
existing Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended
to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B [6.0 - 9.9 DU /AC]). These two land use amendments
would be consistent with the current Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing parcels.
Emissions generated by construction and operation would not exceed thresholds as described in the
analysis below in III(b) and III(c). The thresholds in III(b) and (c) are based on the AQMP and are
designed to bring the Basin into attainment for the criteria pollutants for which it is in nonattainment.
Therefore, because the proposed project does not exceed any of the thresholds it will not conflict with
SCAQMD's goal of bringing the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants and, as such, is
consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute .substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Response III(a), the proposed project site is located
in the Basin. State and federal air quality standards often are exceeded in many parts of the Basin.
The proposed project involves amendments to the land use plans, which would not in themselves
result in any construction or operational impacts. However, the proposed land use modifications
could result in the future construction of five, detached, single -unit dwellings, as described in the
conceptual development plan. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating construction and operational
emissions, the conceptual development plan as described in Chapter 2 is used to determine potential
impacts on air quality. A discussion of the project's potential short-term construction- period and
long -term operational -period air quality impacts is provided below.
Regional Construction Impacts
The SCAQMD has established methods to quantify air emissions associated with construction
activities such as air pollutant emissions generated by operation of on -site construction equipment;
fugitive dust emissions related to grading and site work activities; and mobile (tailpipe) emissions
from construction worker vehicles and haul/delivery truck trips. Emissions would vary from day to
day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for
fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions.
With respect to the proposed project, construction activities are expected to extend over a period of
approximately eight months. Construction activities during this period would be completed in three
main phases. The first phase would consist of the demolition of the tennis courts. The second phase
would consist of general site grading. The third phase would consist of the construction of the five
dwelling units.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -10
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
A mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled based on an estimate of
construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing assumptions. More specifically, the mass
emissions analysis takes into account:
■ combustion emissions from operating on -site construction equipment,
■ fugitive dust emissions from moving soil on site, and
■ mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel.
For the purpose of estimating emissions associated with the construction activities, a project time
frame of February 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010 was assumed. Emissions were calculated
using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The quantity, duration, and the intensity of
construction activity have an effect on the amount of construction emissions, and related pollutant
concentrations, occurring at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a
specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a
relatively large amount of construction is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this
conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is
delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more
modern and cleaner - buming construction equipment fleet mix, and /or (2) a less intensive buildout
schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval). A conservative estimate
of the project's regional mass emissions during construction is presented in Table 3 -1 (Appendix A
includes detailed results from the URBEMIS model). As shown in Table 3 -1 below, all criteria
pollutant emissions would remain well below their respective SCAQMD daily significance
thresholds; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -11
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table 3 -1. Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds
per day)
Construction Phase ROG NOx
CO
sox
PM"
PM's
Demolition (2 -week 1.2 8.6
6.1
<0.1
1.3
0.7
duration)
Grading/Excavation (2 -week 3.0 25.1
13.5
<0.1
3.2
1.6
duration)
Construction (7 -month 6.3 27.1
15.1
<0.1
1.5
1.4
duration)
Maximum Regional 6 27
15
<1
3
2
Project Emissions
SCAQMD Regional
Emissions Threshold 75 100
550
150
150
55
(lbs /day)
Exceed Threshold? No No
No
No
No
No
ROG = reactive organic gas.
NOx = oxides of nitrogen.
CO = carbon monoxide.
Sox = sulfur oxides.
PM,,= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter.
PM2,5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A.
Localized Construction Impacts
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology guidelines are used to
determine potential impacts on sensitive receptors that are located in the immediate vicinity of the
activity emitting emissions, in this case residential receptors adjacent to the construction site.
When quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on site are
considered. As shown in Table 3 -2, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain
below their respective SCAQMD LST significance thresholds (Appendix A includes detailed
results from the LST analysis); therefore, localized impacts that may result from air pollutant
emissions during the construction phases would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -12
Declaration icF Jas 00e46.os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table 3 -2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions
Construction Phase
ROG
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx CO sox PMtn
PM,,
Demolition (2 -week duration)
1.1
7.7
4.7
<0.1
1.3
0.7
Grading/Excavation (2 -week duration)
3.0
25.0
12.5
<0.1
3.2
1.6
Construction (7 -month duration)
6.3
26.9
13.0
<0.1
1.5
1.3
Worst Case On -Site Total
6
27
13
<1
3
2
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold
--
92
647
--
4
3
(lbs/day)a
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
No
No
a These localized thresholds were taken from tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology
guidance document based on the following: 1) The proposed project site is located in SCAQMD source Receptor Area No. 18, 2)
sensitive receptors located within 25 meters ofconstruction activity, and 3) the maximum site area disturbed is l acre.
ROG = reactive organic gas.
NOx = oxides of nitrogen.
CO = carbon monoxide.
Sox = sulfur oxides.
PMio= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter.
PM2,5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A.
Regional Operations Impacts
The SCAQMD also has established significance thresholds to evaluate the potential impacts
associated with long -term project operations. Regional air pollutant emissions associated with
project operations would be generated by the consumption of electricity and natural gas and the
operation of on -road vehicles. Pollutant emissions associated with energy demand (i.e.,
electricity generation and natural gas consumption) are classified by the SCAQMD as regional
stationary- source emissions. Electricity is considered an area source because it is produced at
various locations in and outside the Basin. Because it is not possible to isolate where electricity is
produced, these emissions conservatively are considered to occur in the Basin and be regional in
nature. Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the production and consumption of energy
were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQ,4 Air Quality Handbook
(appendix to Chapter 9).
Mobile - source emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model,
which multiplies an estimate of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by applicable EMFAC2002
emissions factors.' The URBEMIS2007 model output and worksheets for calculating regional
operational daily emissions are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 -3, the project's net
regional emissions would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, SOS, ROC,
PMIn, or PM2_5; therefore, regional operations emissions would not result in a significant long-
term regional air quality impact.
'Daily VMT estimate derived by applying LTRBEMIS2007 default trip generation and length estimates (per land
use) to the proposed project land uses.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -13
Declaration iCF Jas 00646.os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table 3 -3. Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Beauchamp ROG NOx CO sox PMta PM1.1
Mobile" 0.4 0.6 4.7 <0.1 0.8 0.2
Area
Stationary b
Total Operational Emissions
SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold (lbs /day)
Exceed Threshold?
1.1
0.2
2.2
<0.1
0.3
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.I
1.5
0.9
6.9
<0.1
1.2
0.5
55
55
550
150
150
55
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A.
Mobile emissions calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model. Model output sheets are provided in the Air Quality
Appendix.
b Emissions attributable to project- related electricity generation calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA
Air Quality Handbook. Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix,
ROG = reactive organic gas.
NOx = oxides of nitrogen.
CO = carbon monoxide.
SOx = sulfur oxides.
PMiu= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter.
PM,. = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
Local Operational Emissions
In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO
concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological
conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g.,
congested intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a conservative worst -case impact
analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested intersection locations. If impacts
are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less than
significant at more distant sensitive - receptor locations.
The SCAQMD recommends a hot spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when vehicle
to capacity (V /C) ratios are increased by 2% or more at intersections with a Level of Service
(LOS) C or worse. Project traffic during the operational phase of the project would not have the
potential to create local area CO impacts; as discussed in Response XV(a) under
Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not significantly affect peak -hour traffic
volumes. Thus, local intersections would not be affected by the proposed project, and there
would be no impacts resulting from CO hot spots.
With respect to the project's on -site mass emissions, Table 3 -4 shows that operations -period
emissions would be below SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds; therefore, impacts from
emissions of these criteria pollutants would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -14
Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table 3-4. Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
Beauchamp ROG NO, CO sox PMta PM2.1
On -Site Area Source Emissionsa 1.1 0.2 2.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3
SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (lbs /day)b -- 92 647 -- 1 1
Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No
Emissions attributable to project - related electricity generation, calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA
Air Quality Handbook. Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix.
These localized thresholds were taken from tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology
guidance document based on the following: 1) The proposed project site is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area No. 18, 2)
sensitive receptors are located within 25 meters of the project, and 3) the maximum site are disturbed is I acre.
ROG = reactive organic gas.
NOx = oxides of nitrogen.
CO = carbon monoxide.
SOx= sulfur oxides.
PM,o = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter.
PM2 s = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter.
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. URBEMIS 2007 cutouts are
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change or global
warming. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor
vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions,
accounting for approximately one -half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial
sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total
emissions. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the
atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g.,
fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal
greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere as a result of human activities are Carbon Dioxide
(CO2), Methane (C114), Nitrous Oxide (N20), and Fluorinated Gases. For purposes of analysis
the global warming potential of each gas is equated to Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) and the Carbon
Dioxide equivalent is identified in metric tons for each GHG.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders
regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research recently published
suggested changes to the CEQA Guidelines that would require that greenhouse gases be
evaluated in environmental documents.
The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) June 2008 Technical Advisory (TA) is to: (1) identify and quantify GHG
emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant,
identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance.
Neither the CEQA Statute nor Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular
methodology for performing an impact analysis.
CARB (California Air Resources Board) has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on
how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions (California Air
Resources Board 2008). That guidance, while still in draft form, does provide some assistance to
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -15
Declaration ICF J&s 00s46.os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
the City in evaluating whether project would impede the State's mandatory requirements under
AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Until more guidance is provided from the expert agencies (CARB and/or SCAQMD), the City of
Newport Beach intends to consider projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to
be a less -than- significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, thereby not requiring further
analysis. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year,
the City will consider projects to have significant impacts if they either (1) are not substantially
consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce
GHGs, or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Projects that do not meet
these thresholds would be considered to have significant impacts, and thus could be expected to
exceed the State's mandatory requirement under Assembly Bill 32 to reduce statewide GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
A conservative estimate of the project's CO2C emissions during construction and operation is
presented in Table 3 -5. As shown, emissions would remain well below the City's screening
threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3 -5. Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pounds per day)
Exceed Threshold? No
' Value includes total annual operational emissions plus total construction emissions amortized over 30 years.
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes 2009. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors) ?
Less - than - Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based
on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the
proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into
attainment for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements
in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -16
Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
California Statewide Average Daily Emissions (year 2006)
479,800,000
Project Emissions
Construction- Period Emissions
2010
96
Operations - period Emissions
Mobile Sources
80
Stationary Sources
10
Area Sources
18
Total Operations- Period Emissions
108
Total Project Emissions'
112
City of Newport Beach Screening Level Threshold
1,600
Exceed Threshold? No
' Value includes total annual operational emissions plus total construction emissions amortized over 30 years.
Source: ICF Jones & Stokes 2009. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors) ?
Less - than - Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based
on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the
requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the
proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into
attainment for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements
in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -16
Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
proposed project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional
Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that
are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality
standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in
the region, and therefore, inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality
impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
With regard to climate change and GHG emissions, as discussed earlier in Response 1II(b), the
amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed
project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach.
As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative
climate change GHG emissions would be less than significant.
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As described in Response IIl(b) above, construction and
operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial localized or regional air
pollution impacts and therefore would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?
Less - than - Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land
uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment
plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding. The proposed project includes a land use amendment and a conceptual
development plan of up to five single -unit dwellings. Therefore, the proposed project does not
include any uses listed above and identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. The
proposed project would not produce objectionable odors per the SCAQMD Handbook.
Potential sources of odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust and the use of
architectural coatings and solvents. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally
confined to the proposed project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction
techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites. Additionally, the odors
would be temporary, occurring when equipment is operating and during painting activities.
Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with
SCAQMD Rule 402 on nuisances. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of
volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings and solvents. Through mandatory
compliance with SCAQMD rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would
create a significant level of objectionable odors. As such, potential impacts during short-term
construction would be less than significant.
substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste
management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be
specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public
review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency."
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -17
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant No
Impact Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
❑
❑
❑
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
❑
❑
❑
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
❑
❑
❑
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of
❑
❑
❑
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
❑
❑
❑
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
❑
❑
❑
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
❑
❑
❑
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
❑
❑
❑
conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or D.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -18
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
No Impact. The proposed project would not modify or have an adverse effect on existing habitat.
The proposed project site is fully developed with two tennis courts and a clubhouse and is located in a
fully urbanized setting. The Coastal Land Use Plan identifies Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas and Environmental Study Areas (ESA). Locations not within a designated ESA would not
impact any designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(s). According to Map 4 -1 of the
Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed
project site is not located in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2009a, 2006a). The proposed project site
is void of any native vegetation or wildlife habitat; therefore, the proposed project would not modify
habitat or adversely affect sensitive biological resources, and no impacts would occur.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat.
According to Map 4 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural
Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2009a,
City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project site is fully developed and void of any riparian
habitat or other natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not accommodate
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. The proposed project site is fully developed and does not have federal wetlands present
on site nor are there wetlands in the general vicinity of the proposed project site. Furthermore, the
proposed project site is completely lacking any jurisdictional waters; therefore, no impacts would
occur.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The
proposed project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other undeveloped
lands. According to Figures NRl and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural
Resources Element, the proposed project site is not identified as a biological resources area or located
in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2006a) and is not connected to any wildlife corridors. Therefore,
the proposed project site does not act as a wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife
species. It does not support daily movement of species from breeding, roosting, and nesting sites nor
does it provide stopover habitat for migratory bird species; therefore, no impacts would occur.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The proposed project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by
local policies. The proposed project site has several ornamental trees. According to the City of
Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located in
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -19
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
an area where sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources occur (City of Newport Beach
2006a). Furthermore, according to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the
proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Natural Communities
Conservation Plan (County of Orange 2005). For additional details regarding local policies or
ordinances, refer to Section IX, Land Use and Planning. The project would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, no impacts would occur.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is a signatory to a Natural Resource Community
Conservation Plan agreement. However, per Figure VI -5 of the Resources Element of the Orange
County General Plan, the proposed project site is not located within a designated Natural
Communities Conservation Plan area (City of Newport Beach 2006a, County of Orange 2005).
Therefore, it not subject to the provisions of any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or
Natural Communities Conservation Plan area and no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -20
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
❑
significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b.
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
❑
❑
®
❑
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
C.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
❑
❑
®
❑
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d.
Disturb any human remains, including those
❑
❑
®
❑
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Historical Resources Element, the
proposed project site does not have any structures listed on local, state, or federal historic resource
lists or structures that are eligible for such lists (City of Newport Beach 2006a). There are no such
historical structures adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the proposed project site (City of Newport
Beach 2006a). Furthermore, according to Map 4 -4 in the Coastal Land Use Plan there are no
historical resources or structures located onsite or within the general vicinity of the proposed project
site (City of Newport Beach 2009a); therefore, no impacts would occur.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Less- than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, which
is along the southwestern border of the City of Newport Beach and the Pacific Ocean. Along this
border, sediments flowing from the two major drainage courses (the San Diego Creek and the Santa
Ana River) that transect the mesa located generally to the north have formed beaches, sandbars, and
mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These areas were modified significantly during the last
century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. The Balboa Peninsula
was once the site of extensive low sand dunes but has experienced modification (City of Newport
Beach 2006b). The Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was formed between 1825
and 1862 with essentially nonnative soils and/or artificial fill. Furthermore, the proposed project site
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -21
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
is not listed as an area that has yielded archaeological resources (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The
proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances
from the previous development in the last century likely would have uncovered or inadvertently
destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are
located in the proposed project site. The proposed project would involve minimal surface soil
disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any
unknown archaeological resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed above in (b), the proposed project site is located in a
lowland area that was formed in historic times and has been modified during the last century in order
to form habitable islands with essentially non native or artificial fill. The proposed project site is
currently developed. There are no unique geological features currently on site. Ground disturbances
from previous development likely would have either uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any
unknown buried paleontological resources. Furthermore, the proposed project site is not listed as an
area that has yielded archaeological and paleontological resources (City of Newport Beach 2006a).
The proposed project involves minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown paleontological resources, and impacts
would be less than significant.
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not a formal cemetery and it is not
adjacent to a formal cemetery. The proposed project site is not known to contain human remains
interred outside formal cemeteries. The proposed project site is not known to be located on a burial
ground. The landform on which the proposed project site is located was formed during historic times.
It is currently developed and has been disturbed in the past. The proposed project would involve
grading and shallow soil disturbance. Discovery of human remains is governed by state law, which
requires stopping work and reporting to authorities.
Disturbance of human remains, including those of Native Americans, is highly unlikely, and there is
remote possibility that construction activities could unearth human remains.
Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a
discovery occurs, excavation or construction will halt in the area of the discovery, the area will be
protected, and consultation and treatment will occur as prescribed by law. If the Coroner recognizes
the remains to be Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission,
who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the bones are determined to be
Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated
burial objects, and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -22
Declaration icF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less -than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑
delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
2. Strong seismic groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
3. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑
liquefaction?
4. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
❑
❑
®
❑
topsoil?
C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable
❑
❑
®
❑
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in an on -site or off -
site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
❑
❑
®
❑
18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
❑
❑
❑
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems in areas where sewers are not
available for the disposal of wastewater?
Discussion
Would the project:
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -23
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&oe
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
al. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
No Impact. There are no Alquist - Priolo zones in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, no impacts
would occur (California Department of Conservation 2007). Fault rupture impacts generally occur
near the fault line where the fault shears or slips and the ground is offset in some way; therefore, no
impact would occur.
a2. Strong seismicgroundshaking?
Less- than - Significant Impact. All of Southern California, including the City of Newport Beach, is
located in a seismically active area and is subject to strong seismic groundshaking. The City of
Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is
exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport-
Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park
fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground
shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Policies contained in the Newport Beach
General Plan (2006x) would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such
as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. For example, Policy 54.1 requires regular update to
building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design, and Policies 54.4 and 54.5 ensure
that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally,
new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California
Building Code Chapter 33 for construction of new buildings and /or structures, and specific
engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the
potential for adverse impacts (City of Newport Beach 2006b). All proposed demolition and building
would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specific by the City Building
Department. All buildings would be constructed in compliance with the latest earthquake - resistant
design available and relevant codes. All project components would be in compliance with the most
up -to -date building codes and plans would be reviewed and approved by City Building Department
prior to construction. Furthermore, the dwelling units would be inspected by a trained and qualified
building inspector under the supervision of the Building Official prior to occupation; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
a3. Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Figure 3 -3 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas
identifies areas of potential liquefaction in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is
located in an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subject to a seismic event
(City of Newport Beach 2006a). Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes ground failure and
typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition (City of Newport Beach
2006a). A considerable part of the Balboa Peninsula is already built upon, mostly with residential
development. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage
to buildings and infrastructure in the area. However, compliance with the standards set forth in the
current California Building Code and City policies in its General Plan Safety Element would
minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic
disturbances. Specifically, Policies 54.1 through 54.6 include requiring new development to be in
compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards (City of Newport
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -24
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants (2003)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 3 -3
Existing Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Legend
�/ City Boundary
_Areas with liquefaction
potential
�osrn nes.
- Areas with landslide
potential
Fault Disclosure Zone for
uvoE"
-real - estate disclosure
purposes
`w'o
10. °' "`
Fault Line
BAY
Major fault traces as
y
mapped by Morton,
1
Presumed active,
except except where shown
otherwise based on
e�
geological studies
(�
J
Southward projection of
`
U
Southwark traces based
on a subsurface study
on the west bank of the
\
Santa Ana River
1
_
_
^/ Highway
Local Road
County
\
PACIFIC O CAN
1
Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants (2003)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 3 -3
Existing Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Beach 2006b). All proposed project components would occur in accordance with building and safety
standards; furthermore, the foundations would be engineered to address liquefaction potential.
Therefore, impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including
liquefaction, are less than significant.
a4. Landslides?
No Impact. The proposed project would have no impact related to landslides. Figure 3 -3 Existing
Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas identifies areas with landslide potential and the proposed
project site is not located within any area with landslide potential. The proposed project site is
generally flat and implementation of the project would not require slope cuts that could result in
landslides; therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site does not contain substantial amounts of
topsoil. The proposed project site is currently developed and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces
(tennis courts and clubhouse). Small amounts of exposed on -site soils would be prone to soil erosion
during the construction phase of the proposed project. However, the proposed project involves
minimal cut and fill and therefore loss of topsoil is greatly minimized. As required by the City's
Municipal Code, grading activities will obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official
(City of Newport Beach 2006b). Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control
standards that will be applied to the corresponding construction activity (City of Newport Beach
2006b). The project will implement standard erosion control measures and construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize impacts; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of
the project and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site has been developed and is located in an
area identified by the City of Newport Beach General Plan as having a potential for soil liquefaction
when subjected to a seismic event. As discussed above in VI(a3), it is likely that a nearby moderate
to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in the area.
However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code and City
policies in its General Plan Safety Element (2006a) would minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and
property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. All proposed project
components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards. Furthermore, as
discussed in Response VI(a4), no impacts would occur on people or structures as a result of landslide.
Impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction (as
discussed in Response VI(0), lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse are less than significant.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less- than - Significant Impact. Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable
amounts of expansive clay minerals. These minerals can undergo significant volumetric changes as a
result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -25
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements (Earth
Consultants International 2003).
Most of Newport Mesa and Corona Del Mar areas are underlain by marine terrace deposits and young
alluvial /alluvial fan sediments that are compressed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and
gravel) (Earth Consultants International 2003 and USGS 1965). Such units are typically in the low to
moderately low range for expansion potential. However, thick soil profiles developed on the older
marine deposits exposed west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the
moderately expansive range. Areas underlain by beach and dune sands have very little expansion
potential (Earth Consultants International 2003).
The proposed project would involve a minimal amount of cut and fill. As discussed in Response V(b),
the proposed project site is primarily underlain by nonnative soil and/or artificial fill with identified
alluvial sediments (USGS 1965). Typically fill is made to have low expansive potential because it is
designed to support the structures which are built upon it. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed
project site is located in an area with low expansive soil potential. All project elements would occur
in accordance with building and safety standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included as part of the
proposed project. The proposed project site would tie into the existing sewer line; therefore, no
impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -26
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
VII.
HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
miles of a public airport or public use airport,
a.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
®
❑
❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
people residing or working in the project area?
disposal of hazardous materials?
❑
❑
®
❑
b.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
❑
❑
®
❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
❑
❑
and accident conditions involving the release of
with an adopted emergency response plan or
hazardous materials into the environment?
emergency evacuation plan?
C.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
❑
❑
❑
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
including where wildlands are adjacent to
within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
school?
with wildlands?
d.
Be located on a site that is included on a list of
❑
❑
❑
hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e. For a project within an airport land use plan or,
❑
❑
®
❑
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
®
❑
airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
❑
❑
❑
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
It. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
❑
❑
❑
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Discussion
NN ould the project:
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -27
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project may
require the disposal of hazardous substances as a result of the demolition of two tennis courts and
existing clubhouse that was built in the early- 1960s. No extensive renovations to the existing structure
have occurred since that time; therefore, asbestos - containing building materials or lead -based paint
may be present. Mitigation Measure HM -1 would ensure proper disposal of any hazardous materials,
if discovered, as directed by the City of Newport Beach Building Department and Fire Department.
Impacts therefore are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure:
MM HM -1. Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site, an asbestos - containing materials and lead -
based paint assessment will be performed by a qualified environmental professional and conducted in
accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements, including those established by National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). A report will be furnished to the Building Department by
said qualified environmental professional and will outline the occurrence of hazardous materials on
the proposed project site.
■ If asbestos - containing materials are discovered during site investigations, all
potentially friable asbestos - containing materials will be removed in accordance with
federal, state, and local laws and the NESHAP guidelines prior to building
demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will
be undertaken in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to SCAQMD
regulations. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and
local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction workers
and/or the public to asbestos- containing materials.
■ If lead -based paint is discovered during on -site investigations, all building materials
containing lead -based paint will be removed in accordance with CaUOSHA lead in
construction standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee
air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or
coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste
being disposed of. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state,
and local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction
workers and /or the public to lead -based paint.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Operation and construction of the project would not result in the
reasonably foreseeable upset or release of any hazardous materials. The Newport Beach Fire
Department is an all risk Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide
services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials
problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -28
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
disaster (City of Newport Beach 2009b). Furthermore, the Fire Department enforces city, state, and
federal hazardous materials regulations for Newport Beach. City regulations include Unified
Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, Chapter 9.04 of the
City's Municipal Code, and implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program
(City of Newport Beach 2006b). Elements of these programs include spill mitigation and
containment and securing of hazardous materials containers to prevent spills. Compliance with these
requirements is mandatory as standard permitting conditions and would minimize the potential for the
accidental release or upset of hazardous materials, helping to ensure public safety. Construction
equipment that would be used to build the proposed project has the potential to release oils, greases,
solvents, and other finishing materials through accidental spills. Spill or upset of these materials
would have the potential to affect surrounding land uses. However, the consequences of construction -
related spills are generally reduced in comparison to other accidental spills and releases because the
amount of hazardous material released during a construction- related spill is small as the volume in
any single piece of construction equipment is generally less than 50 gallons. Construction - related
spills of hazardous materials are not uncommon, but the enforcement of construction and demolition
standards, including BMPs by appropriate local and state agencies (e.g., Newport Beach Fire
Department), would minimize the potential for an accidental release of petroleum products and /or
hazardous materials or explosions during construction. Federal, state, and local controls have been
enacted to reduce the effects of potential hazardous materials spills.
The occupancy of dwelling units is generally not associated with the use or storage of large amounts
of hazardous substances. Therefore, the proposed project would not use or store large amounts of
hazardous substances and an upset of those types of materials would not be reasonably foreseeable.
The construction and operation of the proposed project would not create significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or require handling hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The closest school to the proposed project site
is Newport Elementary, located 2.3 miles west of the proposed project site at 1327 West Balboa
Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within one - quarter
mile of a school, and no impacts would occur.
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites that
complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (City of Newport Beach 2006b).
Furthermore, the proposed project site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials
databases. A search of 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the California Environmental Protection
Agency (CaIEPA) Cortese List as a Department of Toxic Substances and Control Hazardous Waste
site did not yield any results, and the proposed project site address is not in the EnviroStor database of
hazardous substances release sites (CalEPA 2009a, 20096). Geotracker, the California database of
leaking underground storage tanks, does not report any leaking underground storage tanks at the
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -29
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
proposed project site or in the vicinity of the proposed project site (Geotracker 2009). Finally, there
are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for hazardous
materials /facilities in the project vicinity or at the proposed project site (CalEPA 2009c). Therefore,
the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no
impacts would occur.
e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
Less - Than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately
6.5 miles north of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is not located within the
boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Furthermore,
according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (2006a), the proposed project
site is not located in the John Wayne Airport Accident Potential Zone. The proposed project site is
identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element as an area of increased
vulnerability to fires caused by an aviation hazard. The Safety Element identifies this vulnerability
because a fire caused by an aviation accident could spread quickly throughout the Balboa Peninsula.
However, accidents involving commercial aircraft are very rare events, and the proposed project
would not result in an increased safety hazard for people residing in the project area; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As described above in (e) the John Wayne Airport is located
approximately 6.5 miles north of the proposed project site. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity
of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing the project area, and impacts would be less than significant.
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically affect any adopted emergency
response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not require the closure of any public
or private streets or roadways and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the project or
any surrounding areas during construction or operation. In the event of any temporary closures of the
private streets adequate access would be maintained for the residents and emergency vehicles.
Further, the proposed project would provide all required emergency access in accordance with the
requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department during plan review by the Fire Department. For
additional information regarding the tsunami evacuation plan please refer to Section VII10),
Hydrology and Water Quality. No impacts on emergency response would occur.
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in an area adjacent to or intermixed with
wildlands. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (2006b) identifies
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -30
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
the proposed project site as Low/None Fire Susceptibility. Therefore, people or structures would not
be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the
proposed project. No impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -31
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
VIII.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Less than
Significant
Potentially with Less -than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.
Violate any water quality standards or waste
❑ ® ❑ ❑
discharge requirements?
b.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
❑ ❑ ® ❑
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells
would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
❑ ❑ ® ❑
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that
would result in substantial erosion or siltation on
site or off site?
d.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
❑ ® ❑ ❑
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that
would result in flooding on site or off site?
e.
Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
❑ E ❑ ❑
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
❑ ® ❑ ❑
g.
Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area,
❑ ❑ 0 ❑
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
It.
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
❑ ❑ ® ❑
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
❑ ❑ ® ❑
loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -32
Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Discussion
Would the project:
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Newport Beach is
included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City of
Newport Beach 2006a). Each of these watershed areas is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality
standards, and BMPs requirements established in the Sana Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County
Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to
degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment
projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation
of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any
deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water
(City of Newport Beach 2006a). Newport Bay is designated as "water quality - limited" for four
impairments under the Federal Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List. Under Section 303(d), states,
territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters, establish priority
rankings for waters on the lists, and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters.
For these water quality limited bodies, the SARWQCB and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for the following substances in Newport Beach: sediment,
nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants (City of Newport Beach 2009a). Furthermore, a
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit is provided to the City by the SARWQCB
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) to regulate the amount of
stormwater contaminants that are delivered into the City's waterways (City of Newport Beach
2009a). MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to
maintain city facilities, and the use of BMPs in residential development activities to further reduce the
amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006b).
The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. There is a 2,850 — square foot vacant area
known as the garden. The proposed project would not increase the impervious area. During
construction, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 would ensure the proposed project would not violate water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would result in impacts that are less than
significant. Furthermore, the proposed project also will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP), per Mitigation Measure MM MQ -2. The WQMP would manage stormwater runoff of the
proposed project post - construction. Operation of the proposed project would comply with City of
Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's NPDES
MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP. Therefore, Mitigation Measures WQ -1 and WQ -2
would reduce water quality impacts to a level less than significant during construction and operation.
Mitigation Measures:
MM WQ -1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which includes BMPs. The runoff from the proposed project site would be
managed by the SWPPP using the BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection
requirements to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the
storm drains.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -33
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
MM WQ -2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a WQMP for project
operations and submit to the City Building Department and Code Enforcement & Water Quality
Division for review and approval. The WQMP shall meet the City's water quality ordinance
requirements and include project measures related to site design, source control, and treatment control
BMPs.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge,
resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed and is not
considered a source for groundwater recharge (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The proposed project
would not increase the impervious area on the site. The proposed project also would not directly
withdraw groundwater from beneath the site. Impacts would be less than significant.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on site or off site?
Less - than - Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed
project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The project would involve some minor
grading for construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site. The proposed project would not increase the impervious area on the site as the existing site is
largely paved for the tennis courts. Therefore, impacts from erosion, either on site or off site would be
less than significant.
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The low -lying areas of the City, such
as the Balboa Peninsula, are very flat and are affected by ocean tides (City of Newport Beach 2003).
A system of bayfront bulkheads and tide valves (gates) on storm drain outlets to Newport Bay are in
place to protect these low -lying areas from flooding as a result of high tides (City of Newport Beach
2003). The City has installed 6- to 36- inch - diameter tide valves on 89 storm drain outlets to Newport
Bay to prevent seawater from backing through the storm drain pipes during high tide events. The
valves must be closed when the tide elevation reaches street elevations at each installation. When the
tide elevation drops below street elevation, the gates are reopened. When rain occurs simultaneously
with a high tide, stormwater cannot be released until the tide has dropped sufficiently to open the tide
gates. As a result, urban runoff is in effect dammed by these tide valves, and the low -lying streets in
the City can become inundated. In order to minimize this problem, portable pumps are used to
discharge urban runoff collected at street ends into the ocean. Overall, urban street flooding rarely is
considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach. (City of Newport Beach 2003).
No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed project would not directly affect
the flow course of a river or stream. Because of the urban character of the area and the existing use of
the proposed project site as a private tennis club, substantial amounts of stonnwater are not readily
absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -34
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
the site but would not increase the impervious area. During construction, runoff from the proposed
project site would be managed by BMPs as identified by MM WQ -1. Storm runoff generated through
project operations would be diverted into the existing stormwater drainage system and would comply
with the WQMP as identified in MM WQ -2. Therefore, with MM WQ -1 and MM WQ -2
incorporated, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off
site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?
Less - than - Signiflcant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above in Section
VIII(d), portable pumps are used to discharge urban runoff collected at street ends into the ocean,
when the tide is too high for the tide gates and valves to release collected stormwater. Overall, urban
street flooding rarely is considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach
2003). Also as described above, the urban character of the area and the existing use of the proposed
project site as a private tennis club does not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil.
The proposed project would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not
increase the impervious area. The proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in
runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system
because the City currently has tidal valves, gates, and portable pumps to control stormwater and
flooding generated on the Balboa Peninsula. Furthermore, with the incorporation of MM WQ -t and
MM WQ -2 the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Therefore, increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems or generate
polluted runoff. Impacts on stormwater, therefore, would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not
substantially degrade water quality. See Response VIII(e). Impacts on water quality would be less
than significant with mitigation incorporated.
g. Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Parts of Balboa Peninsula are susceptible to 100 -year flood
conditions. Figure 3 -4 Flood Hazards identifies the flooding hazards in the City of Newport Beach.
The proposed project is located in an area of a 500 -year flood but is in an area that is protected from
the 100 -year flood by levees according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport
Beach 2006a). The levees consist of sand dunes in Newport Beach and flood control measures in the
upper watershed. Most sand dunes located on the Balboa Peninsula can be modified as needed using
earth- moving equipment. Environmental reason dictates that vegetated dunes are preferable,
however, in some areas raked and level beaches are considered to have a greater value due to their
recreational potential (Earth Consultants International 2003). In the more heavily used beaches of
Newport Beach where vegetation cannot be established due to intense foot and vehicular traffic,
bulldozers can be used to build a temporary protective dune. This requires access to equipment in
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -35
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
short notice. Also, beach nourishment programs to maintain the protective wide beaches and sand
dunes (Earth Consultants International 2003).
Furthermore, various flood control measures have helped reduce flood damage in the City (City of
Newport Beach 2006b). Administered by the Orange County Resources & Development
Management Department, the Orange County Flood Control District ( OCFCD) provides, operates,
and maintains public facilities and regional resources for the residents of Orange County (City of
Newport Beach 2006b). OCFCD operates and maintains flood control channels, dams, retarding
basins, pump stations, and other flood control infrastructure that the OCFCD designs and constructs
(City of Newport Beach 2006b). Specifically, in the City, OCFCD is responsible for maintaining the
regional drainage facilities such as the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Buck Gully (City of
Newport Beach 2006b). These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek,
and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall periods that otherwise
could overwhelm the storm drain system in Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2006b). In
addition, as described above in Section VIII(d), the City's storm drain system includes mechanisms
that minimize flood hazards resulting from high tide events (City of Newport Beach 2006b);
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII(g), the proposed project is located in an
area of a 100 -year flood but is in an area that is protected from the 100 -year flood by levees (City of
Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect 100 -year
floodflows, and impacts would be less than significant.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII(g), the proposed project is in an area
that is protected by levees operated and maintained by OCFCD. Implementation of the flood
protection policies contained in the General Plan and City Municipal Code would reduce impacts
from flooding as a result of levee failure, and impacts would be less than significant.
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in a 100 -year zone for tsunami
inundation at extreme high tide (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Figure 3 -5 Tsunami Evacuation
Routes identifies the City of Newport Beach evacuation routes in the event of a tsunami. The City
also has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place (City of Newport Beach 2006a).
Implementation of the proposed project could result in a maximum of five additional single -unit
dwellings within the identified tsunami inundation zone. This would not substantially increase
exposure to existing hazards, or substantially affect evacuation of the Balboa Peninsula in the event of
a tsunami; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -36
Declaration icF Jas oosas.oe
Legend
- Speeial FI-d Hazard A,— nc
ndated by lN, flwd =q flr
-Rrea5 of 500. —llootl ; arealI
1N year hood wlth average \
tle0th5 ofl ee5 [Fan I loot or wl[h
..I,mile:
g areas less Man 1 square ��
antl areas prNeRetl by
levee V, b—I yeatflootl
Zone V &—,i `7 fl� zonewith
.ebcM naaba� nip.
nos flood db eons aver inee.
cara.ni covarxnre .....
Source: City of Newport Beach (2006)
ICFJones &
Stokes
Figure 3 -4
Flood Hazards
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Tsunami Run Up Area
City of Newport Beach
1( 1/ PI
PACIFIC OCEAN��_ ..
a
NPML
Source: City of Newport
ICFJones &
Stokes
KPohnoel
iywew RUOIIp(eleatll 0.m @ax)
KE,ev.pon
lPP R.mgeeler
Eac t,,,Rmk
Plm SV�ioa
0
Libevy
}
Alepiu�l Fedlilf
I
Gly FxiIIN
♦
Poin[o(Imercn
d
PoI -Siam
m
Rvrea�ional C-1,
j
$eh"I
�
Gly BminJUy
Puk[
Figure 3 -5
Tsunami Evacuation Routes
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
❑
❑
❑
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
❑
❑
®
❑
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to, a general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
❑
❑
❑
plan or natural community conservation plan?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project involves an amendment to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan to change the land use categories from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single -Unit Residential
Detached (RSD) and Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B), respectively. The amendment
would provide consistency between the land use designations and the current Single - Family
Residential (R -1) zone. The amendment also would allow the construction and occupancy of the
conceptual development plan (five, detached, single -unit dwellings). The amended General Plan
Land Use Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for the proposed project site would be compatible with the
adjacent residential uses, all of which are designated single- family detached. The construction of five
single -unit dwellings and the revised land use designations associated with the proposed project
would not divide the existing community; therefore, no impacts would occur.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project involves a General Plan Land Use Plan
Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use categories of the
proposed project site from recreational to residential land use. The proposed project involves a
General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing PR land
use categories to RS -D and RSD -B land uses, respectively. The RS -D land use category under the
City's General Plan would allow for five, detached, single -unit dwellings. The RSD -B land use
category under the Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to provide for detached single -unit dwelling
development with a density range of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling du/ac.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -37
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&oe
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Generally, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of both the General
Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan, as discussed in Appendix B which provides a detailed analysis
of the proposed project's consistency with the policies of both the General Plan and Coastal Land Use
Plan. However, the proposed project is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use Policy 3.2.1.1: protect,
and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. The proposed
project would not expand or protect recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. The proposed
project would amend the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to be consistent with the existing
zoning. These amendments could result in the development of the conceptual development plan,
which includes a maximum of five single- family detached dwelling units. The inconsistency of the
proposed project with Policy 3.2.1.1 would not result in significant environmental impacts. As
discussed in all other resource sections (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, Agriculture, etc.) the
environmental impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Furthermore, these
policies were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus,
while the proposed project is not consistent with the policy, this inconsistency does not represent a
significant physical environmental impact. As discussed in Appendix B, the proposed project also
would require a deviation of design standards per Section 19.24.130 of the Subdivision Code for the
lot sizes; however, the deviation would not result in a significant physical environmental impact as
discussed in each resource section of this Initial Study Checklist, and the inconsistency would not
represent a significant environmental impact.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; impacts would be less than significant.
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized setting, and no locally designated
species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The site is not part of any
habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. See Response IV(f). No impacts
would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -38
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
❑
❑
❑
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
❑
❑
❑
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plan?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the
Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) in the City either are classified as containing no significant mineral
deposits (MRZ -1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ -3). The
proposed project is located in an area designated as MRZ -3 (California Department of Conservation
1994 and USGS 2009). The proposed project site is surrounded by land uses that are not compatible
with pit mining (residential and roads), all of which would preclude it from being developed as a
mine, even if there is indeed an extractable mineral resource present. Therefore, no impacts
associated with the loss of a mineral resource would occur.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on
a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. The site is not delineated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan as containing a
locally important mineral resource (City of Newport Beach 2006a); therefore, no impacts would
occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -39
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑
Less than
®
❑
groundborne vibration or groundbom e noise levels?
Significant
Potentially
with
Less -than-
❑
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
XI. NOISE
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
❑
®
❑ ❑
in excess of standards established in the local
❑
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
levels existing without the project?
standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
❑
❑
®
❑
groundborne vibration or groundbom e noise levels?
C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
❑
❑
®
❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
❑
®
❑
❑
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e. For a project located within an airport land use land
❑
❑
®
❑
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
❑
❑
❑
airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion
Prior to addressing the checklist questions, the discussion below provides an overview of the existing
conditions and regulations relative to noise impacts. A more detailed discussion of noise terminology
is included in Appendix C. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of
evaluating all the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human
hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid -range
frequencies. This frequency- dependent modification is called A- weighting, and the decibel level
measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is
conveniently measured using a sound -level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA
curve. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120
dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels.
Although the A- weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a
mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -40
Declaration icF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
particular source is identifiable. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a way of describing
the 24 -hour weighted average noise level.
Existing Conditions at Proposed Project Site
Noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project site include single - family residences
immediately to the north, south, east, and west of the proposed project site. Short-term attended
sound level measurements were conducted on November 10, 2009, with a Larson Davis Type 812
Sound Level Meter (SLM), which is classified as a Type 1 ( "Precision" grade) instrument. Noise was
measured at three representative noise - sensitive locations near the project area. Figure 3 -6 Noise
Measurement Locations identifies the measurement locations. During the field measurements,
physical observations of the predominant noise sources were noted. The noise sources in the project
area typically included traffic along East Balboa Boulevard and landscaping management activities.
The results of the attended short-term sound level measurements are summarized in Table 3 -6. As
shown in Table 3 -6, measured noise levels during daytime hours in and around the proposed project
site ranged from 60 to 62 dBA L.q. These noise levels are typical of a suburban residential area.
Table 3 -6. Short-Term Sound Level Measurement
Measurement Period
Measurement Results (dBA)
Measurement
Start
Duration
Noise
Site ID Location Date
Time
(mm:ss)
Sources
Legl
L.. L,,,;,, Lso L5o Lm
ST -1 2006 East 11/10/09
9:55
15:00
People
59.5
76.8 44.4 49.4 54.4 63.3
Balboa
playing
Boulevard
tennis, traffic,
distant
construction
ST -2 450 Belvue 11/10/09
10:15
15:00
People
59.7
70.7 42.0 46.2 53.6 64.4
Lane
talking,
traffic, distant
aircraft,
distant
landscaping
ST -3 2020 East 11/10/09
10:35
15:00
Traffic,
62.2
82.3 41.6 45.1 51.1 63.9
Balboa
distant
Boulevard
aircraft,
distant
landscaping
'Leq is a 15- minute measurement duration and is commonly accepted as representative of a 1 -hour level. It is used as
the basis for CNEL calculations.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -41
Declaration iCF Jas ooeas.o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Regulatory Background: Noise Standards
The project is subject to the Noise Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Noise
Ordinance incorporated therein. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element establishes
standards for exterior sound levels based on land use categories. The City of Newport Beach also has
established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could
adversely affect its citizens and noise - sensitive land uses. The noise element states that an outdoor
noise exposure level of 65 dBA CNEL is considered "normally compatiblei3 for single - family
residential development (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The General Plan noise element also
references the Municipal Code which is described below.
Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code specifies exterior noise standards for single - family
residential units from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at 55 dBA Leq and from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at 50
dBA Leq. Construction noise, however, is exempt from the above noise standard, pursuant to Section
10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code specifies permitted hours
for construction activities. Construction or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person
of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity may occur only between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction
that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity may occur on Sundays or federal holidays.
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed below in Construction
Noise, although sensitive receptors in the area would be exposed to a temporary increase in noise
from construction activities, the proposed project does not involve construction activities such as pile -
driving or extensive extraction. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction
activities from noise restrictions during specific hours, and due to the limited duration of construction
activities, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise standards would not be exceeded.
Operational noise impacts, discussed below under Operational Noise, would not exceed City of
Newport Beach General Plan noise element standards and would be less than significant.
Construction Noise
Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code is the standard used to determine whether construction
impacts are significant. It is assumed for the purposes of analysis that construction of the proposed
project would begin in 2010. Noise - producing project activity will comply with local noise control
regulations affecting construction activity. All five, single -unit dwellings are assumed to be
constructed concurrently. Construction would last approximately eight months and would be
temporary. Construction would include the following phases and time lengths:
■ demolition of the tennis courts and clubhouse,—approximately two weeks;
■ site grading— approximately two weeks;
■ construction— approximately seven months; and
'Normally acceptable is defined in the land use noise compatibility matrix in the City's General Plan and is included
as Appendix D to this document.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -42
Declaration icF Jas 00s4s.09
ones& Figure 3 -6
J
1 C F Stokes Noise Measurement Locations
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
■ planting and post - construction— approximately two weeks.
Noise from construction activity is generated by the use of a broad array of powered mechanical
equipment. In order to assess the potential noise effects of construction, a list of typical construction
equipment was assumed for each phase of construction. The list of assumed construction equipment
can be found in Appendix A. Analysis of construction phases for the proposed project was conducted
using the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model. Noise levels
associated with various construction phases where all pertinent equipment is present and operating are
shown in Table 3 -7. The closest noise - sensitive receptors to the project are residential land uses to
the east of the proposed project site approximately 50 feet from the acoustical center° of the proposed
project site. This information indicates that the overall average noise level generated on a
construction site could be 86 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor during Demolition and
Plaming/Post- construction phases. Therefore the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to
a noise level of 86 dBA Ley. This noise level is substantially higher than the typical ambient daytime
noise levels. Noise levels of this magnitude would be readily audible in the residential area during
construction activities. The City's Municipal Code exempts construction from the noise restrictions
discussed above as long as it occurs only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays and does not occur at any time on federal
holidays or on Sundays. However, noise from construction could cause annoyance at nearby
receptors; therefore, noise control measures are recommended (Mitigation Measures N -1 through N-
7) to reduce the noise levels to the extent practicable.
Table 3 -7. Potential Noise Levels from Construction Phases
Average Sound Level at
Construction Phase Closest Sensitive Receptor (dBA LQ,)H
Demolition 86
Site Grading 85
Construction 83
Planting and post - construction 86
Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model.
Mitigation Measures:
MM N -1. All noise - producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines
will be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields,
or other noise- reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory
specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc - welders, air compressors) will be
equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
"Acoustical center is the idealized point from which the acoustical energy from construction would be produced. It
is determined by taking the square root of the distance from closest receiver to the nearest point where construction
equipment could be multiplied by the distance to the farthest point.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -43
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
MM N -2. All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment used on the project that is regulated for
noise output by a local, state, or federal agency will comply with such regulation while in the course
of project activity.
MM N -3. Electrically powered equipment will be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion —
powered equipment, where feasible.
MM N -4. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas will be
located as far as practical from noise - sensitive receptors.
MM N -5. No project - related public address or music system will be audible at any adjacent receptor
MM N -6. The on -site construction supervisor will have the responsibility and authority to receive
and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the project proponent will be established
prior to construction commencement that will allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be
immediately solved by the site supervisor.
MM N -7. During construction activities, temporary noise barriers, such as noise- attenuating
blankets, will be erected at the construction fence lines.
With the mitigation measures provided, impacts from construction noise would be reduced.
Additionally, the application of the City's Municipal Code would limit the hours of construction in
the evenings and prevent noise impacts at night when people's sensitivity to noise is heightened.
Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operational Noise
The General Plan noise element is the standard used to determine whether operation impacts are
significant. The proposed project would generate vehicle trips on the surrounding roadways.
Currently, 39 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) per court are designated to the existing private tennis club
based on trip generations rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8`s
Edition. Therefore, the existing private tennis club would be expected to generate a total of 78 ADTs
with two tennis courts. The ITE ADT rate for a single -unit dwelling is 9.57 ADTs. The proposed
project would result in a maximum of five single -unit dwellings and therefore would generate
approximately 48 ADTs. The proposed project would result in a net decrease of 30 daily trips than the
current use as a private tennis club. Because the project would produce a net decrease in the number
of traffic trips, there would be a small corresponding decrease in traffic noise on local roadways.
Therefore impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant.
The proposed project would introduce new sensitive receptors to the area in the form of new
residences. Current noise sources in the area include East Balboa Boulevard, onto which the
proposed project site fronts. Other noise sources include aircraft approaches to and departures from
John Wayne Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles to the north/northeast, as well as typical
residential noise such as landscaping activities. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Guidelines
for Noise Compatibility Land Use (Appendix D) states that an exterior Day/Night Average noise
level that ranges between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL is considered Normally Compatible for single - family
residential land uses. As shown in Table 3 -6 above, existing ambient noise measured 62.2 dBA and
below for each of the measurement locations. Based on the reduction in traffic volumes associated
with the change in land use, the proposed project would not experience noise that would exceed the
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -44
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
General Plan Guidelines for Noise Compatibility Land Use; therefore, operational noise impacts
would be less than significant.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with grading and excavation may
result in some minor amount of ground vibration. Construction of the project would not involve
special construction methods such as pile driving or blasting. Vibration from conventional
construction activity is typically below a level of human perception and well under levels that would
cause damage to existing buildings, when the activity is more than approximately 50 feet from the
receiver. For this project, conventional construction activities could take place at distances closer
than 50 feet from sensitive receptors. Based on data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
small bulldozers (which are representative of the size of construction equipment that would be on
site) produce vibration levels of 0.003 inches per second (IPS) peak particle velocity (PPV) at a
distance of 25 feet. This level is well below widely accepted levels of perception thresholds (for
example, Caltrans has identified a PPV of between 0.0059 and 0.019 IPS PPV as the threshold of
human perception.) The FTA maintains a 0.12 ITS PPV threshold for potential damage to "extremely
fragile historic buildings" (US Department of Transportation 2006). Additionally, vibration from
these activities would be short-term and would end when construction is completed; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Noise associated with single -unit dwellings would be generated
primarily by traffic, with some additional ancillary noise generated by landscaping maintenance and
residents utilizing their yards. However, the proposed project would decrease the amount of traffic in
the project vicinity by approximately 30 trips per day because of the change in land use; therefore,
noise from traffic associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
As stated in Section a (above), the proposed project would introduce sensitive receptors to the area.
However, based on the reduction in traffic volumes, any new sensitive receptors would not
experience noise levels that would exceed the City's General Plan Guidelines for Noise Compatibility
Land Use; therefore, impacts would be less that significant.
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise Levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, the construction of
the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. These levels would be
readily audible at the closest sensitive receptors; however, the City exempts construction provided
that it occurs only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on federal holidays or Sundays. Noise control
measures are included as mitigation measures N -1 through N -11. These measures would reduce
construction noise levels to the greatest extent practical; therefore, impacts from construction would
be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -45
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 2 -mile radius of an
airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport located
approximately 6.5 miles to the north. The proposed project site is located outside the noise contours
of the airport, but may experience some distance airplane noise as identified in table 3 -6 (City of
Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an airstrip, private or public;
therefore, no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -46
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XI I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,
❑
❑
®
❑
either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
❑
❑
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people,
❑
❑
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed land use amendments to the City of Newport Beach
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan could allow for the construction and operation of the
conceptual development plan. The conceptual development plan would increase the total housing
units available (42,711) in the City of Newport Beach by five, single -unit dwellings. This is less than
1% (approximately 0.001 %) of the current total housing available (California Department of Finance
2008). There are approximately 80,000 people in the City of Newport Beach and 2.19 persons per
household in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, the proposed project would increase the local
population by approximately 11 people (California Department of Finance 2008). A less than 1%
increase in population and housing is negligible to the overall growth of the City and is not
considered substantially growth inducing. In addition, the proposed project site is surrounded by
existing residential development and would not result in growth inducing efforts caused by the
extension of utilities, roads, or other infrastructure into undeveloped area. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would amend the existing land use designations, which could
allow for the construction and operation of the conceptual development plan. The proposed project
site is currently a private tennis club and does not consist of housing. Therefore, the proposed project
would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere; no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -47
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Impact. As discussed in (b) above, the proposed project site is currently developed with a private
tennis club and no people currently live on the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project
would not displace any housing or people, and no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -48
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XIII.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a.
Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered government facilities, need for new or
physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
1.
Fire protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
2.
Police protection?
❑
❑
®
❑
3.
Schools?
❑
❑
®
❑
4.
Parks?
❑
❑
®
❑
5.
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
®
❑
Discussion
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with:
al. Fire protection?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in the City of Newport
Beach Fire Department service area. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered
an all risk Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all
types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach
rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and disaster
operations (City of Newport Beach 2009b). The proposed project site is served by Balboa
Peninsula Fire Station #1, which is located at 110 East Balboa Boulevard at the intersection of
East Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles to the west of the proposed
project site. The existing Peninsula Point Racquet Club currently contributes to fire and
emergency demands. The club has approximately 83 active members and is open 7 days a week.
Should an emergency or fire occur at the existing tennis club, the City of Newport Beach Fire
Department would be first responders. As discussed in Section XII(a) above, the proposed
project would add five additional residential structures and approximately 11 people (California
Department of Finance 2008). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significantly
more demands than the existing tennis club on fire and emergency services, and impacts would be
less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -49
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
a2. Police protection?
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in the City of Newport
Beach Police Department and the Orange County Sherriff Department service area. The Newport
Beach Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 7 miles from the
proposed project. The Orange County Sheriff's Department Harbor Patrol/Marine Operations
Bureau provides around - the -clock law enforcement, marine fire fighting, and search/rescue
services in Newport Harbor (Orange County Sheriffs Department 2008). The proposed project
site is located in Newport Beach Police Department Patrol Area 1 (Newport Beach Police
Department 2009). The existing tennis club generates a demand for police services. As discussed
above, the proposed project would add five residential structures and approximately 11 people to
the neighborhood. The proposed project would not place a significant added burden on the
Newport Beach Police Department and would not require new or additional police facilities;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
a3. Schools?
Less - than - Significant Impact. School services in the City are provided by the Newport-Mesa
Unified School District. The demand for new schools is generally associated with population
increases or impacts on existing schools. The proposed project would increase the number of
children housed at the proposed project site, and therefore would increase the number of students
attending schools. The 2006 -2008 American Community Survey indicates there are 13,249
children between the ages of 5 and 19 living in Newport Beach; therefore, approximately 16% of
the City population is school age children (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). In the City of Newport
Beach, the average household size is 2.19 and approximately 19% of the households have an
individual living in the household under 18 years of age (i.e., school -age child) (California
Department of Finance 2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2008, 2000). The proposed project would
include five households and approximately 11 people (2.19 persons per household). Therefore,
based on U.S. Census data, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project would generate
approximately two school -age children (18% of the 11 persons in the five households of the
conceptual development plan would have school -age children). Although the proposed project
may increase the number of school age children in the City by two, this would not place a
significant added burden to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District; therefore impacts would
be less than significant.
a4. Parks?
Less- than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a private
tennis clubhouse and two tennis courts and the construction of five single -unit dwellings. As
such, the proposed project would increase the number of people by 11 including two children
housed at the proposed project site (see discussion XIII(a5) above). According to the Newport
Beach General Plan Recreation Element there are two parks in the project vicinity: L Street Park
and M Street Park (Figure 3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities). It is expected that
these two parks would be able to handle the increased demand, and the project would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts on parks requiring the need for new facilities in order to
maintain acceptable performance standards. See Section XIV(a) and (b) Recreation for additional
discussion on parks and recreation. hnpacts would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -50
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
ICFSt k&
AM or MIAMISMAIME Paris,
Figure 3 -7
Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
Legend
• Private Tennis Facilities
_ Park
• Public Tennis Facilities
1 Newport Harbor High School
Public Beach
2 Mariners Park
Marine Protected Areas
3 Bonita Canyon Sports Field
Crystal Cove State Park
4 Grant Howald Field
Cosin nun
Upper Newport Bay
5 Irvine Terrace Field
State Marine Park
6 Las Arenas Park
^/ City Boundary
T West Newport Park
B San Joaquin Hills Park
OCounty Boundary
g Corona Del Mar High School
I ee IN
1 D Balboa Bay Racquet Club
.... Is.
11 Palisades Tennis Club
!
12 Newport Beach Tennis Club
NEI
0 as I
/
saw an wae.PAnwm, Sea
p
A
F
38M Street Park
® Anoy Pah
(�
\•
-
® BEEN Bay View Park
(a
aBaltoa over —ry Cents
"�•
'
®Banide Park
_
OBeyviaw Park
.--1 ALAN.
-
® Btgond Park
®lalerear, Po nr
®Pio Canyon Park
®Irvine Terrace Park
`
®Bob Henry Park
® laarene Creek Park
Be. Pairs
® qys lead Yew Park
Project Location
_
Bonita Canyon Snake Park
® L Srreat Park
® Bonita Creek Park
®Iza Nenas Park
-
®BnRaIOHIIIaPark
®11do Park
uCA, Ak
®bnyon Wald Park
®Lincoln PMlNic Ceav /Crym
®old SC Pr Park
® dwell I Camm Center
®LOaFput PWT Mery PUF
®Peninsula Park
®bsevers Park
®WSTran— Canyon New Park
® San Joaquin Nills Park
®OanM Place BEEN
®M 1d. Park
on, k NPark
® curneive PaM/COmm Center
Mai rw Park
®daylee Hill Park
®car da Mar Stale fined,
® Maircrs serve, Cnmm Censer
®spyes. Hll aandedir Park
® berehark ark
® kii Par
® yakes. ASAMS, Pah
sa, New Par,
a Nawpert Sar if Center
® UPPer New qrr y Ba Nature Preserve
,
®6a Wy View Par
® Newport DUnes Aquatie Paris
® yNalan Memorial Par
®fired, And
® Newed lslantl Par
®Weil lady Vies, Par
® Grzrrt Howald Park End
® Newport Snores Par
® West Newryrt ... C.vvNGym
® Hartor Vkw as— Par
®Nartr Star Beacn
®West Nervport Par
®Hand, Warm Park
® W9s Senior Center
®sandoflPar,
SOURCE: City of Newport Beach
ICFSt k&
AM or MIAMISMAIME Paris,
Figure 3 -7
Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities
Beauchamp General Plan and
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND
City of Newport Beach
a5. Other public facilities?
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less - Than - Significant Impact. Other public facilities located in the City of Newport Beach
include libraries and senior centers. The City of Newport has four libraries and one senior center
(Newport Beach Public Library 2009, City of Newport Beach 2009c). The closest library and
senior center to the proposed project site are the Balboa Branch at 100 East Balboa Boulevard and
OASIS Senior Center at 800 Marguerite Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles and 7.8 miles from the
proposed project site, respectively. The proposed project would negligibly increase the local
permanent population by 11 people (see discussion XIII (al) above). The proposed project would
remove the clubhouse, which is currently available one evening per month to members of the
Peninsula Point Neighborhood Association for monthly meetings. The monthly Peninsula Point
Neighborhood Association meetings could be held in a wide variety of existing meeting places
including community centers, senior centers, libraries, and private homes identified below.
• Balboa Branch Library located at 100 East Balboa Boulevard
• OASIS Senior Center located at 800 Marguerite Avenue
• Balboa Community Center located at 1714 Balboa Boulevard
• Bonita Creek Community Center located at 3010 La Vida
• Cliff Drive Park located at 301 Riverside Avenue
• Community Youth Center located at 3000 Fifth Avenue
• West Newport Community Center located at 883 15 Street
The closest alternative location would be the Balboa Branch Library. Existing libraries, senior
centers, and other public facilities would be able to absorb the slight increase in demand
attributable to the proposed project's negligible increase in the local population and the removal
of the clubhouse. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse impacts
on other public facilities or require new facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -51
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XIV. RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
❑
❑
®
❑
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
❑
❑
®
❑
require the construction of or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse
nhvsical effect on the environment?
Discussion
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly affect
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project site is
located in Service Area 2 (Balboa Peninsula), which currently supports a total of 50.5 acres of
combined park/beach area, and exceeds the 25.5 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's
current requirements in the Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of
parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. The increase in
housing as a result of the proposed project would negligibly increase the local population by 11
people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in Newport Beach. The three
neighborhood parks (L Street Park, M Street Park, and West Jetty View Park) and active beach
recreation area in the general vicinity of the proposed project as identified by Figure 3 -1 could
absorb the slight demand placed on them by 11 new residents.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of a private recreational facility. The
Peninsula Point Racquet Club is a private tennis club, not providing open public use. The
Peninsula Point Racquet Club has 83 active members, therefore, the removal of the private tennis
club would increase the use of tennis facilities at other parks and recreation facilities throughout
the City. Some of the members likely would use existing local public tennis courts, and others
may become members of other local private tennis clubs. Public tennis courts in the City of
Newport Beach are listed in Table 3 -8, and private Newport Beach tennis clubs are listed in Table
3 -9. Figure 3 -7 identifies the locations of both public and private tennis clubs in relation to the
proposed project site.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -52
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Table 3 -8. City of Newport Beach Public Tennis Courts
Public Tennis Court Location
Newport Harbor High School Tennis Courts
600 Irvine Ave
Mariners Park
1300 Irvine Ave
Bonita Canyon Sports Field
1990 Ford Rd
Grant Howald Field
3000 Fifth Ave
Irvine Terrace Field
Seadrift Dr.
Las Arenas Park
1520 Balboa Blvd
West Newport Park
6804 Seashore Dr.
San Joaquin Hills Park
1560 Crown Dr.
Corona Del Mar High School
2101 East Bluff Dr.
Table 3 -9. City of Newport Beach Private Tennis Courts
Private Tennis Courts
Location
Balboa Bay Racquet Club
1602 East Coast Hwy
Palisades Tennis Club
1171 Jamboree Rd.
Newport Beach Tennis Club
2601 Eastbluff Dr.
The local pubic tennis courts would be able to absorb the small additional demand resulting from
the removal of the Peninsula Point Racquet Club. Membership fees associated with private tennis
clubs would offset any additional demand on private facilities by contributing to funds to provide
necessary upgrades and maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use
of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facilities would occur, and impacts would be less than significant.
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less -than- Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or
require the construction of or expansion of recreation facilities that might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment. As indicated above, this area of the City currently provides
combined park/beach acreage in excess of the need for this area. For impacts associated with the
demolition of an existing private recreational facility, see response to XIV(a). Impacts would be
less than significant.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -53
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ® ❑
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design
❑
Less than
®
❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
Significant
Potentially
with
Less -than-
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
Would the project:
❑
❑
®
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
❑
❑
® ❑
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
❑
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
❑
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ® ❑
of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design
❑
❑
®
❑
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
❑
❑
®
❑
f Result in inadequate parking capacity?
❑
❑
®
❑
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
❑
❑
❑
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the City of
Newport Beach Public Works Department does not require a traffic study if a project would
generate 300 or fewer new daily trips. Currently, 39 ADTs per court are expected to be generated
to the existing private tennis club based on trip generations rates in the ITE Trip Generation, 8`h
Edition. Therefore, the existing private tennis club would generate a total of 78 ADTs. The ITE
ADT rate for a single -unit dwelling is 9.57 ADTs. The proposed project would result in a
maximum of five single -unit dwellings and therefore would generate approximately 48 ADTs.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -54
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
The proposed project would generate 30 fewer daily trips than the current use as a private tennis
club. Therefore, East Balboa Boulevard would experience a small decrease in ADTs, and
operational impacts on traffic volumes and flow would be less than significant.
There is generally more traffic congestion and parking deficiencies on Balboa Peninsula during
the summer months due to a heavy increase in tourists to the area. It is unknown during what
season(s) construction would occur; however, construction equipment delivery, construction
personnel commuting, and material delivery haul trips would add slightly to the summer traffic
should construction occur during summer months. Given that only a maximum of 5 residential
homes would be constructed concurrently, the construction traffic would be negligible and would
not be perceptive in the context of tourist traffic on the Peninsula. Construction traffic is
expected to be less than the existing traffic generated by the tennis club (78 daily trips), and also
fewer than the estimated 48 daily trips from the proposed 5 single -unit dwellings. Construction
traffic activities and equipment movement at the site would be controlled by construction flag
persons and the temporary or partial closure of any street would be previously approved by City
Public Works and the City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards. Construction would be
temporary and normal traffic levels would resume once construction was over. Therefore,
construction impacts on traffic volumes and flow would be less than significant.
b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The area surrounding the proposed project site is primarily
single unit dwellings. The main route of access to the proposed project site is East Balboa
Boulevard, which is classified as Commuter Roadway. Primary ingress /egress to the proposed
dwelling units would be off the private drives of East Bay and L Street. The proposed project
would result in a decrease of daily trips as discussed above in response XV(a). Impacts would be
less than significant.
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The proposed project includes land use designation amendments and the
construction and operation of the conceptual development plan (five, detached, single- family
dwellings). The proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of the AELUP for John
Wayne Airport, restricting any specific land uses because of aircraft operations. The proposed
project would result in a population increase of approximately 11 persons. Due to this minimal
population increase of less than 1 %, the proposed project would not cause an increase in air
traffic levels or create a physical impediment that would necessitate an alteration of flight
patterns; therefore, no impacts would occur.
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less -than- Significant Impact. The project would not alter the shape of any of the adjacent
roads. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department would review and approve all
driveway plans prior to construction, and impacts would be less than significant.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -55
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction or operation of the project would not affect streets
or otherwise affect emergency access routes. The project would be designed to incorporate all
required City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards to ensure that its implementation
would not result in hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas
surrounding the site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Currently, patrons of the tennis club must park on East Balboa
Boulevard or surrounding residential streets. There is currently enough street parking to
accommodate the patrons of the tennis club. The proposed project would provide a two -car
garage for each of the five, single -unit dwellings. There would be a total of 10 parking spaces
designed per the Zoning Code. The proposed project would not require curb cuts or any other
street modification that would result in fewer street parking spaces. Therefore, because the
proposed project would include 10 parking spaces, it would result in fewer needed street parking
spaces than the existing use. Impacts would be less than significant.
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The proposed project includes land use designation amendments and the
construction and operation of a conceptual development plan (five single -unit dwellings).
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation, and no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -56
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
XVI.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Lessthan
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant No
Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
❑
❑
® ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b.
Require or result in the construction of new water
❑
❑
® ❑
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
C.
Require or result in the construction of new
❑
®
❑ ❑
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
d.
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
❑
❑
® ❑
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would new or expanded entitlements
be needed?
e.
Result in a determination by the wastewater
❑
❑
® ❑
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f.
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
❑
❑
® ❑
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g.
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
❑
❑
❑
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the RWQCB. The City of Newport Beach requires NPDES permits, as
administered by the RWQCB according to Federal regulations, for both point source discharges
and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the United States. In addition, wastewater
service in the project vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -57
Declaration icF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
2006b). Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation
District (OCSD). The majority of the City's wastewater flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No.
2, which has a design capacity o£276 million gallons per day (mgd). It treats on average a flow
of 153mgd and operates at 55% of its capacity (City of Newport Beach General 2006b).
The existing land use currently generates wastewater from the daily use of the Peninsula Point
Racquet Club and has existing sewer ties into OCSD sewer lines. The proposed project site
currently generates wastewater from washing down the tennis courts approximately every 6
weeks and from the kitchen and restrooms in the clubhouse. The proposed project would increase
wastewater generation above the current wastewater generation, as single -unit dwellings would
be expected to generate more water than a two -court private tennis club. Approximately 200
gallons of wastewater per dwelling unit per day are produced for the project area (Kayiran pers.
comet.). Therefore, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,000 gallons of
wastewater per day. This would equate to approximately 365,000 gallons per year or
approximately 1 acre -foot per year of wastewater. The project would not exceed the wastewater
treatment requirements of the RWQCB and would comply with all provisions of the NPDES
program and applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board as discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality. Furthermore, the
project would comply with the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements that would regulate
discharge from construction (also described in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality).
Finally, since OCSD Plant No. 2 operates at 55% of its capacity, the additional wastewater
generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by OCSD. Therefore, the proposed
project would not cause any violation of standards set forth by OCSD, and impacts would be less
than significant.
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less - than - Significant Impact. Water service for the proposed project site is provided by the
City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the City is supplied by imported water, groundwater
and recycled water. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be
required to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to the
existing OCSD sewer system. OCSD, as stated above, manages and oversees all wastewater in
Orange County and is expected to be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the
proposed project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The existing site is mostly
impermeable to stormwater because of the impermeable surfaces on site. The proposed project
would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the
impervious area. During construction, runoff from the proposed project site would be managed
by BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements per MM WQ -1. BMPs
would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of a SWPPP to prevent discharges of
polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains per MM WQ -1.
Stone runoff generated through project operations would be diverted into the existing stormwater
drainage system and would not generate additional polluted runoff per MM WQ -2. Therefore,
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -58
Declaration iCF Jas oosas.oe
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is required to evaluate the
appropriate level of water reliability sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of
customers (e.g., residential, industrial, etc.) during normal, dry, and continuously dry years. The
California Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires the City to evaluate the water
supply and demand within its service area in the Urban Water Management Plan every 5 years in
the years ending in 0 and 5 (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City receives 34% of its water
through water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 64% of its
water from groundwater managed by the Orange County Water District, and 2% from recycled
water managed by Orange County Water District (City of Newport Beach 2005). The Urban
Water Management Plan uses historical normal year, wet year, and dry year, and then multiple
dry and wet years, as well as water usage over time in the service area, to establish a baseline for
demand and supply (City of Newport Beach Plan 2005). It then evaluates present and future
conditions of water reliability in the City (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City used 18,648
acre -feet of water in 2005 (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City's demand for water includes
all types of categories of customers— large industrial users, municipal uses such as irrigating
parks, offices, and residential consumers who use water for drinking and landscaping purposes.
The Urban Water Management Plan identifies that the City's demands for water can be met in
average, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2030 based on current and projected
water supplies and the demands forecast for normal, a single dry year, and multiple dry year
scenarios (City of Newport Beach 2005). The fixture supply projection assumes that the City will
continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water from the Metropolitan Water District,
which is projected to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030.
Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local
projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the
City.
The proposed project site currently uses water to wash down the tennis courts approximately
every 6 weeks and in their kitchen and restrooms in the clubhouse. The proposed project would
increase water demand over the current water use, as single -unit dwellings would be expected to
use more water than a two -court private tennis club. Based on water sales records from the City
of Newport Beach, the average water use in the area is approximately 235 gallons per dwelling
unit per day (Kayiran pers. comm.). Therefore, the proposed project would use approximately
1,175 gallons per day. This would equate to approximately 428,875 gallons per year or
approximately 1.31 acre feet per year. Because the Urban Water Management Plan for the City
identifies that the demand for water can be met, the increase in the water demand by the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, based on the City's evaluation and
planning for reliability of water supplies and the anticipated proposed project water demand, no
new or expanded entitlements would be required to serve the proposed project site, and impacts
would be less than significant.
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -59
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less -than- Significant Impact. See Response XVI(b).
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate an increase in solid waste
production as a result of the proposed residences. The majority of residential solid waste
generated in the City of Newport Beach is collected by the City's Refuse Division and then
remaining solid waste is collected by waste haulers and transported to a City -owned transfer
station. Refuse is consolidated and transported to a materials recovery facility where recyclable
materials are sorted from refuse by machines and other methods. The remaining solid waste is
then taken to one of three County landfills (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Currently only the
Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill serves the City of Newport Beach. Closure is currently
estimated at year 2022; however, Integrated Waste Management Department is preparing an EIR
to expand the landfill and extend its closure date to 2053 (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The
permitted daily tonnage limit for the Bowerman Landfill is 8,500 tons per day of refuse except for
36 days per year when a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed. Currently, the landfill
receives 2,332,576 tons per year or approximately 6,390 tons per day. Therefore, there is
currently a surplus of landfill capacity of 2,110 tons per day. If the expansion is approved, the
landfill would accept 11,500 tons per day (City of Newport Beach 2006b).
A study of the Frank R. Bowerman landfill and its remaining capacity is presented in Table 3 -10
below.
Table 3 -10. Landfill
Maximum
Current Remaining Maximum Estimated Daily Load Annual Usage
Landfill Capacity (Tons Capacity (Tons) Close Date (Tons) (Tons)
Frank R. 44,560,000 81,600,000 2022 8,500 2,332,576
Bowerman
Source: Citv of Newoort Beach General Plan EIR Section 4.14 Utilities and Service Svstems 2006.
Residential municipal solid waste would be generated by the proposed project; however, the
existing land use is already generating municipal solid waste, which must be disposed of in a
landfill. The proposed project involves the construction of five, single -unit dwellings. Assuming
each single -unit dwelling produces 12.23 pounds of solid waste per day (City of Newport Beach
2006b), the proposed project as a whole would produce, on average, 61 pounds of solid municipal
waste per day. Construction waste generation by the proposed project would result in a
temporary increase in the total construction and demolition waste. The Frank R. Bowerman
landfill is expected to be able to accommodate the increase in solid waste generated by
construction and operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. Solid waste produced by the proposed project would be picked up by either the City
of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach The proposed
project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and city recycling programs;
therefore, no impacts would occur.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -60
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
In. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑
limited but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less -than- Significant Impact. The project area is urban in character and does not contain
biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the project. Additionally,
no cultural resources, either historic or prehistoric, are expected to be affected by the construction
or operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -61
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less -than-
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
❑
❑
® ❑
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
In. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑
limited but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less -than- Significant Impact. The project area is urban in character and does not contain
biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the project. Additionally,
no cultural resources, either historic or prehistoric, are expected to be affected by the construction
or operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -61
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
Less - than - Significant Impact. The project would not result in impacts that would be
cumulatively considerable. The City of Newport Beach identified twelve individual projects
within the City. The projects are listed below:
■ Newport Beach Country Club, located at 1600 East Coast Highway. This development
includes five residential dwelling units, 27 hotel units with a 2,048 gross square foot
concierge and guest center, 3,523 gross square foot tennis club with a 6,718 gross square foot
spa, 41,086 gross square foot golf club with accessory facilities, seven tennis courts and a
swimming pool.
■ Mariner's Medical Arts, located at 1901 Westcliff Drive. This development includes
12,245 gross square feet of a medical office addition.
■ City Hall & Park Development, located at 1100 Avocado Avenue. This development
includes 98,000 gross square feet for City Hall, 17,135 gross square feet of library expansion,
450 -space parking structure, and a 15 acre park.
■ WPI- Newport, LLC, located at 4699 Jamboree Road and 5190 Campus Drive. This
development includes 43,951 gross square feet of new office building, 5,744 gross square feet
of bank uses, 2,214 gross square feet of retail uses, and 2,263 gross square feet of restaurant
uses.
■ Banning Ranch, located at 4520 West Coast Highway. This development includes 1,375
dwelling units, 75,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, 75 -room accommodations,
parks, and open space.
■ Sunset Ridge Park, located at 4850 West Coast Highway. This development includes 13.67
acres of active park land.
■ Old Newport GPA, located at 328 -340 Old Newport Boulevard. This development includes
25,725 gross square feet of medical office uses.
■ Marina Park, located at 1700 Balboa Boulevard. This development includes 10.45 acres of
public marina, beach, park with recreational facilities as follows: 26,990 gross square feet of
Balboa Center Complex, 23 slips for Visiting Vessel Marina, 1,328 gross square feet of
Marina Services Building, 5,500 gross square feet of Girl Scout House, and 153 parking
spaces.
• PRES Office Building B, located at 4300 Von Karman. This development includes 16,742
gross square feet of office building.
• Conexant/Koll Conceptual Plan, located at 4343 Von Karman Avenue. This development
includes 974 residential dwelling units.
• AERIE, located at 201 Carnation Avenue. This development includes 6 -unit condominium
with subterranean parking which would include 25,500 cubic yards of grading.
• Coast Community College District, located at 1505 -1533 Monrovia Avenue. This
development includes 67,000 gross square feet of a higher education learning center.
The analysis of cumulative projects addresses only those environmental issues that have the
potential to be affected by the combined cumulative project list. This environmental document
provides a determination of whether or not a significant cumulative impact exists, and whether
the proposed project would contribute to such a significant cumulative impact to a considerable
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -62
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
degree. Only project impacts that are deemed cumulatively considerable are considered
potentially significant impacts in the context of this analysis.
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality
impacts. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase dust levels in the
project area. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP
forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of
the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response HI(a), the proposed
project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment
for all criteria pollutants.5 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed
project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational
Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed
to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards.
The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region,
and therefore, inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As
such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
With regard to climate change and GHG emissions, as discussed earlier in Response III(b), the
amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed
project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach.
As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative
climate change /worldwide GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative hazard and hazardous
materials impacts. As discussed previously, the proposed project may result in the disposal of
asbestos - containing building materials and lead based paint. The mitigation measure identified in
Response VII(a) would reduce the significance of the project's impacts associated with disposal
of hazardous materials to a less- than- significant level. Hazardous waste that may be found at
other proposed project sites would be disposed of according to local, state, and federal
requirements. Implementation of the mitigation measure provided as part of the proposed project
and implementation of other safety measures in the cumulative scenario would reduce the
cumulative contribution of impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively
considerable levels.
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts to
hydrology and water quality from the generation of storrawater runoff. The mitigation measure
identified in Response VIII(a) would reduce the significance of project impacts to hydrology and
water quality to a less than significant level. Other project in the vicinity of the proposed project
would be required to institute WQMPs and implement BMPs. Implementation of the WQMPs
s CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental
contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements
in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or
substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste
management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be
specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public
review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency."
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -63
Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist
and BMPs in a cumulative scenario would reduce the cumulative contribution of impacts
associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels.
Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to excessive noise
levels from construction. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Response XI(a)
would reduce impacts from noise exposure to a less - than- significant level. Projects in the vicinity
of the proposed project would be required to institute similar measures if they were found to
expose people to excessive noise. None of the cumulative projects are located in the immediate
vicinity to be audible together with the proposed project construction activities. Implementation
of mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project to less than
cumulatively considerable levels.
Furthermore, the proposed project does not exceed thresholds that require analysis pursuant to
Newport Beach City Charter Section 423. Charter Section 423requires voter - approved
development if it exceeds three specific thresholds regarding peak hour trips, intensity, and
density. Charter Section 423, as implemented by the methodology set forth in City Council
Policy A -18, establishes the thresholds which cause a General Plan Amendment to be subject to a
vote of the electorate. Accordingly, the proposed development does not generate an increase of
100 or more peak hour trips. The intensity of allowed uses on the subject property will not
increase beyond the thresholds identified in Policy A -18.. The proposed project meets the density
allowed by statistical area (134). Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to Measure S (City
of Newport Beach 2000).
The proposed project would result in less - than - significant environmental impacts. Additionally,
the impacts from the proposed project when combined with the list of cumulative development
projects would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Thus, impacts
associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable.
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although construction of the proposed
project is expected to create temporary adverse effects related to construction noise and
hazardous materials during construction demolition, these impacts will be mitigated to a less -
than- significant level.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -64
Declaration iCF Jas OOM&oe
Chapter 4
References
Chapter 4
References
Printed References
California Code. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Available:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=
0023264528 +0 +0 +0 &WAISactionzetrieve. Accessed: November 23, 2009.
California Department of Conservation. 2007. California Geological Survey -
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Available: http: / /www.consrv.ca.gov/
cgs /rghm/ap /Pages /affected.aspx. Accessed: November 11, 2009.
— . 2009. Orange County Important Farmland 2008. Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. August 2009.
California Department Finance. 2008. Table 2: E -5 City /County Population and
Housing Estimate, 1/1/2008. Sacrament, CA.
California Department of Transportation. 2009. Officially Designated State
Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways. Available: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/
hq /LandArch /scenic_ highways /index.htm. Accessed: November 12, 2009.
California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. DTSC's Hazardous
Waste and Substances Site List —Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available:
http: / /www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public /search.asp ?cmd = search &reporttype
=CORTE S E &site_typ e =CSITE S %2 COPEN %2 CFUD S %2 CCLO SE &status
= ACT %2CBKLG %2CCOM &reporttitle = HAZARDOUS ° /u20 WASTE %20A
ND %20SUBSTANCES %20SITE %20LIST. Accessed: November 10, 2009.
. 2009b. Find Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities.
Available:
http: / /www. envirostor. dtsc. ca. gov /pub li c /search. asp ?cmd= search &city =New
port%20Beach& zip = &county= Orange &federal_ superfund= True &state_re sp
onse = True &voluntary_ cleanup= True &school cleanup= Tme &permitted=Tru
e &pc _permitted= True &hist_ nonoperating = &corrective_ action= True &displa
y_results= Report &pub =True. Accessed: November 10, 2009.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -1
Declaration ICF Jas 00M&oe
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References
2009c. List of "active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available:
http: / /www.calepa .ca.gov /SiteCleanup /CorteseList/. Accessed: November
10, 2009.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal:
Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Thresholds for Greenhouse
Gases Under the California Environmental Quality Act. October 24, 2008.
City of Newport Beach. 2000. Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423.
Available:
http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov /Modules /ShowDocument. aspx ?documentid
=2516. Accessed: December17. 2009.
City of Newport Beach. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study. Cited in City of
Newport Beach (2006b).
2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. CA.
2006a. Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006.
2006b. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report
General Plan 2006 Update. State Clearing Housing Number: 2006011119.
April 2006.
2009a. City of Newport Beach, California Local Coastal Program
Coastal Land Use Plan.
2009b. Fire Operations Division. Available:
htt p:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1131. Last Updated: July
15, 2009. Accessed: November 6, 2009.
2009c. City of Newport Beach: Senior Services--OASIS Senior
Center. Available: http:// www .newportbeachea.gov /index.aspx ?page =218.
Accessed: November 10, 2009.
County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. Available:
http:// www. ocpianning .net/GeneralPlan2005.aspx. Accessed: November 10,
2009.
Department of Conservation. 1994. DMG Open -File Report 94 -15. Division of
Mines and Geology.
Earth Consultants International. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study City of
Newport Beach, California.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise
Model.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4.2
Declaration iCF Jas 00e46.os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References
Geotracker. 2009. GeoTracker. Available:
http s: / /geotracker.waterbo ards. ca.gov /map / ?CMD= runreport&myaddress =20
00 +east +balboa +blvd. Accessed: November 10, 2009.
Harris, C. M. (ed.). 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. 2 "d edition. New York:
McGraw -Hill, Inc.
Newport Beach Police Department. 2009. Patrol and Traffic. Available:
http: / /www.nbpd.org/insidenbpd /divisions /pat_ trf/default.asp. Accessed:
November 6, 2009.
Newport Beach Public Library. 2009. Hours and Locations. Available:
http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/nbpl/
HoursAndLocations /Hours And Locations.htm. Accessed: November 10,
2009.
Orange County Sheriffs Department. 2008. Harbor Patrol /Marine Operations
Bureau. Available: http: / /ocsd.org/ divisions /homeland_ security /harbor /.
Accessed: November 6, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP -1 Profile of General Demographic
Characteristics. Available: http : / /factfinder.census.gov /servlet/
QTTabl e ?_bm= y &- gr_name= DEC_2000_SF1_U DPI& -
ds_ name =DEC_ 2000_ SF 1_U & -_ lang= en &- geo_id= 16000US0651182.
Accessed: November 9, 2009.
—. 2008. Newport Beach City, California —ACS Demographic and
Housing Estimates: 2006 -2008. 2006 -2008 American Community Survey
3 -Year Estimates. Available: http: / /factfinder.census.gov /servletl
ADPTable? bm= y &- geo_id= 16000US0651182 &-
qr _name= ACS_2008 3YR GOO DP3YR5 &-
ds_name= ACS_2008_3YR G00_ &- _Iang= en &- _sse =on. Accessed:
November 6, 2009.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment. Prepared for the Federal Transit Authority.
U.S. Geologic Survey. 1965. National Geologic Map Database Rogers, T.H.,
1965 Geologic map of California: Santa Ana sheet: California Division of
Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000. Accessed on: January 5, 2010.
Available at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm-
bin/ILView.pl?sid-452 _ l . sid &vtype =b &sfact = l .5.
U.S. Geologic Survey. 2009. Mineral Resources On Line Spatial Data Orange
County. Last Modified: December 9, 2009. Accessed on: January 5, 2010.
Available at: http: // tin. er. usgs. gov /mrds /select.php ?place= f06059 &div =fips.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -3
Declaration icF Jas 00e46.os
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References
Personal Communications
Kayiran, Zeki. Consultant. AKM Consulting Engineers. Irvine, CA. November
16,2009—Email.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -4
Declaration iCF JaS 00e46.os
Chapter 5
List of Preparers
City of Newport Beach
Assistant Planner
ICF Jones & Stokes
Project Director
Project Manager
Chapter 5
List of Preparers
Makana Nova
Chad Beckstrom, AICP
Nicole Williams
Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Tanya Jones
Resources, Hazards and Hazard Resources,
Mineral Resources, Population and Housing,
Public Services, Recreation
Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Nicole Williams and
Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Tanya Jones
Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service
Systems, Mandatory Findings of Significance
Air Quality Victor Ortiz
Noise Peter Hardie
Graphics Soraya Mustain
Editor Darle Tilly
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 5 -1
Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9
Appendix A
Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and
Operational Emissions Calculations
South Coast
Air Quality Management District
i a a 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
(909) 396 -2000 o www.aqmd.gov
SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds'
Pollutant Construction b Operation `
NTOx
100 Ibs /day
55 Ibs /day
V OC
75 Ibs /day
55 Ibs /day
131\1110
150 Ibs /day
150 Ibs /day
PM2.5
55 Ibs /day
55 Ibs /day
Sox
150 Ibs /day
150 Ibs /day
CO
550 Ibs /day
550 Ibs /day
Lead
3 Ibs /day
3 Ibs /day
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and Odor Thresholds
TACs
Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk? 10 in I million
(including carcinogens and non- carcinogens)
Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ? 1 in 1 million)
Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment)
Odor
Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402
Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants
NO2
SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or
contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
1 -hour average
0.18 ppm (state)
annual average
0.03 pain (state)
131\110
24 -hour average
10.4 µg/111' (construction)e & 2.5 ag /m' (operation)
annual average
1.0 m,
PM2.5
24 -hour average
10.4 pg /nta (construction)` & 2.5 pg /ma (operation)
Sulfate
24 -hour average
I gg /m3
CO
SCAQivID is in attainment project is significant if it causes or
contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards:
I -hour average
20 ppm (state)
8 -hour average
9.0 ppm (state/federal)
`Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD; 1993)
Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojavc Desert Air Basins).
` For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds.
° Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303; Table A•2 unless otherwise stated.
`Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403.
KEY: Ibslday = pounds per day
(Rev. March 2009)
ppm = parts per million palm` = microgram per cubic meter 2 greater than or equal to
CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day)
ROC NO, CO SOx PM10a PMZS' CO,
Demolition Emissions
On -site Total
134
70
4.68 -
1,27
0.68
700.30
Fugitive Dust
-
-
- -
0.68
0.14
-
Off -Road Diesel
1.14
7.68
4.68 -
0.59
0.54
700.30
Off -site Total -Iff
0.10
0.94
1.39 -
0.05
0.03
243.60
On -Road Diesel
0.07
0.88
0.34 -
0.04
0.03
119.21
Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.05 -
0.01
-
124.39
Grand Total
1.24
8.62
6.07
1..32
0.71
943.90
Site Grading Emissions
On -site Total
3.00
24.99
12.46 -
3.21
1.56
2,247.32
Fugitive Dust
-
-
- -
1.96
0.41
-
Off -Road Diesel
3.00
24.99
12.46 -
1.25
L 15
1247.32
Off -site Total �
0.03
0.06
1.05 -
0.01
-
124.39
On -Road Diesel
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Worker Trip
0.03
0.06
1.05 -
0.01
-
124.39
Grand Total
3.03
25.05
13.51
3.22
1.56
2,371.71
Building Erection /Finishing Emissions
On -site Total
6.28
26.85
13.03 -
1.46
1.34
2,608.03
Off -Road Diesel, Bldg Gist
1.21
9.16
4.81 -
0.58
0.53
893.39
Arch Coatings Off -Gas
3.01
-
- -
-
-
-
Asphalt Off -Gas
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Off -Road Diesel, Planting
2.06
17.69
8.22 -
0.88
0.81
1,714.64
Off -site Total
0.06
0.24
_
2.04 -
0.03
0.01
254.63
Worker Trips, Bldg Cost
0.02
0.04
0.75 -
0.01
-
89.56
Vendor Trips, Bldg Cost
0.01
0.13
0.10 -
0.01
0.01
2151
Worker Trips, Arch Coatings
-
0.01
0.14 -
-
-
17.17
On -Road Diesel, Asphalt
-
-
- -
-
-
-
Worker Trips, Planting
0.03
0.06
1.05 -
0.01
-
124.39
Grand Total
6.34
27.09
15.07
1.49
1.35
2,8620
On -site Emissions Totals
Demolition
1.1
7.7
4.7 -
1.3
0.7
700.3
Site Grading
3.0
25.0
12.5 -
3.2
1.6
2,247.3
Building Erection/Finishing
6.3
26.9
13.0 -
1.5
1.3
2,608.0
Maximum On -site Emissions
6
27
13 -
3
2
2,608
Localized Significance Threshold'
--
92
647 --
4
3
--
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No No
No
No
No
Regional Emissions Totals
Demolition
1.2
8.6
6.1 -
1.3
0.7
943.9
Site Grading
3.0
25.1
13.5 -
3.2
1.6
2,371.7
Building Erection/Finishing
6.3
27.1
15.1 -
1.5
1.4
2,862.7
Maximum Regional Emissions
6
27
15 -
3
2
2,863
Regional Significance Threshold
75
100
550 150
150
55
--
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No No
No
No
No
Notes:
URBEMIS print -out sheets and fugitive PM calculation worksheet are included in Appendix A.
' Fugitive PM,O and PMis emissions estimates take into account compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that
no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries.
n The project site is located in SCAQMD SRA No. 18. These LSTs are based on the site location SRA, distance to nearest sensitive receptor location from the project
site (25 meters), and project area that could be under construction on any given day (one acre).
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
PM10
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
3.21
Combined Summer
Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day)
File Name: G: \Los Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality \Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924
0.00
104.33
Project Name: Beauchamp
CO2
0.16
500.86
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
CO2
0.16
605.19
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3
Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx
CO S02
PM10 Dust
PM10 Exhaust
2010 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.34 27.10
15.08 0.00
1.96
1.46
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOx CO
S02
PM10
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.33
0.08 0.25
0.00
0.00
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOx CO
S02
PM10
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.38
0.51 4.72
0.01
0.84
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOx CO
S02
PM10
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.71
0.59 4.97
0.01
0.84
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
ROG NOx
CO S02
PM10 Dust
PM10 Exhaust
Time Slice 2 /112010- 2 /12/2010Aclive 1.24 8.62
6,07 0.00
0.69
0.63
Davis : 10
Demolition 02/01/2010 - 02/14/2010 1..24 8.62
6.07 0.00
0.69
0.63
PM10
PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
3.21
0.41 1.35 1.56 2,862.67
PM2.5
CO2
0.00
104.33
PM2.5
CO2
0.16
500.86
PM2.5
CO2
0.16
605.19
PM10
PM2.5 Dust
PM2.5 Exhaust
PM2.5
CO2
1.32
0.14
0.58
0.72
943.90
1.32
0.14
0.58
0.72
943.90
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
Fugitive Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.00
0.68
0.14
0.00
0.14
0.00
Demo Off Road Diesel
1.14
7.68
4.68
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
700.30
Demo On Road Diesel
0.07
0.88
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
119.21
Demo Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.05
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.39
Time Slice 2/15/2010- 2/26/2010 Active
3.04
25.05
13.51
0.00
1.96
1.25
3.21
0.41
1.15
1_56
2,371.71
nave 10
Mass Grading 02/15/2010-
3.04
25.05
13.51
0.00
1.96
1.25
3.21
0.41
1.15
1.56
2,371.71
n9/98/901n
Mass Grading Dust
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.96
0.00
1.96
0.41
0.00
0.41
0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
3.00
24.99
12.46
0.00
0.00
1.25
1.25
0.00
1.15
1.15
2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.05
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.39
Time Slice 3 /1/2010 - 8/31/2010 Active
1.24
9.34
5.67
0.00
0.01
0.58
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
1,006.46
navy 137
Building 03101/2010- 09130/2010
1.24
9.34
5.67
0.00
0.01
0.58
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
1,006.46
Building Off Road Diesel
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.01
0.13
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
23.51
Building Worker Trips
0.02
0.04
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.56
Time Slice 9 /1/2010 - 9/14/2010 Active
4.25
9.35
5.81
0.00
0.01
0.58
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
1,023.63
Days1n
Building 03101/2010- 09/30/2010
1.24
9.34
5.67
0.00
0.01
0.58
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
1,006.46
Building Off Road Diesel
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.01
0.13
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
23.51
Building Worker Tnps
0.02
0.04
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.56
Coating 09/01 /2010- 09/3012010
3.01
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.17
Architectural Coating
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Coating Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.17
Time Slice 9115/2010- 9/30/2010 Active
6.34
27_10
15_08
0.00
0.01
1.46
1.48
0.00
1.35
1.35
2,862.67
Davc'12
Building 03/01/2010- 09/30/2010
1.24
9.34
5.67
0.00
0.01
0.58
0.59
0.00
0.54
0.54
1,006.46
Building Off Road Diesel
1.21
9.16
4.81
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.58
0.00
0.53
0.53
893.39
Building Vendor Trips
0.01
0.13
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
23.51
Building Worker Tnps
0.02
0.04
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
89.56
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
Coating 09 /01/2010- 09/30/2010
3.01
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.17
Architectural Coating
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Coating Worker Trips
0.00
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.17
Trenching 09/15/2010- 09130/2010
2.09
17.75
9.26
0.00
0.01
0.88
0.89
0.00
0.81
0.81
1,839.03
Trenching Off Road Diesel
2.06
17.69
8.22
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.88
0.00
0.81
0.81
1,714.64
Trenching Worker Trips
0.03
0.06
1.05
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.39
Phase Assumptions
Phase: Demolition 2/1 12010 - 2/14/2010 - Default Demolition Description
Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 16200
Building Volume Dally (cubic feet): 1620
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 28.12
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day
2 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day
Phase: Mass Grading 2/1512010 - 2128/2010 - Default Mass Site Grading /Excavation Description
Total Acres Disturbed: 0.62
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.16
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default
12.22 Ibs per acre -day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Graders It 74 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors /Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Trenching 9/15/2010 - 9130/2010 - Default Trenching Description
Off -Road Equipment:
2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
Phase: Building Construction 31112010-9/30/2010 - Default Building Construction Description
Off -Road Equipment:
1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day
2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase: Architectural Coating 911/2010 - 9/3012010 - Default Architectural Coating Description
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 50
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 6/3012008 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/112008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100
Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250
Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report:
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source
ROG
NOx
CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
Natural Gas
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
103.97
Hearth - No Summer Emissions
Landscape
0.04
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,36
Consumer Products
0.26
Architectural Coatings
0.02
TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated)
0.33
0.08
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.33
Area Source Changes to Defaults
Operational Unmitigated Detail Report:
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated
Source ROG
NOX
CO
SO2
PM10
PM25 CO2
Single family housing 0.38
0.51
4.72
0.01
0.84
0.16 500.86
TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.38
0.51
4.72
0.01
0.84
0.16 500.86
Operational Settings:
Does not include correction for passby trips
Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips
Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer
Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Summary of Land Uses
Land Use Type
Acreage Trip Rate
Unit Type No. Units
Total Trips
Total VMT
Single family housing
1.67 9.57
dwelling units 5.00
47.85
483.42
47.85
483.42
Vehicle Fleet
Mu
Vehicle Type
Percent Type
Non - Catalyst
Catalyst
Diesel
Light Auto
51.6
0.8
99.0
0.2
Light Truck 13750 Ibs
7.3
2.7
94.6
2.7
Light Truck 3751- 57501bs
23.0
0.4
99.6
0.0
Med Truck 5751 -8500 lbs
10.6
0.9
99.1
0.0
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 lbs
1.6
0.0
81.2
18.8
Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 lbs
0.5
0.0
60.0
40.0
Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 lbs
0.9
0.0
22.2
77.8
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 lbs
0.5
0.0
0.0
100.0
Other Bus
0.1
0.0
0.0
100.0
Urban Bus
0.1
0.0
0.0
100.0
Motorcycle
2.8
64.3
35.7
0.0
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:32 PM
School Bus
0.1 0.0
0.0
100.0
Motor Home
0.9 0.0
88.9
11.1
Travel Conditions
Residential
Commercial
Home -Work
Home -Shop Home -Other
Commute
Non -Work
Customer
Urban Trip Length (miles)
12.7
7.0 9.5
13.3
7.4
8.9
Rural Trip Length (miles)
17.6
12.1 14.9
15.4
9.6
12.6
Trip speeds (mph)
30.0
30.0 30.0
30.0
30.0
30.0
% of Trips - Residential
32.9
18.0 49.1
% of Trips - Commercial (by land use)
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:27 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version
9.2.4
Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day)
File Name: G: \Los Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality\Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924
Project Name: Beauchamp
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version :
Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOx CO S02
PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust
PM10
PM2.5 Dust
2010 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.34
27.10 15.08 0.00
1.96
1.46
3.21
0.41
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated)
1.07 0.15 2.20
0.01
0.34
0.32
199.11
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated)
0.41 0.62 4.51
0.00
0.84
0.16
453.79
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated)
1.48 0.77 6.71
0.01
1.18
0.48
652.90
PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2
1.35 1.56 2,862.67
Page: 1
11/1112009 12:02:22 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version
9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name: WLos Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality\Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924
Project Name: Beauchamp
Project Location: South Coast AQMD
On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version :
Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG
NOx CO S02
PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust
PM10
PM2.5 Dust
2010 TOTALS (tons /year unmitigated) 0.16
0.99 0.59 0.00
0.01
0.06
0.07
0.00
AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated)
0.07 0.01 0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.70
OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated)
0.07 0.10 0.85
0.00
0.15
0.03
88.54
SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO
S02
PM10
PM2.5
CO2
TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated)
0.14 0.11 0.93
0.00
0.15
0.03
108.24
PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2
0.05 0.06 105.30
Beauchamp
Existing Condition
Mobile
Area
Stationary
Total Existing
Project Condition
Mobile
Area
Stationary
Total Project
Net Project Emissions
Net Mobile
Net Area
Net Stationary
Total Net
SCAQMD Significance Threshold
Difference
Significant?
Regional Emission Calculations (Ibs /day)
ROC
NOx
CO
sox
PM10
PM2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.6
4.7
0.0
0.8
0.2
1.1
0.2
2.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.9
6.9
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
4.7
0.0
0.8
0.2
1.1
0.2
2.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.9
691
0.0
1.2
0.5
55
55
550
150
150
55
(54)
(54)
(543)
(150)
(149)
(55)
Nol
No
No
Nol
No
No
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Regional
Beauchamp
Electricity Usage
Stationary Sources
Summary of Stationary Emissions
CO ROC NOx PM10 sox
Total Existing Emissions (Ibs /day)
Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day)
Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day)
Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993.
° Emission Factors from Table A9 -11 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD ,1993.
Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
° Emission Factors from Table A9 -12 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993.
° The emission factors for NOx in be per million w8 of natural gas are 120 for nonresidential uses and 80 for residential uses.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.00 0.09 D.00 0.01
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Stationary
Electricity
Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) °
Usage Rate °
Total Electricity Usage
CO
ROC
NOx
PM10
sox
Land Use
1.000 Soft
IkWhlsa.ftivrl
IKWhlvearl
IMWhIDavl
2_2
0.01
1.15
0.04
0.12
Existing
Emissions from Electricity Consumption (lbs/day)
Office
0.0
12.95
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Retail
0.0
13.55
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hotel /Motel
0.0
9.95
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Restaurant
0.0
47.45
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Food Store
0.0
53.30
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Warehouse
0.0
4.35
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
College /University
0.0
11.55
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
High School
0.0
10.50
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Elementary School
0.0
5.90
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hospital
0.0
21.70
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Miscellaneous
0.0
10.50
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Residential (DU)
0.0
5,627
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Total Existing
0
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Project
Office
0.0
12.95
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Retail
0.0
13.55
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hotel /Motel
0.0
9.95
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Restaurant
0.0
47.45
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Food Store
0.0
53.3
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Warehouse
0.0
4.35
D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
College /University
0.0
11.55
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
High School
0.0
10.5
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Elementary School
0.0
5.9
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hospital
0.0
21.7
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Miscellaneous
0.0
10.5
0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Residential (DU)
5.0
5,627
28,133
0.077
0.015
0.001
0.089
0.003
0.009
Total Project
28,133
0.077
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.01
Net Emissions From Electricity Usage
0.02
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.01
Summary of Stationary Emissions
CO ROC NOx PM10 sox
Total Existing Emissions (Ibs /day)
Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day)
Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day)
Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993.
° Emission Factors from Table A9 -11 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD ,1993.
Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
° Emission Factors from Table A9 -12 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993.
° The emission factors for NOx in be per million w8 of natural gas are 120 for nonresidential uses and 80 for residential uses.
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01
0.02 0.00 0.09 D.00 0.01
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Stationary
Beauchamp
Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations (lbs /day)
Existing Condition
Mobile
Area
Stationary
Total Existing
Project Condition
Mobile
Area
Stationary
Total Project
Net Project Emissions
Net Mobile
Net Area
Net Stationary
Total Net
SCAQMD Significance Threshold
Difference
Significant?
COz
CH,
N,O
COze
500.86
0.11
0.10
535.35
199.11
-
-
199.11
62.01
0.00
-
62.03
761.98
0.11
0.10
796.49
500.86
0.11
0.10
535.35
199.11
-
-
199.11
62.01
0.00
-
62.03
761.98
0.11
0.10
796.49
Nol
Nol
Nol
No
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Regional
Beauchamp
Electricity Usage
Stationary Sources
Summary of Stationary Emissions
CO, CHs N20 CO2e
Total Existing Emissions (lbs/day) - - - -
Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) 6201 . 0.00 - 62.03
Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) 62.01 0.00 - 62.03
' Electricity Usage Rates from Table AV 1 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
d Emission Factors from Table C.1 and Table 0.2, General Reoodinu Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
` Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH. and 310 for N20, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
d Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9 -12 -A, CEQAAir Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
` Emission Factors from Table C.5 and Table C.6, General Reporting Erato.% California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
r 1 Cubic Foot of natural gas= 1,026 Btu. Energy Information Administrator. Available http: /Mrsvi eia.doe.gov /basics /cony mion_basics.html
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations'Emissions.xls GHG Stationary
Electricity
Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) s
Usage Rate'
Total Electricity Usage
CO,
CHd N20 CO,c
Land Use
1.000 Soft
(kWhlsa.RWr)
fKWhWead
(MWhWav)
804.54
0.0067 0.0037 21/310`
Existing
Emissions
from Electricity (Ibs /day)
Office
0.0
12.95
-
-
-
- - -
Retail
0.0
13.55
-
-
-
- - -
Hotel/Motel
0.0
9.95
-
-
-
- - -
Restaurant
0.0
47.45
-
-
-
- - -
Food Stare
0.0
.53.30
-
-
-
- - -
Warehouse
0.0
4.35
-
-
-
- - -
College /University
0.0
11.55
-
-
-
- - -
High School
0.0
10.50
-
-
-
- - -
Elementary School
0.0
5.90
-
-
-
- - -
Hospital
0.0
21.70
-
-
-
- - -
Miscellaneous
0.0
10.50
-
-
-
- - -
Residential (DU)
0.0
5,627
-
-
-
- - -
Total Existing
-
-
-
- - -
Project
Office
0.0
12.95
-
-
-
- - -
Retail
0.0
13.55
-
-
-
- - -
Hotel/Motel
0.0
9.95
-
-
-
- - -
Restaurant
0.0
47.45
-
-
-
- - -
Food Store
0.0
53.3
-
-
-
- - -
Warehouse
0.0
4.35
-
-
-
- - -
College /University,
0.0
11.55
-
-
-
- - -
High School
0.0
10.5
-
-
-
- - -
Elementary School
0.0
5.9
-
-
-
- - -
Hospital
0.0
21.7
-
-
-
- - -
Miscellaneous
0.0
10.5
-
-
-
- - -
Residential (DU)
5.0
5,627
28,132.50
0.08
62.01
0.00 - 62.03
Total Project
28,132.50
0.08
62.01
0.00 - 62.03
Net Emissions From Electricity Usage
62.01
0.00 - 62.03
Summary of Stationary Emissions
CO, CHs N20 CO2e
Total Existing Emissions (lbs/day) - - - -
Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) 6201 . 0.00 - 62.03
Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) 62.01 0.00 - 62.03
' Electricity Usage Rates from Table AV 1 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
d Emission Factors from Table C.1 and Table 0.2, General Reoodinu Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
` Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH. and 310 for N20, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
d Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9 -12 -A, CEQAAir Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
` Emission Factors from Table C.5 and Table C.6, General Reporting Erato.% California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
r 1 Cubic Foot of natural gas= 1,026 Btu. Energy Information Administrator. Available http: /Mrsvi eia.doe.gov /basics /cony mion_basics.html
11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations'Emissions.xls GHG Stationary
Beauchamp
Mobile Sources
Vehicle Type
Existing
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
Light Truck 3751 -5750 lbs
Men Truck 5751- 85001bs
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,0001bs
Med-Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,00016s
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000165
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Vehicle T
Project
Light Auto
Light Truck < 3750 Ibs
Light Truck 3751- 575016s
Mod Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 Ibs
Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs
Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,0001bs
Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 Its
Other Bus
Urban Bus
Motorcycle
School Bus
Motor Home
Percent Type
VMT by Type
Emission Factors
0
0
CH4 N20
0.0
-
0.06 0.08
0.0
-
0.11 0.14
0.0
-
0.11 0.14
0.0
-
0.18 0.09
0.0
-
0.18 0.09
0.0
-
0.18 0.09
0.0
-
0.08 0.05
0.0
-
0.08 0.05
0.0
-
0.08 0.05
0.0
-
0.08 0.05
0.0
-
0.42 0.01
0.0
-
0.08 0.05
0.0
-
0.11 0.14
Total Existing
0.00
1.75 1.03
Percent Type
VMT by Type
Emission Factors'
100
483.42
CH4 N20
Mobile Sources
CH4 N20 coi
21/310"
Emissions from Mobile Sources (Ibsiday)
CH, N20 coi
21/310°
51.6 249.44
01
0.08
0.03
0.04
14.33
7.3 35.29
0.11
0.14
0.01
0.01
3.56
23.0 111.19
0.11
0.14
0.03
0.03
11.20
10.6 51.24
0.18
0.09
0.02
0.01
3.58
1.6 7.73
0.18
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.5 2.42
0.18
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.9 4.35
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.5 2.42
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.1 0.48
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.1 0.48
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
2.8 13.54
0.42
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.36
0.1 0.48
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.9 4.35
01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.44
Total Project
1.75
1.03
0.11
0.10
34.49
Net Emissions From Mobile Sources
0.11
0.10
34.49
° Emission factors from Table CA General Reportina Protocol California Climate Action Registry , March 2007.
Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH4 and 310 for N,O, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007.
11/11/2009 12:44 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Mobile
Appendix B
General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency
Analysis
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Policy I Consistency Analysis
GENERAL. PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment
Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different
neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach.
Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography,
architectural diversity, and view sheds.
Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and
infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas
that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport
Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship
and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that
distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of
growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level
of service.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Page 1 of 12
The proposed land use amendments would allow for the future subdivision of the
property with residential lots that would be consistent with the development pattern
of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conceptual development plan would
complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula as a residential
neighborhood. The architectural diversity of the conceptual development plan
would be consistent with the Zoning Code development standards and General Plan
design standards, with minor deviations to allow a smaller lot size and width per
Section 19.24.130 of the Zoning Code. The conceptual development plan would fit
in with the area's flat topography and would not obstruct any existing views from
surrounding residences or specific viewsheds designated by the General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would maintain and enhance the beneficial and
unique character of the existing neighborhood.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
The proposed project would amend the land use plans from parks and recreation to
single -unit dwellings for five legal lots, and would allow for the infill development
of a maximum of 5 single -unit dwellings on a site that is currently occupied by two
private tennis courts. The proposed land use amendments would be consistent with
surrounding land use designations and existing zoning, and would be consistent with
the density of the proposed land use designations and the surrounding residential
neighborhood. The proposed density and intensity of the project would be
consistent with the Coastal Land Use designation throughout the neighborhood, as
discussed below in Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram below. As discussed in
Section XIII, "Public Services," and Section XVI, "Utilities and Service Systems,"
of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the conceptual development plan
would have adequate infrastructure and public services and would not exceed
existing service levels for public services or utilities. Furthermore, as discussed in
Section XV, "Transportation/Traffic," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist,
the proposed project would decrease the volume of traffic and allow for a reduction
of trips associated with the amended land use of single - family detached dwelling
units. Therefore, the proposed project would result in complementary type, form,
and scale of the existing neighborhood, and would be adequately served by the
existing infrastructure and public services.
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Policy I Consistency Analysis
Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure
LUI depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2
through Figure LU15 depicts specific use categories for each parcel within defined
Statistical Areas. Table LUI (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary
land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the
densities /intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities /intensities or amount
of development for land use categories for which this is not included in Table LUI,
are specified on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15. These are
intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted
on any parcel within the designation or as otherwise specified by Table LU2
(Anomaly Locations). The density/intensity ranges are calculated based on actual
land area, actual number of dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and
development potential in areas where the General Plan allows additional
development. To determine the permissible development, the user should:
a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use
Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15
b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU 15 and Table LUI to identify the
permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development
for the land use classification. Where densities /intensities are applicable,
the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying
the area of the parcel by the density/intensity.
c. For anomalies identified on the Land. Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table
LU2 to determine the precise development limits.
d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies
prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may
Policy LU 4.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions
Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units
unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have
been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code
approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be resubdivided to the
original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two
Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Page 2 of 12
The existing General Plan land use category of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be
amended to Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and the existing Coastal Land
Use Plan category of Public Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single Unit
Residential Detached (RSD -B). These two land use amendments would be
consistent with the current Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing
parcels. The proposed General Plan land use amendment would develop a
maximum of 5, single - family, detached dwelling units. As defined in Table LU 1 of
the General Plan, Single Unit Detached Residential land use does not have a
density /intensity. The project is proposed to comply with the Maximum Floor Area
Limit as identified in Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows
for a density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet. The project site is
approximately 26,000 square feet as defined in Chapter 2 of this document. This
would allow for a maximum of five dwelling units on the project site. Therefore, the
proposed project would comply with the land use designation and the Maximum
Floor Area Limit. The project site is not located in an anomaly area. As defined by
Map 1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan, the RSD -B land use designation allows a
density of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre. The conceptual development plan
results in a maximum of five dwelling units located on approximately 0.6 acre of the
project site, which equates to approximately 8.3 dwelling units per acre. Therefore,
the proposed project would comply with the density requirements of the Coastal
Land Use Plan.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use
Plan Amendment and would require review and approval to re- subdivide five
existing underlying legal lots previously zoned for residential development through
a subdivision tract map prior to construction. The proposed conceptual
development plan would be consistent with the proposed land use amendments,
including density requirements, and would be compatible with surrounding land use
designations and existing residential neighborhoods. The lot orientation as proposed
in the conceptual development Dian would require lot size and lot width deviations
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 3 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
conceptual development plan would not result in a physical environmental impact.
Furthermore, the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
would allow for consistency between the land use and the existing zoning.
Policy LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single - Family Residential Dwellings
The proposed Project is consistent with this policy.
Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural
design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration
of the following principles:
The architectural diversity of the conceptual development plan would be consistent
■ Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the
with the Zoning Code as described in the Project Description. The proposed project
appearance of "box -like" buildings
would complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula as a neighborhood
■ Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street
through articulation of building mass.
facing elevations
■ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places
■ Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house
to the neighborhood
■ Orientation to desirable sunlight and views
Policy LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street
be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking
paving minimized.
The proposed project would comply with the zoning code requirements for setbacks
of residential districts. Each residential unit would have minimum side setbacks of
3 or 4 feet, minimum rear setbacks of 10 feet, and minimum front setbacks of 20
feet. There is also a 5 -foot setback along East Balboa Blvd. as specified on the
districting map. The proposed project includes a two -car garage for each unit and
would not require substantial paving for driveways and parking. All trash
containers would be enclosed in the garages.
Policy LU 5.1.8 Parking Adequacy
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that new and renovated single - family residences incorporate adequate
enclosed parking in consideration of its number of bedrooms.
Future residential development would comply with the Zoning Code requirements
described in Section 20.66.030, and provide a minimum of two- parking spaces
including one covered space for each unit. Therefore, parking would be in
accordance with Zoning Code requirements.
Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles,
colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their
location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the
Detailed designs are not currently available for the conceptual development plan,
use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive
but the applicant does not proposed the use of styles, colors, or materials that
illumination of adjoining properties and open s aces, or adversely modify wind
unusually impact the design character and quality of their location; or the use of
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 4 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
patterns.
surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive
illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind
patterns. The proposed single -unit dwellings would be compatible with the existing
neighborhood scale, density, and varying architectural styles.
Policy LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the
property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and
relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that
The proposed project would fit in with the area topography and would not disrupt
distinguishes Newport Beach.
the existing drainage patterns, as described in Sections VI, "Geology and Soils," and
VIII, "Hydrology and Water Quality," in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist.
The project site is fully developed with the existing tennis club, has completely flat
topography, and is generally void of vegetation. The project site is not located
directly on Newport Bay and therefore would not affect the Balboa Peninsula's
relationship to the Bay and coastline. Therefore, the proposed project would not
conflict with Newport Beach's natural setting.
GENERAL PLAN HARBOR AND BAY ELEMENT
Policy HB 8.2 Water Pollution Prevention
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the
introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy NR 3.2)
The proposed project would be in compliance with all objectives, water quality
standards, and Best Management Practices established in the Santa Ana River Basin
Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan as discussed in Section
VIII, "Hydrology and Water Quality," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist.
Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach
Zoning Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit through the
preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) incorporating Best
Management Practices for operation and the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program for construction as described in MM WQ -1 and MM WQ -2.
The project would not directly discharge surface water to the bay, and would control
runoff from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would protect water quality of
Newport Bay. Best management practices would be incorporated into the proposed
project as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction to
prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the
storm drains. Furthermore, the proposed project would prepare a Water Quality
Management Plan incorporating Best Management Practices for operation.
Therefore, the proposed project would promote pollution prevention and minimize
the introduction of pollutants into natural waters.
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 5 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
Policy HB 8.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal
separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. (Policy NR 3.4)
See response to Policy HB8.2. The proposed project would comply with
requirements of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System through
the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan.
Policy HB 8.5 Natural Water Bodies
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies.
(Policy NR 3.5)
See response to Policy HB8.2. The project would not result in direct or indirect
alterations to, or other impacts on, natural water bodies.
Policy HB 8.7 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy NR 3.7)
See response to Policy 11138.2. The City would enforce the Newport Beach Water
Quality Ordinance, and the proposed project would comply with the ordinance
requirements.
Policy HB 8.9 Water Quality Management Plan
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management
Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and
post - construction. (Policy NR 3.9)
See response to Policy 11138.2. Implementation of the conceptual development plan
would require a WQMP to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
construction and operation as identified by Mitigation Measure MM WQ -2.
Policy HB 8.10 Best Management Practices
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences,
businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy NR 3.10)
See response to Policy HB8.2. The project would identify and implement BMPs
during construction as identified in Mitigation Measure MM WQ -1.
Policy HB 8.16 Siting of New Development
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and
designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site
resources that provide important water quality benefits. (Policy NR 3.16)
Natural and sensitive site resources do not currently exist on the project site. The
project site is primarily impervious surfaces, and the proposed project would result
in a similar amount of impervious surfaces; therefore, the proposed project would
not result in a substantial change in the volume of stormwater runoff generated. All
stormwater runoff would be routed into the existing stormwater collection system.
Therefore, the entire site would be developed under the conceptual development
plan and the proposed project would be located on the most suitable portion of the
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Policy I Consistency Analysis
Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of
and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious
areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area
of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy NR 3.20)
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Page 6 of 12
See response to Policy HB8.2and Policy HI3 8.16. The proposed project would
allow for the construction of 5 single -unit dwellings. The surrounding
neighborhood is urban and built out. The existing site is comprised of two hard -
court tennis courts, an 800 - square -foot club house, a 2,850 -square-foot vacant area
known as the "garden," side planting, and landscaping. Therefore, the existing site
is primarily impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not result in a
substantial change in the volume of stormwater runoff generated and would .
continue to be impervious surfaces. The proposed project would include maintained
landscaped areas, which would provide for small amounts of pervious area.
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
Policy R 5.1 Non -City Facilities and Open Space
Utilize non -city recreational facilities and open space (e.g., Newport-Mesa Unified
school District, county, and state facilities) to supplement the park and recreational
needs of the community. Maintain the use of existing shared facilities, and expand
the use of non -city facilities /amenities where desirable and feasible.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
The proposed project would include land use amendments, which could
accommodate the conceptual development plan for replacing the existing private
tennis club with 5 single - family detached dwelling units. The existing private tennis
club is not a county, state, or local jurisdictional (e.g.: school district) recreational
facility. It is not considered a shared facility with joint use managed by a
jurisdictional authority such as the county, state, or school district. It is owned and
operated by a private resident of Newport Beach and it requires membership
application and payment of membership dues. Therefore, the change in land use
and the potential development of this property would not result in a restriction of a
shared use.
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Policy CE 2.2.1 Safe Roadways
Provide for safe roadway conditions by adhering to nationally recognized
improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices.
Policy CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations
Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired
quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
The proposed project does not include improvement to or alteration of any existing
roadways, thus compromising the safety of the local roadway system. Therefore,
the proposed project would not compromise existing roadway conditions.
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 7 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels.
Roadway, would be via one ingress /egress point along L Street, a private drive.
Each of the five lots would take access from either L Street or Bay Avenue, via a
private drive via L Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new
ingress /egress points onto public local streets thereby compromising the quality of
traffic flow.
Policy CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe
access for emergency vehicles.
The proposed project would not alter any existing roadways. The proposed project
would allow for efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. Emergency
access would be maintained around the residential structures, and would be
provided via the private drives on L Street and Bay Avenue.
GENERAL PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT
See Harbor and Bay Element Consistency Analysis above for the natural resource policies relevant to the Harbor and Bay as identified in parentheses (e.g., NR8.1).
Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that
waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water — efficient landscaping and
irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects.
The proposed project would include design features for water conservation.
Efficient landscaping features would be incorporated
Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require grading /erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or
minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes,
graded, or disturbed areas.
The site does not contain substantial amounts of topsoil. The proposed project site
is currently developed and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. Small amounts
of exposed onsite soils would be prone to soil erosion during the construction phase
of the proposed project. The project would implement standard erosion control
measures and construction BMPs, including the required grading/erosion control
plan, that would minimize potential impacts as described in Section VIII,
"Hydrology and Water Quality," and Section VI, "Geology and Soils," of the Initial
Study Environmental Checklist. The proposed project is not located on steep slopes
and grading and soil disturbance would be minimal.
Policy NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 8 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize
air pollutants.
As discussed in Section III, "Air Quality," in the Initial Study Environmental
Checklist, a mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled
based on an estimate of construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing
assumptions. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account:
• combustion emissions from operating onsite construction equipment,
• fugitive dust emissions from moving soil onsite, and
• mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel.
As discussed in response III(b) of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the
proposed project would not create substantial air pollutant emissions. The proposed
project would comply with all City regulations.
Policy NR 22.1 Regulation of Structure Mass
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the
unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach.
See response to Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment, Policy LU 5.6.3 Ambient
Lighting, Policy LU 5.6.4 Conformance with Natural Environmental Setting. The
proposed project supports this policy because it would comply with the maximum
floor area limit, height limit, and open space as required by Chapter 20.10 and 20.65
of the Zoning Code, the General Plan design criteria, as well as the density of the
proposed land use amendments. Furthermore, the proposed project would
complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula. It would not conflict
with the visual scale of Newport Beach's natural setting because of the height
restrictions and because the project would be compatible with the scale of
surrounding single - family residential land uses with different architectural designs
and aesthetic treatments.
Policy NR 24.2 Energy - Efficient Design Features
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Promote energy- efficient design features.
The conceptual development plan is purely conceptual at this point and it would be
speculative to identify specific energy- efficient design features it would incorporate.
However, per the California Building Code, . Title 24, 2001 Energy Efficiency
Standards, the proposed project would include energy - efficient design features
where feasible.
GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT
Policy N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 9 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards
shown in Table N3.
The proposed project would be compatible with the noise environment and would
comply with Tables N2 and N3. The proposed project includes the construction of a
maximum of 5 single unit dwellings in an urban and built out neighborhood. The
proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would
comply with all interior and exterior noise standards as required during building
plan review and approval by the City prior to construction.
Policy N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the
City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to
excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation,
Sensitive noise receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from
and air conditioning equipment.
stationary noise sources. All heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment
would be appropriately screened for each dwelling unit in the conceptual site plan.
Policy N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or
construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results
from in -home hobby or work related activities.
The proposed project would comply with the Noise Ordinance limits on
construction activities. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with
the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement
Mitigation Measures MM N -1 through MM N -11 to minimize temporary
construction noise impacts. And as identified in the Project Description,
construction hours would be limited to daytime hours specifically identified by the
Municipal Code.
Policy N 5,1 Limiting Hours of Activity
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity.
As identified in the Project Description and Section XI, "Noise," of the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, Title 10, Chapter 10.28, Section 10.28.040, of the
Municipal Code specifies permitted hours for construction activities. Construction
or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity
who works or resides in the vicinity shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. No construction that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity shall
occur on Sundays or federal holidays.
GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 10 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
Policy S 2.7 Residential Design
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
Require new or remodeled residential structures in areas susceptible to storm surge
to raise floor elevations as required by building codes.
Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events such as
tsunamis and, more commonly, isolated hazards such as storm surges. The most
common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low -lying areas,
including structures. This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds.
If a storm surge occurs during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. As
discussed in Section VUL "Hydrology and Water Quality," of the Initial Study
Environmental Checklist, the City of Newport Beach has a complex stormwater and
flood control system. Furthermore, OCFCD is responsible for flood control
infrastructure within the City and in the upper reaches of the San Diego Creek
Watershed. The proposed project would comply with the flood damage prevention
provisions of the City's Zoning Code. Furthermore, the applicant and future
residents would be made aware of the City's tsunami contingency plan and
evacuation mutes.
Prior to construction and occupancy, the conceptual development plan would be
reviewed and approved by the City. The building plan review and approval would
ensure the proposed project would comply with all building codes, including
appropriate floor elevations.
RELEVANT COASTAL LAND USE POLICIES
2.2.1 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density
and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.
See responses to Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change and Policy LU 4.1 Land Use
Diagram. The proposed project would allow for consistency between the General
Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations and the Zoning Code. Furthermore,
the conceptual development plan would comply with the density requirement of 6.0
to 9.9 dwelling units per acre as required by the Residential Single Unit Detached
(RSD -B) land use designation of the Coastal Land Use Plan. This density and the
proposed land use designations are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
2.2.2 -3 Prior to approval of any coastal development permit, the City shall make
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
the finding that the development conforms to the policies and requirements
contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan.
The City of Newport Beach would make the finding that the proposed project
conforms to the policies and requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan
through the Approval in Concept process described in Chapter 2 (California Coastal
Act and Local Coastal Land Use Plan) .
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 11 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
2.3.1 -4 Protect oceanfront land designated for visitor- serving and/or recreational
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
uses for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future
demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be
accommodated on the property is already adequately provided in the area.
The proposed project site is not along the oceanfront, and is not designated for
visitor - serving or public recreational uses. Although the proposed project includes
demolition of an existing private tennis club to construct five single - family detached
dwelling units, it would allow for consistency between the General Plan and Coastal
Land Use Plan land use designations and the Zoning Code. As discussed in Section
XIII, "Public Services." of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, current and
future demand for recreational tennis activities could be accommodated by existing
local public and private tennis courts.
The project site is located in Service Area 2 (Balboa Peninsula), which currently
supports a total of 50.5 acres of combined park/beach area, and exceeds the 25.5
acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's current requirements in the
Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of parks is
generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. The
increase in housing as a result of the proposed project would negligibly increase the
local population by I 1 people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in
Newport Beach. The three neighborhood parks (L Street Park, M Street Park, and
West Jetty View Park) and active beach recreation area in the general vicinity of the
proposed project could absorb the slight demand placed on them by I 1 new
residents.
The proposed project would result in the demolition of a private recreational facility.
The Peninsula Point Racquet Club is a private tennis club, not providing open public
use. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club has 83 active members; therefore, the
removal of the private tennis club would increase the use of tennis facilities at other
parks and recreation facilities throughout the City. Some of the members likely
would use existing local public tennis courts, and others may become members of
other local private tennis clubs. Public tennis courts in the City of Newport Beach
are listed in Table 3 -8 in Section XIII, "Public Services" and private Newport Beach
tennis clubs are listed in Table 3 -9 in Section XIII, "Public Services. ".
The local pubic tennis courts would be able to absorb the small additional demand
resulting from the removal of the Peninsula Point Racquet Club. Membership fees
associated with private tennis clubs would offset any additional demand on private
facilities by contributing to funds to provide necessary upgrades and maintenance.
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis
Page 12 of 12
Policy
Consistency Analysis
deterioration of the facilities would occur.
2.3.3 -4 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational development that provide
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
public recreational opportunities.
See response to 2.3.1 -4. The existing land use is not a visitor - serving or recreational
development that provides public recreational opportunities. It is a private tennis
club that requires membership applications and dues. Therefore, although the
proposed project could result in the conversion of an existing private recreational
opportunity to residential uses, it would not restrict or reduce visitor - serving and
public recreational opportunities in Newport Beach.
3.2.1 -1 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities
The proposed project is inconsistent with this policy.
in the coastal zone.
The proposed project would not expand or protect recreational opportunities in the
coastal zone. The proposed project would amend the General Plan and Coastal
Land Use Plan to be consistent with the existing zoning. These amendments could
result in the development of the conceptual development plan, which includes a
maximum of five single - family detached dwelling units. As discussed in response
to 2.3.1 -4 and 2.3.3 -4, the existing recreational opportunity is a private tennis club
within the coastal zone that is not visitor oriented or publicly accessible. Therefore,
although the public cannot use or access this recreational opportunity within the
coastal zone, the proposed land use amendments and conceptual development plan
would remove recreational opportunities from the coastal zone. However, the
inconsistency with this policy does not result in a significant environmental impact.
As discussed in all other resource sections of the Initial Study Environmental
Checklist (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, Agriculture, etc.) the environmental impacts
of the proposed project would be less than significant.
3.2.1 -3 Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the
The proposed project is consistent with this policy.
needs of new residents when allowing new development.
As discussed in Section XIII, "Public Services." of the Initial Study Environmental
Checklist, current and future demand for recreational tennis activities could be
accommodated by existing local public and private tennis courts.
Appendix C
Noise Analysis
Noise Terminology
Noise Terminology
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. It may be loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or
undesired sound typically associated with human activity that interferes with or disrupts the
normal noise - sensitive ongoing activities of others. Although exposure to high noise levels has
been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is
annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the
type of noise, the perceived importance and suitability of the noise in a particular setting, the
time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the
individual. The response to vibration is similar: First, the vibration needs to be of sufficient
magnitude to be perceived, and, second, it typically would have to interfere with a desirable
activity to cause annoyance.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium
such as air that are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by frequency and
intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz); intensity
describes the sound's level, volume, or loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound
frequency is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure wave
passes a fixed point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the drum vibrates
at a certain number of times per second. Vibration of the drum skin at a rate of 100 times (or
cycles) per second generates a sound pressure wave that is said to be oscillating at 100 Hz, and
this pressure oscillation is perceived as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between 20
Hz and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the best human ear.
Sound from a tuning fork contains a single frequency and may therefore be referred to as a pure
tone. However, most sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but
rather a broad band of frequencies differing in individual sound levels. The method commonly
used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all the frequencies of a sound
according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low
frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid -range frequencies. This frequency-
dependent modification is called A- weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A-
weighted sound level (dBA. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured
using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve.
For informational purposes, typical community sound levels are presented in Figure 1. A sound
level of 0 dBA is the approximate threshold of human hearing. Normal speech has a sound level
of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human
ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels.
When evaluating noise increases in the environment, the following relationships to quantifiable
increases are used as a basis for assessing impacts.
• A change of 1 dBA is difficult to perceive in the outside environment.
• In the outside environment, a 3 dBA change is considered noticeable
General
Noise Level Home Speech Motor Vehicles Type of
dBA Extremes Appliances at 3 Ft at 50 Ft Community
Environment
Jet aircraft
at 500 It
Chain saw
Threshold
of hearing
Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 2003. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Warm Springs Extension Project Draft report. February. (HMMH Report No.
298760 -01.) Burlington, MA. Prepared for Jones & Stokes.
Figure I
Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources
and Noise Environments (dBA)
Diesel truck
Power lawn mower
(not muffled)
Diesel truck
Shop tools
Shout
(muffled)
Automobile
Blender
Loud voice
at 70 mph
Major metropolis
Automobile
Urban
Dishwasher
Normal voice
at 40 mph
(daytime)
Normal voice
Automobile
Suburban
Air conditioner
(back to listener)
at 20 mph
(daytime)
Rural
Threshold
of hearing
Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 2003. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Warm Springs Extension Project Draft report. February. (HMMH Report No.
298760 -01.) Burlington, MA. Prepared for Jones & Stokes.
Figure I
Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources
and Noise Environments (dBA)
■ An increase of 5 dBA is readily perceived as "louder" and is generally required
before a change in community response would be expected.
■ A 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of noise.
Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted
arithmetically and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, a simple rule
of thumb is useful in dealing with sound levels: If a sound's physical intensity is doubled, the
sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dB plus 60
dB equals 63 dB, and 80 dB plus 80 dB equals 83 dB. As mentioned earlier, however, a
perception of doubling of sound level requires about a 10- decibel increase.
Although the A- weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise
at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise
includes a mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise
in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor called the Leg (equivalent sound
level is used to describe the average acoustical energy in a time - varying sound. Lq is the
energy -mean A- weighted sound level present or predicted to occur during a specified interval. It
is the "equivalent" constant sound level that a given source would need to produce to equal the
fluctuating level of measured sound. It is often desirable to also know the range of acoustic
levels of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the Lam,. and L,o;,, noise
descriptors. They represent the root - mean - square maximum and minimum obtainable noise
levels measured during the monitoring interval. The Lm;,, value obtained for a particular
monitoring location represents the quietest moment occurring during the measurement period
and is often called the acoustic floor for that location. Likewise, the loudest momentary sound
during the measurement is represented by L.�.
To describe the time - varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors
Lio, L50, and L90 (or other percentile values) may be used. They are the noise levels equaled or
exceeded 10, 50, and 90 percent, respectively, of the time during the measured interval. The
percentile descriptors are most commonly found in nuisance noise ordinances to allow for
different noise levels for various portions of an hour. For example, the L5o value would represent
30 minutes of an hour period, the L25 would be associated with 15 minutes of an hour, and so on.
Of particular interest in this analysis are other descriptors of noise that are commonly used to
help determine noise /land use compatibility and to predict an average community reaction to
adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic- generated and industrial noise. One of
the most universal descriptors is the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). As
recommended by the state health department and state planning law, planning agencies use this
descriptor. The Ldn noise metric represents a 24 -hour period and applies a time - weighted factor
designed to penalize noise events that occur during nighttime hours, when relaxation and sleep
disturbance is of more concern than during daytime hours. Noise occurring during the daytime
hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Noise occurring between 10:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is penalized by adding 10 dB to the measured level. In California, the use of
the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is still permitted (and is used by the
City of Moreno Valley). CNEL is similar to Ldn except CNEL adds a 5 dB penalty for noise
occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Ldn and CNEL are
approximately equal to the Leq peak hour under normal traffic conditions (California Department
of Transportation [Caltrans]
Field Sheets
Jones &
I C F Stokes Noise Measurement Locations
Beauchamp GPA and LCP Amendment IS /MND
FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
PROJECT: Beauchamp GP and LCP Amendments PROJ. # 646.09
OBSERVER(S): Perer Hardie
END DATE / TIME:
Jones & Stokes
IETEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS:
TEMP: -q-L{ °F HUMIDITY: ;7t %R.H. WIND' CALM LIGHT MODERATE VARIABLE
WINDSPEED:o�LMF4�� DIR: N NE E SE S SW W NW STEADY GUSTY
SKY: ,BURRY Q[,gAR/ OVRCST PRTLY CLOUDY FOG RAIN OTHER.
ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS:
INSTRUMENT: t _ r7 L2-
TYPE.-d7)2
SERIAL Z
CALIBRATOR: I -A-L-2,20
CALIBRATION CHECK: PRE -TEST
r dBASPL POST-TEST j dBASPL
SERIAL #: d 6 <1
WINDSCREEN
SETTINGS: A•WEIG SLO
FAST,�FVNTAL ND �$NSi�•
^
OTHER:
REC# START END L,y
Ll"; L� L, Lio
_I
OTHER: (TYPE?)
COMMENTS.
WURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC CO S:
PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: Z AF I AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL MB N OTH£ • t?ta_ (1> 'Ly h {
ROADWAY TYPE: cl S t7. 1 :k. } .au
TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: MIN SPEED #2 COUNT SPEED
NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SS /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SBIWB
AUTOS:
MED. TRUCKS:
HVY TRUCKS:
BUSES:
MOTORCYCLES.
SPEED ESTIMATED BY' RADAR I DRIVING I OBSERVER
OTHER SOURCES DIST. AIRC I RUSTLING LEAVES / DIST. BARKING DOGS / BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL
DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING / DIST. TRAFFIC / 1I.STT LAN SCAPING ACTIVITIES / QTHER:
< -.' . "\ -i Ha -b>ill l -. I _ . 'f• I A r i{ IG -\ /! n'�- i
MI %ED FLAT OTHER:
Pe5'i— C6 0 3 Tiz -c7k'u-j
PROJECT. Beauchamp
FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
GP and LCP Amendments PROJ. # 846.09
)oDes&stolces
ITEIDENTITATION: :/L
OBSERVER(S): Peter Hardie
Q qt z—
JDRESS: `{'S� '(3 .L
TYPE: 19 2
SERIAL #. y-/ 3 z
CALIBRATOR:
FARTDATE /TIME: _[o
401
END DATE /TIME.
SERIAL #:
ETEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS:
d9A SPL
POST -TEST dBAASSPL
WINDSCREEN
TEMP:',- I °F HUMIDITY:
55- %R.H.
WIND: CALM-- GII MODERATE VARIABLE
WINDSPEEO:a?MPH
DIR: N NE E SE
S SW W NW
STEADY GUSTY
SKY: OVRCST PRTLY CLOUDY FOG
RAIN OTHER:
OTHER: (TYPE ?)
a
ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS:
INSTRUMENT: t,
Q qt z—
TYPE: 19 2
SERIAL #. y-/ 3 z
CALIBRATOR:
L- i.o7
SERIAL #:
CALIBRATION CH -TEST
d9A SPL
POST -TEST dBAASSPL
WINDSCREEN
SETTINGS: A -W D
fl
SLOW" FAST
FRONTAL
RANDO iAR51 a'
' "I-to
OTHER:
START END
Leq L,,,,,,
_ Lmin
L" Lso�_•--
OTHER: (TYPE ?)
�R`E�C�#
PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE:
ROADWAY TYPE.
TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION:
NBIEB
AUTOS:
MED. TRUCKS'
HVYTRUCKS:
BUSES:
MOTORCYCLES:
AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL MBIE THE Yea (c L t/ JN
-MIN SPEED
SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB
#2 COUNT SPEED
NBIEB SB /WB NB /8B SB /WB
SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR I DRIVING I OBSERVER
OTHER SOURCES: D4i�igW I RUSTLING LEAVES / DIST BARK[NGDOGS— I,BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL
DIST. CHILD G / DIST. TRAFFIC SST• CAANDSCAPIN / OTHER:
PROJECT:
ENTIFICATIC
SS: I-Jzz�
DATE / TIME
TEMP: 114_ °F
IAlimm Iappm, i. Rn
INSTRUMENT:
CALIBRATOR
CALIBRATION
FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
Jones &Stokes
GP and LCP Amendments PPOJ. # 846.09
OBSERVER(S): Peter Hardie
/=-Q 4
END DATE /TIME:
HUMIDITY: %R.H, WIND: CAL}," -SIG T_ MODERATE VARIABLE
DIR: N NE E SE S SW W W-' STEADY GUSTY
I?--
C.
SETTINGS: - WEIGHTED LSO �FAT FRONTAL
RErC�# START END Lam, Lm;ry Lyq
-DIST //q-,O dd'BBAASPL WINDSCREEN,
KNhU�M �ANSL/ OTHER:
/{Lso Lio OTHER: (TYPE ?)
/nom
SOURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC_CAU�JS:
PRIMARY NOISE SOURCX: TRAFf AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL AMBIE OTHER:
ROADWAY TYIrE:
TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED 42 COUNT SPEED
NBIEB SBIWB NB /EB SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB
AUTOS:
MEO. TRUCKS:
HVY TRUCKS:
BUSES:
MOTORCYCLES: _
SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR DRIVING /OBSERVER
OTHER SOURCES: -DIST. AIRCRAFT I RUSTLING LEAVES / D - DOGS / BIRDS I DIST, INDUSTRIAL
DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING I DIST. TRAFFIC / D LAND G ACTIVITIES / OTHER:
SERIAL #: �y Tj 2
-TYPE-&2 S
SERIAL #: r--
l( S
SOURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC_CAU�JS:
PRIMARY NOISE SOURCX: TRAFf AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL AMBIE OTHER:
ROADWAY TYIrE:
TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED 42 COUNT SPEED
NBIEB SBIWB NB /EB SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB
AUTOS:
MEO. TRUCKS:
HVY TRUCKS:
BUSES:
MOTORCYCLES: _
SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR DRIVING /OBSERVER
OTHER SOURCES: -DIST. AIRCRAFT I RUSTLING LEAVES / D - DOGS / BIRDS I DIST, INDUSTRIAL
DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING I DIST. TRAFFIC / D LAND G ACTIVITIES / OTHER:
Appendix D
General Plan Noise Element Land Use Noise
Compatibility Matrix
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Regional, District
Single Family, Two Family, Mot
Mixed Use
Mobile Home
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging
Noise Element
V� N O I(1 O t[1 roA
A A B C C D D
A A A C C C D
....................................... ............................... ----------------------------------------------
Commercial
Regional, Village Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C
District, Special
........ ........ .... ... ........ ......... ........ .... -- .....
Commercial Industrial Office Bulltling, Research and Development, A A A B B C D
Institutional Professional Offices City Office Building
........................................................... ......... .........
Commercial
Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C i C D D D
Institutional
Civic Center
Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, A A A i B B D D
Recreation Go -cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club
Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership,
General Special Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale Utilities A A A A B B B
Industrial, Institutional
Institutional nos ital Church Librar , Schools Classroom A A B C C D D
Open Space ;Parks A A A I B C D D
...
Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife A A A B C ! C
Reserves Wildlife Habitat
.............. . ...............
Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A
SOURCE: Newport Beach, 2006
Zone A: Clearly Compatible — Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Zone B: Normally Compatible ' —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and
fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice,
Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed,
a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
Newport Beach General Plan
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report
Appendix E
Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report
Introduction
The California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that a lead or
responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) when approving
or carrying out a project when a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
identifies measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to less -
than- significant levels. As lead agency for the proposed project, the City is
responsible for adoption and implementation of the MMP.
An IS/MND has been prepared for the project that addresses the potential
environmental impacts, and, where appropriate, recommends measures to
mitigate these impacts. As such, an MMP is required to ensure that adopted
mitigation measures are successfully implemented. This document plan lists
each mitigation measure, describes the methods for implementation and
verification, and identifies the responsible party or parties.
Project Overview
The project proponent proposes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land
Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the project site. The
existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would
be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and the existing Coastal
Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be
amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). These proposed land use
changes would allow the development of a conceptual development plan which
includes the conversion of an existing private tennis club to five, detached,
single -unit dwellings on the project site. The project involves the demolition of
an 800 - square -foot clubhouse and two, hard - surface tennis courts and the
construction of five, detached, single -unit dwellings.
The proposed physical improvements related to the project include:
■ Development of five, detached, single -unit dwellings
■ Landscaping improvements
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -1
Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9
City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Additional details regarding the project description are contained in Chapter 2,
"Project Description."
Monitoring and Reporting Procedures
The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the
project, including design, construction, and operation. The City will be
responsible for administering the MMP and ensuring that all parties comply with
its provisions. The City may delegate monitoring activities to staff, consultants,
or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through
periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated
environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation
measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to
rectify problems.
Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation
Table 4 -1 lists, by resource area, each mitigation measure included in the draft
IS /MND. Certain inspections and reports may require preparation by qualified
individuals and these are specified as needed. The timing and method of
verification for each measure is also specified.
Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E_2
Declaration iCF JaS 00e46.os
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
PROJECT NAME: Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments
PROJECT LOCATION: 0.6 acre located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, northern corner of East Balboa Boulevard/ L Street
intersection
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project proposes to demolish and remove the existing club house and two hard - surface tennis courts and prepare the site for the
construction of five detached single -unit dwellings. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change
the land use designations of the project site from recreational to single -unit residential land use.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, (949) 644 -3249
APPLICANT: David Beauchamp, Beauchamp Enterprises
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: David Beauchamp, (949) 851 8087
Table 4 -1. Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
& Monitoring
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HM -1
Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site,
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
an asbestos - containing materials and lead-
of demolition
Beach Building
based paint assessment shall be performed
permits
Department
by a qualified environmental professional
and conducted in accordance with all
federal, state, and local requirements,
including those established by National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). A report shall be
furnished to the Building Department by
said qualified environmental professional
and shall outline the occurrence of
hazardous materials on the project site.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E
Declaration ICF J&S 00846n9
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
• If asbestos - containing materials are
discovered during site
investigations, all potentially friable
asbestos- containing materials shall
be removed in accordance with
federal, state, and local laws and the
NESHAP guidelines prior to
building demolition or renovation
that may disturb the materials. All
demolition activities shall be
undertaken in accordance with
California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal /OSHA)
standards, contained in Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Section 1529, to protect
workers from exposure to asbestos.
Materials containing more than 1%
asbestos are also subject to
SCAQMD regulations. Demolition
performed in conformance with
these federal, state, and local laws
and regulations shall avoid
significant exposure of construction
workers and/or the public to
asbestos - containing materials.
• If lead -based paint is discovered
during on -site investigations, all
building materials containing lead -
based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal/OSHA lead in
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -4
Declaration ICF J&S O0846 49
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
construction standard, Title 8, CCR
1532.1, including employee
training, employee air monitoring,
and dust control. Any debris or soil
containing lead -based paint or
coatings shall be disposed of at
landfills that meet acceptance
criteria for the waste being disposed
of Demolition performed in
conformance with these federal,
state, and local laws and regulations
shall avoid significant exposure of
construction workers and /or the
public to lead -based paint.
Hydrology and Water Quality
WQ -1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
applicant shall prepare a Stormwater
of grading permits
Beach Public Works
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
Department
includes BMPs. The runoff from the project
site would be managed by the SWPPP using
the BMPs and as directed in the City's
stormwater protection requirements to
prevent discharges of polluted stormwater
from construction sites from entering the
storm drains.
WQ -2
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
applicant shall prepare a Water Quality
of grading permits
Beach Public Works
Management Plan (WQMP) for project
Department
operations and submit to the City Building
Department and Code Enforcement & Water
City of Newport
Quality Division for review and approval.
Beach Code
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -5
Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
The WQMP shall meet the City's water
Enforcement & Water
quality ordinance requirements and include
Quality Division
project measures related to site design,
source control, and treatment control BMPs.
Noise
N -1
All noise - producing project equipment and
During final
City of Newport
vehicles using internal combustion engines
design and prior to
Beach Code
shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet
plan check
Enforcement
silencers where appropriate, and any other
approval
shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing
City of Newport
features in good operating condition that
Beach Building
meet or exceed original factory
Department
specification. Mobile or fixed "package"
equipment (e.g., arc - welders, air
compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds
and noise control features that are readily
available for that type of equipment.
N -2
All mobile and fixed noise - producing
During grading,
City of Newport
equipment used on the project that is
site preparation,
Beach Code
regulated for noise output by a local, state,
and construction
Enforcement
or federal agency shall comply with such
regulation while in the course of project
City of Newport
activity.
Beach Building
Department
N -3
Electrically powered equipment shall be
During final
City of Newport
used instead of pneumatic or internal
design and prior to
Beach Code
combustion— powered equipment, where
plan check
Enforcement
feasible.
approval
City of Newport
During grading,
Beach Building
site preparation,
Department
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -6
Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
and construction
N -4
Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
During grading,
City of Newport
staging, parking, and maintenance areas
site preparation,
Beach Code
shall be located as far as practical from
and construction
Enforcement
noise - sensitive receptors.
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -5
No project- related public address or music
During grading,
City of Newport
system shall be audible at any adjacent
site preparation,
Beach Code
receptor.
and construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -6
The on -site construction supervisor shall
During final
City of Newport
have the responsibility and authority to
design and prior to
Beach Code
receive and resolve noise complaints. A
plan check
Enforcement
clear appeal process to the project proponent
approval
shall be established prior to construction
City of Newport
commencement that shall allow for
During grading,
Beach Building
resolution of noise problems that cannot be
site preparation,
Department
immediately solved by the site supervisor.
and construction
N -7
During construction activities, temporary
Prior to and during
City of Newport
noise barriers, such as noise - attenuating
grading, site
Beach Code
blankets, shall be erected at the construction
preparation, and
Enforcement
fence lines.
construction
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -7
Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49
Exhibit "B"
Mitigation Monitoring Report Program
Tmplt: 01/14/10
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
PROJECT NAME: Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments
PROJECT LOCATION: 0.6 acre located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, northern corner of East Balboa Boulevard/ L Street
intersection
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project proposes to demolish and remove the existing club house and two hard - surface tennis courts and prepare the site for the
construction of five detached single -unit dwellings. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change
the land use designations of the project site from recreational to single -unit residential land use.
LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, (949) 644 -3249
APPLICANT: David Beauchamp, Beauchamp Enterprises
CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: David Beauchamp, (949) 851 8087
Table 4 -1. Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
Hazards and Hazardous Materials'
HM -1
Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site,
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
an asbestos- containing materials and lead-
of demolition
Beach Building
based paint assessment shall be performed
permits
Department
by a qualified environmental professional
and conducted in accordance with all
federal, state, and local requirements,
including those established by National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA). A report shall be
furnished to the Building Department by
said qualified environmental professional
and shall outline the occurrence of
hazardous materials on the project site.
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -3
Declaration ICF J &$ 00946.09
W
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Agency
Verification of Compliance
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
• If asbestos - containing materials are
discovered during site
investigations, all potentially friable
asbestos - containing materials shall
be removed in accordance with
federal, state, and local laws and the
NESHAP guidelines prior to
building demolition or renovation
that may disturb the materials. All
demolition activities shall be
undertaken in accordance with
California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)
standards, contained in Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations
(CCR), Section 1529, to protect
workers from exposure to asbestos.
Materials containing more than 1%
asbestos are also subject to
SCAQMD regulations. Demolition
performed in conformance with
these federal, state, and local laws
and regulations shall avoid
significant exposure of construction
workers and/or the public to
asbestos - containing materials.
• If lead -based paint is discovered
during on -site investigations, all
building materials containing lead -
based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal /OSHA lead in
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E-4
Dedaration
ICF J85 06846.09
N
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Com Hance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
construction standard, Title 8, CCR
1532.1, including employee
training, employee air monitoring,
and dust control. Any debris or soil
containing lead -based paint or
coatings shall be disposed of at
landfills that meet acceptance
criteria for the waste being disposed
of Demolition performed in
conformance with these federal,
state, and local laws and regulations
shall avoid significant exposure of
construction workers and/or the
public to lead -based paint.
H drolo and Water Quality
WQ -1
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
applicant shall prepare a Stormwater
of grading permits
Beach Public Works
Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) which
Department
includes BMPs. The runoff from the project
site would be managed by the SWPPP using
the BMPs and as directed in the City's
stormwater protection requirements to
prevent discharges of polluted stormwater
from construction sites from entering the
storm drains.
WQ -2
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
Prior to issuance
City of Newport
applicant shall prepare a Water Quality
of grading permits
Beach Public Works
Management Plan (WQMP) for project
Department
operations and submit to the City Building
Department and Code Enforcement & Water
City of Newport
Qualitv Division for review and approval.
I
Beach Code
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -5
Declaration ICF J&S 00846.09
RUN
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
The WQMP shall meet the City's water
Enforcement & Water
quality ordinance requirements and include
Quality Division
project measures related to site design,
source control, and treatment control BMPs.
Noise
N -1
All noise - producing project equipment and
During final
City of Newport
vehicles using internal combustion engines
design and prior to
Beach Code
shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet
plan check
Enforcement
silencers where appropriate, and any other
approval
shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing
City of Newport
features in good operating condition that
Beach Building
meet or exceed original factory
Department
specification. Mobile or fixed "package"
equipment (e.g., arc- welders, air
compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds
and noise control features that are readily
available for that pe of equipment.
N -2
All mobile and fixed noise - producing
During grading,
City of Newport
equipment used on the project that is
site preparation,
Beach Code
regulated for noise output by a local, state,
and construction
Enforcement
or federal agency shall comply with such
regulation while in the course of project
City of Newport
activity.
Beach Building
Department
N -3
Electrically powered equipment shall be
During final
City of Newport
used instead of pneumatic or internal
design and prior to
Beach Code
combustion — powered equipment, where
plan check
Enforcement
feasible.
approval
City of Newport
During grading,
Beach Building
site preparation,
Department
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E-6
Declaration ICF AS 00846.09
City of Newport Beach
Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
No.
Mitigation Measure
Time Frame for
Responsible
Verification of Compliance
Implementation
Monitoring Agency
Initials
Date
Remarks
& Monitoring
and construction
N -4
Material stockpiles and mobile equipment
During grading,
City of Newport
staging, parking, and maintenance areas
site preparation,
Beach Code
shall be located as far as practical from
and construction
Enforcement
noise- sensitive receptors.
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -5
No project - related public address or music
During grading,
City of Newport
system shall be audible at any adjacent
site preparation,
Beach Code
receptor.
and construction
Enforcement
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
N -6
The on -site construction supervisor shall
During final
City of Newport
have the responsibility and authority to
design and prior to
Beach Code
receive and resolve noise complaints. A
plan check
Enforcement
clear appeal process to the project proponent
approval
shall be established prior to construction
City of Newport
commencement that shall allow for
During grading,
Beach Building
resolution of noise problems that cannot be
site preparation,
Department
immediately solved by the site supervisor.
and construction
N -7
During construction activities, temporary
Prior to and during
City of Newport
noise barriers, such as noise - attenuating
grading, site
Beach Code
blankets, shall be erected at the construction
preparation, and
Enforcement
fence lines.
construction
City of Newport
Beach Building
Department
Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009
Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -7
Declaration
ICF J85 OO846.09
0
Exhibit "C"
General Plan Land Use Map
Tmplt: 01/14/10
CITY of NEWPORT BEACIL
GENERALPLAN
Figure LU1
GENERALPLAN
OVERVIEW MAP
Residential Neiihboriloods
m SnglaLFd Re.idenAal Detached
ea s;nda -Iwe a..wenualnbaaee
In T Unit Reaidendal
_ Mill Unit Reeidental
- MultiplrUNt Reaixental Detached
-
open Open Spam
c...i.l Districts ..it Candidate.
a N.ignhemeaa cPmmard.l
Comdpr C. -Me-ld
_ Oenaol cunn—ndel
-Vi.lbr serving commecial
-Recrevti...I aM Media
Comm alai
- pelt C.—. -.
Cnmmemlal 011X. Districts
em GeneralG— rciel0ace
mr wdicd commercial oRw
coa Regional Commerdd Office
Indualeitl Materials
o lin ptid
Airport Supporting D'utricta
'p P1pM(DlAwandsuXoMgUeae
Mixed Lae Districts
auv Wind tke Vertical
arse Mixed U.. Mmizmbl
rune M¢M Uae Weter Related
pubic. Semi ?ubic and Institutional
it Nadi Fecft.
= Rrvale InatlWtlms
_PrtMand Racrappn
= Open space
dRYt Opm Span I Residential Village
IResidentid uses, it not attained
as var—c"d open Gwen)
re TiMa da and Summered Lanni
Bdun� nSeaoM1
Sdddcd Area S...daiv
=7'
Lll2_Lacator Map_GP200B l.mad Fsbmag2010
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPLAN
Figure LU2
INDEX MAP
Rasldantial N iphborhaads
a s:gle.lnn R.aMenaa oelamea
sa siglcl.Mil ResidnaMApscnea
iii :T mReaitlenml
- MW 'le Unit Renw-6a1
_ FTJEpkd)ri[ Revtlentlel Debalna
_ Muldpl nft Realdem.1I
Opens, —
Commercial Disticts and Connelare
u WghborlmoJ LOnimemiN
a Lunldm GOmmmcpl
-OennY Commm l
-M.. s.n,NL —nid
-ReweebonelarW Mame
Commerdal
_Replmul Co mew
Co ..Wl 011ke 01w,"
coa Generalc —nxil oft.
cca Meakd CammernalORm
w Rcomnal Cemmadd ORce
Industrial Mstdcls
c Indraaiel
Airport SupPmdni Districts
amm<oim aia s+lroodne uaea
Mixed Lse Olahicb
w' Maedlhe VUful
4M Mhetl Use NarlaonW
w Fled Use NYIn Related
Pubic, !u mi-Pubic and Institutional
N
Pubic Facia®
_ RNah Ins4Mmc
-Prtb and R.n..Wn
op. S'.-
eFIPAOpp spa -I Residential VA.,
(pR ManfiA.,,1.1 ecpuired
es permanenlops space)
m rdelanda and submwpal Land:
�0d Gleda w rtBeam
munaav
G1
RS-0 \
G l G l
Fo
J
/
L
ITV of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERALPLAN
Figure LU4
STATISTICAL AREA
D3, D4, E1 -E3
Reaa eMbl Ntlpnnarnooea
E1
RT
E3 MU -w2
n0< ,R.,e ND ned
E2
F1
rrM $mpk LY,v RevNen°N Nb[Me
—��
PF /
-
p iwlF,a RexMMUI
-MWVIe Vrvl Revem°Y
69 d. RM
f
A°NpIn1IM ResiEeNUI llelrlud
9tlu MU -W2
Cmrnumbl Dlalr.b antl G.ieara
10 eu
C
PF
a cu<.mr con.n..raN
D1 RTcv
�LNrcrN�ammnrclN
� pp�l- � I6
Peveramrol nrq Mnnne'Y
RM "F
Existing
Land Use:
p °ma�r�Y
• Recreation (PR)
C°ma.rc.l OlL. Dbwm
Proposed
r
RM RT
_ _ _
JemrN C°mmr,ru.l om�
3e arr
•
• •
[� rmmwl con.n.,uao
PF
mu Regr,N COm°abu
RM
heuawl Disnkb
36 tec
/['Port SUP" pDialrl[b
aupon OlFCe ne 9uppurfnY Vaev
RT
M...e Lae Dbbkb
/
•
rw MOm u:r w.r..omN
Yuw AMaea Vve'Nvl, H<IareJ
RS -D
cum.. S.ra .bc .rre muemrona
FI P,AItt. Fa[M�.+
_Prw npu44rburn.
-Gwq ane Rgcrv°°q,
q Olerr vparo
n ramrm ar,o sunm.raeLra
�r� c*rNNr.e.n R..dr
e000n y
�� B°bunlrNUI NV.
F1
� \_ trMlka OaksMw Line
• Reler W anomaly lack
'
'g Fir
0 500 1 OOV Feel
BdlLed_GP200i001 mXd kebrualYl UIU
Exhibit "D"
Local Coastal Program CLUP
Amendment
Tmplt: 01/14/10
ISLAND
07 rLE BALSCA
ISLAND
PF
SfeilON N kRSD-A
°` " °�C�wa; o
RT -D
K
RSD -C
e RSD -C
0 500 1,000
Feet
LC2009 -001 (PA2009 -067)
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
2000 - 2016 East Balboa Boulevard
hTw:
TS
RSD -0
LC2009- 001.mxd February12M
r ,
RSD -AN,,,.l
THE
WEDGE
PI -C
L-N,t4,
MI
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution,
being Resolution No. 2010 -50 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City
Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 25th day of
May, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Henn, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Curry
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the
official seal of said City this 26th day of May, 2010.
( �f b fh
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)