Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 - Coastal Land Use Plan UpdateCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. July 14, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 Lampbellna city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Coastal Land Use Plan Update LC2007 -001 (PA 2007 -027) ISSUE Should the City adopt a comprehensive update to the Coastal Land Use Plan as modified by the California Coastal Commission on February 5, 2009? The modified plan reflects most of the land use. established by the 2006 Land Use Element. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the Coastal Land Use Plan with the modifications approved by the California Coastal Commission (Exhibits 1 and 2). DISCUSSION Background The Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the policy document of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP). Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the CLUP must include the relevant portion of the City's General Plan that is sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection and development policies. Implementation Program 5.1 of the General Plan calls for review and revision of the CLUP for consistency with the General Plan. On November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update of the CLUP reflecting the 2006 Update of the General Plan and authorized its submittal to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for review and approval. On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission approved the City's amendment while making 50 suggested modifications. Adoption of the CLUP with the modifications requires a separate action by the City Council to be effective. CLUP Update July 14, 2009 Page 2 Analysis All 50 suggested modifications are contained within Exhibit 1 of the attached draft resolution. The first 11 modifications reject the proposed land use categories and will necessitate amending the General Plan. The changes are summarized in the following table: k Site Location Current Proposed Suggested Modification Coast Highway at Cedar Street (6306, 1 6308, 6310 Coast H WY W) Restaurant (Big Belly Deli); Real estate CV -A RT -E Retain existing land use designation office; professional office 2 3366 Via Lido Apply MU -W (Mixed Use -Water 2 -story office building and parking lot CV -A RM -D Related) Apply CV -B (Commercial- Visitor) to 1200 W. Coast Hwy portion of site occupied by the Public Tidelands; existing public hotel and supporting 3 Balboa Bay Club & Resort - Hotel RH _ MU -W facilities; Apply MU -W (Mixed Use- (available to public) &Private Club & Water Related) to portion of site Residential occupied by the existing residences and club 4 2102 Ocean Front W Apply CV-8 (Visitor Serving Hotel - DorymansInn CG -C MU -W Commercial) S 2300 Coast Hwy W Apply CV -A (Visitor Serving Hotel - Holiday Inn Express CG -B MU -W Commercial) 6 2306 Ocean Front W Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving Hotel - Newport Beach Walk Hotel CG -C MU -W Commercial) (Planning Study Area 1 (PSA -1)) includes Shipyard Way, Anchorage Way, The Rhine, Anza St, Beach Dr, Cabrillo St, Nomad St, 7 Drake St, El Paseo St, Bolivar St, Fremont CM -B & MU -W Retain existing land use designations St, Channel Road, and a portion of Lido RM -B Park Dr. Shipyard, mobile home park, Commercial, Residential Northerly side of Balboa Boulevard at Island Avenue (500 -514 Balboa Blvd. W) 8 New market under development; plus CR RT -E Apply MU -V (Mixed Use - Vertical) existing restaurant, hair salon, barber, laundromat, coffee shop 600 E. Bay Ave/ 600 Edgewater PI) 9 Balboa Fun Zone - Visitor Serving CG -C PI -C Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving Commercial & Nautical Museum Commercial) 1901 -1911 Bayside Drive 10 Orange County Harbor Patrol /Coast Guard OS PF Apply PR (Public Recreation) Site over sandy beach area 11 105 Main Street, Hotel - Balboa Inn CG -C MU -V Apply CV-8 (Visitor Serving Commercial) CLUP Update July 14, 2009 Page 3 Most of the listed changes above represent a continuation of the prior land use, although changes to the land use designations are proposed. Modification #2 affects a bayfront developed with a two -story office building located at 3366 Via Lido, and would allow mixed -use residential rather than exclusive residential as requested. The Coastal Commission wanted to retain commercial use on the ground floor for this site. Modifications #1 (three small lots on W. Coast Hwy. at Cedar Street in West Newport developed with commercial uses) and #8 (eight small lots on W. Balboa Blvd. at Island Avenue developed with commercial and mixed -uses) would not permit exclusive residential as desired, but would retain the commercial or mixed -use land use designations. Modifications #4 (Dorryman's Inn in McFadden Square), #5 (Holiday Inn Express in Mariners' Mile), #6 (Newport Beach Walk Hotel in McFadden Square), and #11 (Balboa Inn in Balboa Village) reflect the Commission's desire to maintain hotels rather than allowing them to convert to other uses. Although the City did not convince the Coastal Commission to approve the items listed above, we were able to gain acceptance of many other significant changes in land use for other areas of the City. Those changes are: mixed -use residential in Mariners' Mile (although not to the same extent as proposed) and Lido Village; residential use within Cannery Village; and contraction of the commercial district in Balboa Village, 15th Street and West Newport. Several of the other 39 suggested modifications were minor language changes and corrections to map exhibits. Many others were negotiated by City staff to gain the support for the overall change in land uses that the plan represented. They included incorporating previously approved Land Use Element policies regarding Mariners' Mile, biological resource protection and the inclusion of alternative transportation policies. Several suggested Modifications related to lower -cost visitor accommodations and timeshares which, if accepted, will represent a policy shift for the City. First, the changes will limit the ability to eliminate existing lower -cost visitor accommodations. A feasibility study would be required and, if rehabilitation is not considered possible, the lower -cost accommodations could be eliminated only if mitigation of the loss is included as part of the development project. A definition of lower -cost accommodation will need to be developed with the implementation plan. The development of high -cost accommodations will require the inclusion of lower -cost accommodations or the payment of a mitigation fee commensurate with the project's actual impact to provide lower -cost accommodations elsewhere. The second area of change relates to timeshares, fractional ownership or condo - hotels referred to as "limited use overnight visitor accommodations" or LUOVA. They will be allowed in areas designated Visitor Serving Commercial (CV) as part of a hotel development and limits will be placed on the duration of owner stays. The LUOVA units will be managed by the hotel operator and would be included in the pool of available rooms offered to the public when not committed to fractional owners. Although these changes were contested by City staff, the Coastal Commission felt they were necessary in light of the entire range of land use and policy changes sought by the City. CLUP Update July 14, 2009 Page 4 Effect of CLOP Adoption If adopted, the CLUP will replace the current Coastal Land Use Plan which was certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005. The City will use it to review all discretionary projects in the Coastal Zone to determine their conformity with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission will also use the CLUP to review coastal development permits until coastal development permit authority is delegated to the City after Local Coastal Program certification. Environmental Review The preparation and adoption of a Local Coastal Program (Coastal Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances) and amendments of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) are statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3. The certification of an LCP process is considered a certified regulatory program and California Coastal Commission's procedures have been determined to be the functional equivalent of the Environmental Impact Report process. Public Notice A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. Alternatives The City Council cannot revise the CLUP or any of the modifications approved by the Coastal Commission; the City Council's action must be an "up or down vote." Additionally, the Coastal Commission's approval of the amended CLUP expires on August 5, 2009, so acceptance of the amendment is necessary before this date should the City Council accept the amendment. Should the City Council opt not to approve the modified CLUP, the City would have to draft, approve, and submit a new land use plan. Pursuant to Section 13541 of the California Code of Regulations, the City cannot submit substantially the same land use plan for a period of six (6) months. Simply eliminating the Coastal Commission's suggested modifications from the current proposal is not considered a substantial change. The preparation of a new or a substantially revised land use plan would take several months in addition to the time necessary for local approval including public hearings. The Coastal Commission staff could take from three (3) to fifteen (15) months to review a revised plan. The City would have to either present new evidence or an alternative approach to address the issues that prompted the Coastal Commission modifications. CLUP Update July 14, 2009 Page 5 The City Council also has the option of adopting the CLUP as modified, then submitting an amendment to the Coastal Commission on any issue or issues that are found to be problematic. Prepared by: Submitted by: James Campbell 40.rDavid Lepo Principal Planner o Planning Director ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft resolution A. Coastal Commission modifications B. Coastal Land Use Plan with modifications THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY m Attachment 1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY on RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION'S RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL AND RESOLUTION OF CERTIFICATION; ACCEPTING AND AGREEING TO SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS; ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001 (PA2007 -027) FOR A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN INCORPORATING COASTAL COMMISSION MODIFICATIONS; AND AGREEING TO IMPLEMENT THE MODIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT. WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976 established policies relating to shoreline public access and recreation, lower cost visitor accommodations, terrestrial and marine habitat protection, visual resources, landform alteration, agricultural lands, commercial fisheries, industrial uses, water quality, offshore oil and gas development, transportation, development design, power plants, ports, and public works; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, the Coastal Act relies heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement through the preparation of Local Coastal Programs; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) is the policy document of the City's Local Coastal Program and pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the CLUP must include the relevant portion of the City's General Plan that is sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and the applicable resource protection and development policies; and WHEREAS, the Land Use Plan portion of City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program was adopted in 2005 and certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005. However, the Implementation Plan of the Local Coastal Program was never completed; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the City adopted a comprehensive update of its General Plan, after extensive public outreach and public participation, that changed the land use designations and policies affecting properties within the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive update of the Coastal Land Use Plan is necessary to make it consistent with the comprehensive update of the General Plan adopted in 2006; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Coastal Land Use Plan was held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport N Resolution No. Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meetings was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at these meetings; and WHEREAS, on July 30, 2007, a notice of the availability of the proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment of the City Coastal Land Use Plan was provided in accordance with Section 13515(c) of the California Code of Regulations; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment was held by the City Council on November 13, 2007, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2009, the Coastal Commission certified the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment with the modifications (contained in Exhibit 1) on grounds that the Coastal Land Use Plan Amended with the suggested modifications meets the requirements of, and be in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2009, the City Council held a noticed public hearing in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council at this meeting; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing, the City Council did find as follows: 1. The Coastal Land Use Plan, as modified by the California Coastal Commission, indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses and applicable resource protection and development policies as required by the California Coastal Act. 2. The Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. 3. Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposal is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15265(a) (1) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. 4. The Coastal Land Use Plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. !v Resolution No. 5. Adoption of this Coastal Land Use Plan, as modified by the California Coastal Commission, does not preclude or prejudice the City from amending the Coastal Land Use Plan in the future in a manner consistent with the Coastal Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the Commission's resolution of approval on NPB - MAJ -01, including any modifications which may have been required. SECTION 2. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the Commission's resolution of certification, including any modifications suggested for final certification, for NPB -MAJ- 01. SECTION 3. The City Council accepts and agrees to the terms, conditions, and modifications upon which Local Coastal Program amendment NPB - MAJ -01 have been approved. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Coastal Land Use Plan with the modifications approved by the Coastal Commission (Exhibit 1) as contained in attached Exhibit 2. SECTION 5. The City Council agrees to implement the modified Coastal Land Use Plan (Exhibit 2) in accordance with the California Coastal Act. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS Resolution No. APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE of the CITY ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1 Z NPB-MAJ-1-07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 2 of 12 The City shall modify its land use plan maps to reflect the following revisions to the land use categories associated with the listed sites. The City may select an alternative intensity of use for the sites listed, subject to the review and approval of the Executive Director and subject to confirmation by the Commission itself through the Executive Director checkoff procedure. a Sit lip li r Sit,! Hi'l oil, �illll 11,111 IX iliz .i! .ti MAP 1 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "Icp—lu amend Changes_MAP 1" Exhibit I I I 1 West Newport Area: Coast Highway at Cedar Restaurant (Big Belly Deli); CV-A (Visitor RT-E (Residential Retain CV-A (Visitor Serving Commercial) 4 Street (6306, 6308, 6310 Real Estate Office; Professional Office Serving Commercial) - Two !i Land Use Designation Coast HWY Family) MAP 2 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "lcp_ u_amend Ch nges MAP 2")(Exhlbill 2 3 Lido Village Area: 2 -story ce building and ry CV-A (Visitor Serving RM-D (Residential Apply Ml (Mixed Use-Water Related) 3366 Via Lido parking lot Commercial) - Multiple Land Use Designation Unit) Public Tidelands RH-A/CM-C Apply CV-B (Commercial-Visitor) Land I Balboa Bay Club & Resort - (Residential mi Use Designation to portion of site occupied 3 15 Mariners' Mile Corridor: Hotel (available to public) & High (Mixed Use- by the existing public hotel and supporting 1200 W. Coast Hwy Private Club & 144 Density/Mari Water facilities; Apply MU-W (Mixed Use-Water Residential Units ne Related) Related) to portion of site occupied by the Commercial existing residences and club CG-C MU_W 4 n/a McFadden Square: Hotel - Doryman's Inn (General (Mixed Use- Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial) 2102 Ocean Front W Commercial) 1) ater Land Use Designation Related 5 n/a Mariners' Mile (inlan d side): Hotel - Holliday Inn Express CG-B (General MU-W (Mixed Use- Apply CV -A (Visitor Serving Commercial) 2300 Coast Hwy W Commercial) Water Land Use Designation I Related) Exhibit 1 NPB-MAJ-1-07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 3 of 12 --S=M= ;11111�111. M i N Oil WOW ........... .......... . 11ju 7 1511111M., pllull I ra CG -C MU _W 6 n/a McFadden Square Area: Hotel - Newport Beach Hotel (General (Mixed Use- Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial) 2306 Ocean Front W Commercial) Water Land Use Designation Related) Lido Peninsula (Planning Study Area 1 CM-B & RM- (PSA-1)) includes Shipyard B Way, Anchorage Way, The (Recreation MU_W Retain existing CM-13 (Recreation & 7 n/a Rhine, Anza St, Beach Dr, Shipyard, Mobile Home Park, & Marine (Mixed Use- Marine Commercial) and RM-C (Medium Cabrillo St, Nomad St, Commercial, Residential Commercial Water Density Residential) Land Use Drake St, El Pasec, St, and Medium Related) Designations Bolivar St, Fremont St, Density Channel Road, and a Residential) I portion of Lido Park Dr. I MAP 3 (see City of Newport Beach's Proposed Changes to the C UP Map "lcp_ u–amend–Changes–MAP 3")(Exhibit 6) Balboa Peninsula: New market under 8 2 Northerly side of Balboa development; plus existing restaurant, hair salon, CR (Commercial RT-E (Residential- Apply MU-V (Mixed Use-Vertical) Land Boulevard at Island Avenue barber, Laundromat, coffee -Residential) Two Family) Use Designation (500-514 Balboa Blvd. W) shop Balboa Village: Balboa Fun Zone - Visitor CG-C PI-C Apply CV-B (Visitor Serving Commercial) 9 7 600 E. Bay Ave/ Serving Commercial & (General (Private Land Use Designation 600 Edgewater PI) Nautical Museum Commercial) Institutional 10 11 1901-1911 Bayside Drive Orange County Harbor OS (Open PF�A (Public Apply FIR (Public Recreation) Land Use I Patrol /Coast Guard Site Sp ace l— sc Jjliq Designation over sandy beach area 11 n/a Balboa Village: e: Hotel - Balboa Inn CG-C (General M (Mixed _V Use_ Apply CV -B (Visitor Serving Commercial) 105 Main Street Commercial) Vertical) Land Use Designation Exhibit 1 NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 4 of 12 The addition of new policies may affect the numbering of subsequent LUP policies when the City of Newport Beach publishes the final LUP incorporating the Commission's suggested modifications. This staff report will not make revisions to the policy numbers. The City will make modifications to the numbering system when it prepares the final LUP for submission to the Commission for certification pursuant to Sections 13544 and 13544.5 of the California Code of Regulations. California Coastal Commission Suggested Modifications - Inserted language shown in underline; deleted language shown in strike out. Suggested Modification No. 12: In consultation with the Coastal Commission's mapping unit, modify all maps that depict the coastal zone boundary in the Banning Ranch area to accurately depict the location of the coastal zone boundary. Suggested Modification No, 13: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.1 (Land Use Categories) modify the'uses' for Mixed Use Water Related -MU -W in Table 2.1.1 -1 (Land Use Plan Categories), as follows: The MU -W category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near the bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the integrated development of mixed -use structures with residential uses above the -ground floor. Freestanding residential uses shall be prohibited. Overni -ght accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels. hostels) are allowed. Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g. time shares, fractionals, condominium - hotels) may be permitted in lieu of allowable residential development provided the use is above the ground floor. Suggested Modification No. 14: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.1 (Land Use Categories) modify the 'uses' for Visitor Serving Commercial -CV in Table 2.1.1 -1 (Land Use Plan Categories), as follows: The CV category is intended to provide for accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. Limited Use restrictions on the quantity, duration of owner use of such facilities, management of the defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit process. Suggested Modification No. 15: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.3 (West Newport) modify proposed Policy 2.1.3 -1, as follows: Work with community groups and the County to facilitate the acquisition of a portion or all of the Western Entry Parcel (designated RM /OS) as open space, which may be used as a staging area for Orange Coast River Park with up blic parking, public park - related uses, and as underpassaccess to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi - family residential on all or portions of the property not used for open space public parking, and Exhibit 1 Is NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 5 of 12 public park - related uses. Require the siting and design of new development including landscaping and public access to maintain buffers of sufficient size to protect sensitive or rare resources including but not limited to those within the Semeniuk Slough wetland against significant disruption of habitat values. Suggested Modification No. 16: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), modify introductory narrative as follows: The vitality of the Mariners' Mile Corridor will be enhanced by establishing a series of distinct retail, mixed -use, and visitor - serving centers. Harbor - fronting properties would accommodate a mix of visitor - serving retail, and- marine- related businesses and vertically integrated mixed -use structures, With PGROORG of the prepaFties available for housing mixed ,ise str,. ^t' • View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a up blic pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian- oriented mixed -use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine - related, and office uses. Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance and identity. Suggested Modification No. 17: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.4 -1, as follows: For properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor (that are designated as MU -H), (a) the Coast Highway frontages shall be developed for marine - related and highway- oriented general commercial uses in accordance with CM and CG categories; and (b) portions of properties to the rear of the commercial frontage may be developed for free - standing neighborhood- serving retail, multi - family residential units, or mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in accordance with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V categories respectively. Suggested Modification No. 18: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.4 -2, as follows: For bay- fronting properties Ethat are designated as MU -NV), encourage marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses intermixed .th °°id° es. Vertically integrated mixed use structures are allowed as described below. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV,and MU -V categories. On sites developed with mixed -use structures. a ,-minimum of 50 percent of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to non - residential uses.aAy4Gt- used fQF the me OF GV I° °a „1S°13 Mixed -use structures may only be developed on sites with Exhibit 1 Jb NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 6 of 12 Suggested Modification No. 19: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting Properties that are designated as CV or CM encourage marine - related and visitor- serving retail restaurant hotel /motel institutional and recreational uses. Suggested Modification No. 20: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: Development shall be designed and planned to achieve high levels of Suggested Modification No. 21: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: Require sufficient area be provided for individual uses to prevent uses. Suggested Modification No. 22: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting properties provide plazas and other open spaces that protect existing and provide new view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the Harbor. Suggested Modification No. 23: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: For bay- fronting properties require that development on the Bay frontage implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors including the development of a public pedestrian promenade along the bavfront. Suggested Modification No. 24: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.4 (Mariners' Mile), Add new policy to Section 2.1.4 (Mariner's Mile), as follows: For bay - fronting properties require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway in accordance with the following principles as appropriate: • Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor • Modulation of building volume and mass • Variation of building heights • Inclusion of porticoes arcades windows and other "see - through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor ■ Minimization of landscape fencing parked cars and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor • Prevention of the appearance of the harbor being walled off from the public right -of -way • Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adioining parcels Exhibit 1 11 NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 7 of 12 cumulatively form functional view corridors Suggested Modification No. 25: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula) add new maps (or modify existing proposed maps) that define the boundaries of the areas labeled 'Lido Village', 'Cannery Village', 'McFadden Square', 'Lido Peninsula', and 'Balboa Village' consistent with the draft maps submitted by City staff on October 7, 2008. Suggested Modification No. 26: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -1, as follows: For bay- fronting properties (that are designated as MU -W), marine - related uses may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V categories. In the MU -W designation, free - standing and ground floor residential shall not be permitted in Lido Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Island. Suggested Modification No. 27: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -2, as follows: Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor - serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential above the ground floor with retail uses. Suggested Modification No. 28: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -7, as follows: Accommodate visitor- and local- serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale overnight accommodations, as well as mixed -use buildings that integrate upper floor residential with ground level retail. Suggested Modification No. 29: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.5 -10, as follows: to For the Balboa Village core properties that are (designated as MU -V), encourage local- and visitor - serving retail commercial and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail or office uses that attract customer activity and improve pedestrian character. Suggested Modification No. 30: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub- section 2.1.5 (Balboa Peninsula), Add new policy as follows: Exhibit 1 1g NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 8 of 12 Development and use of lands designated CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) within Balboa Village may include a component that is a visitor serving private institutional facility such as a nautical museum, or similar visitor serving private institutional use Suggested Modification No. 31: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.1 (Land Use), Sub - section 2.1.8 (Balboa Bay Tennis Club), Modify proposed Policy 2.1.8 -1, as follows: Allow the horizontal intermixing of 27 short -term rental units and 5- single- family homes with the expanded tennis club facilities. Permitted uses include those permitted by the MU -H and PR categories. Suggested Modification No. 32: In Chapter 2.0 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.2 (General Development Policies), Sub - section 2.2.5 (Nonconforming Structures and Uses), Modify proposed Policy 2.2.5 -2, as follows: In the older commercial districts of Balboa Village and Corona del Mar allow existing commercial buildings that exceed current intensity limits to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to no more than their pre- existing intensity, develop etuate or establish a physical impediment to public access to coastal resources nor adversely impact coastal views or biological resources Where such development cannot meet current parking standards, such approval may only be granted if the proposed development includes at least as much parking as the existing development and provides Suggested Modification No. 33: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3 (Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.1 (Commercial), add the following policy: Any proposal to demolish existing overnight accommodations shall be Suggested Modification No. 34: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3 (Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.3 (Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities), Modify existing policy 2.3.3 -1, as follows: Provides high -cost overnight visitor accommodations or limited use overnight visitor accommodations such as timeshares fractional ownership and condominium - hotels shall Exhibit 1 ( 9 NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 9 of 12 provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations commensurate with the impact of the development on lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations in Newport Beach or pay an "in -lieu" fee to the City in an amount to be determined in accordance with law that shall be used by the City to provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations. Suggested Modification No. 35:-DELETED BY COMMISSION ACTION AT THE FEBRUARY 5, 2009, HEARING. Suggested Modification No. 36: DELETED BY COMMISSION ACTION AT THE FEBRUARY 5, 2009, HEARING. Suggested Modification No. 37: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3 (Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Sub - section 2.3.3 (Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities), add the following policy: Policy 2.3.3 -W - DEFINING LOW -, Suggested Modification No. 38 _In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.3 (Visitor Serving and Recreational Development), Policy 2.3.3 -V: 479 units planned may be limited -use overnight visitor accommodations). duration of Process. Suggested Modification No. 39, add the following definition to Section 5.0 (Glossary): Exhibit 1 co NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 10 of 12 the use or occupancy periods into which the facility has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to timeshare, condominium -hotel fractional ownership hotel, or uses of a similar nature, as those terms shall be defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified). Suggested Modification No. 40: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.1 -3, as follows: Locate and design larger commercial and residential developments to be served transit sewise and provide non - automobile circulation to serve new within e development to the greatest extent possible. Suggested Modification No. 41: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.2 -6 (Transportation), as follows: Require new non - residential developments with floor areas of 10,000 square feet or more to provide bicycle racks for use by customers. Encourage smaller non - residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible. Suggested Modification No. 42: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), Modify existing Policy 2.9.2 -7 (Transportation), as follows: Require new non - residential developments with a total of 100 or more employees to provide bicycle racks, lockers, and showers for use by employees and tenants who commute by bicycle. Encourage smaller non - residential developments to Suggested Modification No. 43: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.91 (Public Transit), add new policy: The City shall study Suggested Modification No. 44: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: Employment, retail, Paths, and recreational trails (including the Coastal Trail) should be designed and regulated to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership. Suggested Modification No. 45: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: The City shall measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Exhibit 1 2f NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 11 of 12 Suggested Modification No. 46: In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), Section 2.9 (Transportation), Sub - section 2.9.1 (Public Transit), add new policy: Encourage new developments to design projects to facilitate transit ridership and ridesharing through such means as locating and designing building entries that are convenient to pedestrians and transit riders. Suggested Modification No. 47, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 (Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the following policy: In conjunction with new development require that all preserved ESHA plan and funding shall be required to ensure appropriate management of the habitat area in perpetuity. Suggested Modification No. 48, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 (Biological Resources), Sub - section 4. 1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the following policy: Require all direct open space dedications or OTDs to be made to a public agency or other appropriate entity that will manage the open space area on behalf of the public. Modification No. 49, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 Resources), Sub - section 4. 1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the Aicy: Encourage the acceptance of direct open space dedications or OTDs to Suggested Modification No. 50, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 (Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the following policy: Give consideration to applying the Open Space land use category to lands with open space restrictions dedications or offers to dedicate. Suggested Modification No. 51, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 (Biological Resources), Sub- section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the following policy: Dedicated open space areas or areas where there are open space offers to dedicate open space easements and/or open space deed restrictions shall be protected consistent with the requirements of the dedication offer to dedicate easement or deed restriction. Suggested Modification No. 52, Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.1 (Biological Resources), Sub - section 4.1.1 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitats), add the following policy: The City shall maintain an inventory of open space dedications or offers to dedicate to ensure such areas are known to the public and are protected through the coastal development permit process. Exhibit 1 NPB- MAJ -1 -07 Transmittal of Suggested Modifications Page 12 of 12 Suggested Modification No. 53, in Chapter 4 (Coastal Resource Protection), Section 4.2 (Wetlands and Deepwater Areas) , Sub - section 4.2.3 (Dredging, Diking, and Filling), Modify Existing Policy 4.2.3 -1, as follows (and re- letter as appropriate): Permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes in accordance with other applicable provisions of the LCP, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects and limited to the following: A. Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities. B. Construction or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities, and commercial ferry facilities. and iR a degFade.d wetland, ideRtifi .d N the D 'h,,,ent_of Fish and .r- a t to , �. .. ...- ..�, , .,�. � ..fir .,v..pv. ,..� �...�- ,...�.r. D. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including estuaries and streams, new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. [no intervening changes] Exhibit 1 Z3 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY ZA F of Newport Bear dl Coastal Proard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Local Coastal Program Coastal land Use Plan W. 24 ILI !Pi&�Pp* First Approved by the California Coastal Commission on October 13, 2005 Adopted December 13, 2005, Resolution No. 2005 -64 Amended by the California Coastal Commission on February 5, 2009 Adopted July 14, 2009, Resolution No. City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California ii Acknowledgements City Council Don Webb, Mayor Steven Rosansky, Mayor Pro Tern Tod W. Ridgeway, City Council Member Leslie J. Daigle, City Council Member Edward D. Selich, City Council Member Richard A. Nichols, City Council Member John Heffernan, City Council Member Garold B. Adams, City Council Member (2004) Steven Bromberg, City Council Member (2004) Planning Commission Michael Toerge, Chairman Jeffrey Cole, Vice Chairman Barry Eaton, Secretary Larry Tucker, Planning Commissioner Earl McDaniel, Planning Commissioner Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner Michael Henn, Planning Commissioner Edward D. Selich, Planning Commissioner (2004) Steven Kiser, Planning Commissioner (2004) LCP Certification Committee Council Member Tod W. Ridgeway, Chairman Council Member Don Webb Council Member Edward D. Selich Planning Commissioner Earl McDaniel Planning Commissioner Michael Toerge Planning Commissioner Michael Henn Council Member Steven Bromberg (2002 -2005) City Staff Robin Clauson, City Attorney Sharon W. Wood, Assistant City Manager Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director Patrick J. Alford, Senior Planner iii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose 1 -1 1.2 Organization 1 -1 1.3 General Policies 1 -2 1.4 The Coastal Act 1 -2 1.5 The City of Newport Beach 1 -4 CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Land Use IV 2.1.1 Land Use Categories 2 -1 2.1.2 District /Corridor Policies 2 -6 2.1.3 West Newport 2 -7 2.1.4 Mariners' Mile 2 -9 2.1.5 Balboa Peninsula 2 -11 2.1.6 Balboa Island 2 -17 2.1.7 Newport Dunes 2 -18 2.1.8 Balboa Bay Tennis Club 2 -18 2.1.9 Coastal Land Use Map 2 -19 2.2 General Development Policies 2.2.1 Location of New Development 2 -20 2.2.2 Coastal Development Review 2 -21 2.2.3 Exclusion Areas 2 -23 224 Deferred Certification Areas 2 -25 2.2.5 Nonconforming Structures and Uses 2 -26 2.3 Visitor - serving and Recreational Development 2.3.1 Commercial 2 -28 2.3.2 Open Space and Tidelands /Submerged Lands 2 -32 2.33 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities 2 -34 2.4 Coastal- dependent /related Development 2.4.1 Commercial 2 -38 2.4.2 Public Facilities 2 -40 2.5 Tidelands and Submerged Lands 2.5.1 The Tidelands Trust 2 -41 2.5.2 Tidelands Leases 2 -41 2.6 Industrial Development 2 -45 2.7 Residential Development 2 -47 IV Table of Contents (Continued) 2.8 Hazards and Protective Devices 2.8.1 General 2 -49 2.8.2 Tsunamis and Rogue Waves 2 -50 2.8.3 Storm Surges and Seiches 2 -53 2.8.4 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms 2 -56 2.8.5 Sea Level Rise 2 -57 2.8.6 Coastal Erosion 2 -58 2.8.7 Geologic and Seismic 2 -64 2.8.8 Fire 2 -68 2.9 Transportation 2.9.1 Public Transit 2 -71 2.9.2 Bikeways and Trails 2 -73 2.9.3 Parking 2 -74 CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION 3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access 3.1.1 Shoreline Access 3 -1 3.1.2 Bluff Top Access 3 -11 3.1.3 Beach Encroachments 3 -13 3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments 3 -16 3.1.5 Private /Gated Communities 3 -17 3.1.6 Preferential Parking Districts 3 -20 3.1 .7 Temporary Events 3 -21 3.1.8 Temporary Closures 3 -23 3.2 Recreation and Support Facilities 3.2.1 Recreational Opportunities 3 -24 3.2.2 Support Facilities and Services 3 -26 3.2.3 Access for Persons with Disabilities 3 -31 3.3 Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage 3.3.1 Vessel Launching 3 -33 3.3.2 Berthing and Storage 3 -34 3.3.3 Harbor Support Facilities 3 -36 CHAPTER 4 - COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION 4.1 Biological Resources 4. 1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats 4 -1 4.1.2 Marine Resources 4 -9 1N Table of Contents (Continued) CHAPTER 5 - GLOSSARY Glossary Vi 5 -1 4.1.3 Environmental Study Areas 4 -14 No. 1 Semeniuk Slough 4 -15 No. 2 North Star Beach 4 -17 No. 3 West Bay 4 -18 No. 4 Upper Newport Bay Marine Park /DeAnza 4 -19 No. 5 San Diego Creek 4 -21 No. 6 Eastbluff Remnant 4 -23 No. 7 Mouth of Big Canyon 4 -24 No. 8 Newporter North 4 -25 No. 9 Buck Gully 4 -26 No. 10 Morning Canyon 4 -28 No. 11 Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area 4 -30 No. 12 Castaways 4 -31 No. 13 Newport Harbor Entrance Kelp Beds 4 -33 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows 4 -40 4.1.5 Coastal Foredunes 4 -42 4.2 Wetlands and Deepwater Areas 4.2.1 Southern California Wetlands 4 -44 4.2.2 Wetland Definition and Delineation 4 -46 4.2.3 Dredging, Diking, and Filling 4 -48 4.2.4 Dredge Spoils Disposal 4 -57 4.2.5 Eelgrass Protection and Restoration 4 -59 4.3 Water Quality 4.3.1 7MDLs 4 -62 4.3.2 NPDES 4 -65 4.3.3 SSOs 4 -69 4.4 Scenic and Visual Resources 4.4.1 Coastal Views 4 -71 4.4.2 Bulk and Height Limitation 4 -74 4.4.3 Natural Landform Protection 4 -76 4.4.4 Signs and Utilities 4 -83 4.5 Paleontological and Cultural Resources 4.5.1 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources 4 -84 4.5.2 Historical Resources 4 -86 4.6 Environmental Review 4 -89 CHAPTER 5 - GLOSSARY Glossary Vi 5 -1 List of Maps CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Map 1: Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -80 Map 2: Bikeways and Trails 2 -81 CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION Map 3 -1: Coastal Access and Recreation (3 maps) 3 -38 Map 3 -2: Support Facilities 3 -41 Map 3 -3: Parks 3 -42 Map 3 -4: Vessel Launching, Berthing and Storage 3 -43 CHAPTER 4 - COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Map 4 -1: Environmental Study Areas 4 -92 Map 4 -2: Marine Resources 4 -93 Map 4 -3: Coastal Views (3 maps) 4 -94 Map 4 -4: Historical Resources 4 -97 List of Figures CHAPTER 2 - LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Figure 2.1.3 -1: West Newport Figure 2.1.4 -1: Mariner's Mile Figure 2.1.5 -1: Lido Village / Cannery/ Lido Peninsula / McFadden Figure 2.1.5 -2: 15th Street Figure 2.1.5 -3: Balboa Village Figure 2.1.6 -1: Balboa Island Commercial Figure 2.1.7 -1: Newport Dunes Figure 2.1.8 -1: Balboa Bay Tennis Club SPECIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS 2 -82 2 -83 2 -84 2 -85 2 -86 2 -87 2 -88 2 -89 Pages 2 -11, 4 -15, and 4 -41 Copyright (C) 2002 -2005 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.Coliforniccoastline.org. Vii 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This document establishes the Coastal Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program of the City of Newport Beach, prepared in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. 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 and its sphere of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. The physical boundaries of the area to which the Coastal Land Use Plan applies are shown on the Coastal Land Use Map, included as Map 1. Newport Coast is governed by the previously certified and currently effective Newport Coast segment of the Orange County Local Coastal Program. Banning Ranch is a Deferred Certification Area (DCA) due to unresolved issues relating to land use, public access and the protection of coastal resources (see Section 2.2.4). 1.2 Organization The Coastal Act contains coastal resources planning and management policies that address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, development, and industrial development. The Coastal Land Use Plan addresses these topics under the following chapters: Land Use and Development. This chapter includes policies for topics in Sections 30007, 30212.5, 30213, 30221- 30223, 30235 - 30236, 30250, 30252 - 30253, 30255, 30260, 30262, 30600, 30610.5 of the Coastal Act. Public Access and Recreation. This chapter includes policies for topics in Sections 30210 - 30214, 30220- 30224, 30234, 30234.5, 30244, and 30252 of the Coastal Act, Coastal Resource Protection. This chapter includes policies for topics covered in Sections 30230 - 30233, 30240, 30244, and 30251 of the Coastal Act. Each chapter is divided into sections and subsections. Each section or subsection begins with the identification of the Coastal Act sections that are relevant to Newport Beach, followed by a narrative of the local setting and policy direction adopted by the City to address the requirements of the Coastal Act and a listing of specific policies. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -1 1.3 General Policies The following policies shall be applied to achieve the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act in applying the policies of this Coastal Land Use Plan: The policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30200 30265.5) shall be the guiding policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and those set forth in any element of the City's General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinance, the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. 3. In the event of any ambiguities or silence in this Coastal Land Use Plan not resolved by (1) or (2) above, or by other provisions of the City's LCP, the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act shall guide interpretation of this Coastal Land Use Plan. 4. This Coastal Land Use Plan is not intended, and shall not be construed, as authorizing the Coastal Commission or City to exercise its power to grant or deny a permit in a manner that will take or damage private property for public use, without the payment of just compensation therefor. This Section is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the State of California or the United States. 5. No provision of the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Coastal Act is a limitation on any of the following: A. On the power of the City to declare, prohibit, and abate nuisances. B. Except as otherwise limited by state law, on the power of the City to adopt and enforce additional regulations, not in conflict with the Coastal Land Use Plan or the Coastal Act, imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to any land or water use or other activity which might adversely affect the resources of the coastal zone. 1.4 The Coastal Act In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451 - 1464). The CZMA declared a national policy "to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -2 Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations." The CZMA sought to encourage and assist States to develop and implement management programs for the use of coastal land and water resources, "giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development." The Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) was approved by a 55.2 percent vote in 1972. It prohibited development 1,000 yards inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from a regional or state coastal commission. It created a temporary California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six regional commissions to develop a statewide plan for coastal protection. The California Coastal Plan was submitted to the Legislature in 1975 and led to the passage of the California Coastal Act in 1976. I ne coastal Act estaousnea the permanent California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Coastal Act Goals for the Coastal Zone Commission's mandate is to protect and enhance the a) Protect,* maintain and, where tensible, enhance and restorethe overall quality of thecoasto zone environment. resources of the coastal zone and 'as natural, and artificial resources. mapped by the Legislature. b Assure orckdy, balanced ut lization and conservation of Coastal Commission coastal zone resources taking into account the social and: membership is composed of economlcnee iofthepeopleofthestate twelve voting members, c} rdaarnze public: access to and along the coast anal appointed equally by the maximize public recreational opportun im it es'the coastal zone: consistent. with sound resources conservation' Governor, the Senate Rules principles and constitutionally protected rights of private Committee, and the Speaker of propedyowners, the Assembly. Half of the voting a> Assure priority for ceastaktependent and coasts l related commissioners are locally development over other deveMprnentonthe :boast. elected officials and half are ey Encourage state and local Intatves and cooperaton in representatives of the public at preparing. prooedurestoimplement000rdina ted.plannng and development for mutually '. berieficiei uses, including: large. The Coastal Commission educational uses, 'in the coastelzone. also has four ex officio (non - Pub7ic Resources Code Section 300014 voting) members representing the Resources Agency, the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, the Trade and Commerce Agency and the State Lands Commission. The Legislature found that "to achieve maximum responsiveness to local conditions, accountability, and public accessibility, it is necessary to rely heavily on local government and local land use planning procedures and enforcement." Therefore, implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP), reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission. An LCP typically consists of a land use plan and an implementation plan. The land use plan indicates the kinds, location, and intensity of Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -3 land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies, and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. The implementation plan consists of the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. Any amendments to the certified LCP will require review and approval by the Coastal Commission prior to becoming effective. After certification of an LCP, coastal development permit authority is delegated to the appropriate local government. The Coastal Commission retains original permit jurisdiction over certain specified lands, such as submerged lands, tidelands, and public trust lands, and has appellate authority over development approved by local government in specified geographic areas and for major public works projects and major energy facilities. In authorizing coastal development permits, the local government must make the finding that the development conforms to the certified LCP. Furthermore, after certification of the LCP, City actions on applications for Coastal Act authority to conduct certain types of development and development within certain geographic areas are appealable, to the Coastal Commission. 1.5 The City of Newport Beach History In order to fully understand the relationship between the Coastal Land Use Plan and the community, it is necessary to understand the community and the historical events that have influenced it. The history of Newport Beach begins with the bay. It is the story of how natural forces shaped the land and coast and how people responded to these changes. It is believed that Newport Bay formed about 300,000 years ago when a precursor of the Santa Ana River flowed into the northern end of the bay and carved a deep canyon. Rising sea levels submerged the bay until about 15,000 to 25,000 years ago. When the bay reemerged, the Santa Ana River, as it did throughout its history, had shifted across the coastal plain and now flowed into the ocean at Alamitos Bay. 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, aboriginal Tongva millingstone hunters and gatherers were first drawn to this area by the rich bounty of the bay and ocean. These original inhabitants supplemented their diet with a variety of meat from marine resources, including shellfish, fish, and birds and probably ventured out into the ocean in rafts to fish for Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1A Sheepshead, Blacksmith, and Giant Kelpfish. The most recent native people were the Tongva (Gabrielinos) and the Acjachemem (Juanenos), who lived in small villages around the bay until the beginning of the Mission period in the 1770's. During the Mission period, the hills above the bay were part of a vast open cattle range of the Mission San Juan Capistrano. Early Spanish names for the bay were Bolsa de Quigara (bay with high banks) or Bolsa de Gengara, in reference to a nearby Indian village. After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1831, the mission lands were broken up and redistributed through land grants. In 1837, the bay became a part of Rancho San Joaquin under the ownership of Jose Andres Sepulveda. Floods and droughts caused Sepulveda to sell the ranch in 1864 and it eventually became a part of the expansive Irvine Ranch. The bay at that time was open to the ocean and part of a large estuary that stretched from Huntington Beach to Corona del Mar. In 1825, unusually heavy floods again shifted the mouth of the Santa Ana River to the southeast of the Huntington Beach mesa. Sand carried by the river began to form a peninsula. Over the next thirty years, the peninsula made steady progress in a southeasterly direction. By 1857, the eastern tip had reached to approximately where Bay Island is today. Floods during the winter of 1861 -62 extended the peninsula to the present harbor entrance. This barrier beach forced the Santa Ana River to flow parallel to the coast. The accretion of silt made the bay shallower and spread marsh vegetation. 1• In the late 1860's, the bay was used as a landing to load hides, tallow, hay and other goods for export. In September 1870, Captain Samuel S. Dunnells' steamer Vaquero ventured into the bay to offload a cargo of a lumber and shingles. Captain Dunnells soon established "Newport r, Landing" by constructing a small wharf and warehouse near the west end of the present Coast Highway /Newport Bay Bridge. James McFadden and his younger 1875 survey map of Newport Bay brother Robert acquired the landing in 1875 and for the next nineteen years operated a thriving commercial trade and shipping business. However, the bay was not yet a true harbor and sand bars and a treacherous bay entrance caused the McFadden Brothers to move the shipping business to the oceanfront by constructing a large pier on the sand spit that would become the Balboa Peninsula. The site was ideal because a submarine canyon (Newport Submarine Canyon), carved along with Newport Bay by the ancient Santa Ana River, provided calm waters close to the shore. McFadden Wharf was Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -5 completed in 1888 and was connected by rail to Santa Ana in 1891. For the next eight years, the McFadden Wharf area was a booming commercial and shipping center and a company town began to grow. However, in 1899, the Federal Government allocated funds for major improvements to a new harbor at San Pedro, which would become Southern California's major seaport. The McFadden Wharf and railroad was sold to the Southern Pacific Railroad that same year, signaling the end of Newport Bay as a commercial shipping center. In 1902, James McFadden sold his Newport townsite and about half of the Peninsula to William S. Collins, who saw Newport Bay's resort and recreation potential. Collins took on Henry E. Huntington as a partner in the Newport Beach Company. Huntington had acquired the Pacific Electric railway system and used it to promote new communities outside of Los Angeles. In 1905, the Pacific Electric "Red Cars" were extended to Newport and then to Balboa the following year. Also in 1906, Collins began dredging a channel on the north side of the bay and deposited the sand and silt on tidelands that would become Balboa Island. Between 1902 and 1907, many of Newport Beaches' waterfront communities were subdivided, including West Newport, East Newport, Bay Island, Balboa, and Balboa Island. This established the grid system of small lots and narrow streets and alleys that still exists today in these areas. In 1906, the City of Newport Beach, consisting of West Newport and Balboa Peninsula, incorporated. In 1916, most of Balboa Island was annexed, followed by Newport Heights in 1917, Corona del Mar in 1924, and the balance of Balboa Island in 1927. In 1923, the dredging and filing of mud flats that would become Lido Island began. At this time, Newport Beach was still a beach town, with most of the homes being constructed as beach cottages and second homes used for vacations. However, public safety concerns would move Newport Beach to embark on a series of projects to protect and improve the harbor and ultimately lead to the next stage in the City's development. Newport Beach circa 1910 At that time, the channels in the bay were narrow, shallow, and tortuous. Two massive floods in December 1914 and January 1916 filled the harbor and beaches with silt and debris. This and an increasing number of drownings at the harbor entrance prompted Newport Beach voters to approve funds to build the westjetty. In 1919, Orange County voted for funds to extend the jetty and build a dam to divert the Santa Ana River from the bay and flow directly into the ocean west of the City. The harbor improvements turned a small colony of fishermen into a major industry. In Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1-6 the1920's the sport fishing and commercial fishing would become the major source of income in Newport Beach. In 1921, the first of four commercial fish canneries was built on the Rhine Channel. The boatyard industry also began to flourish. The great increase in the number of commercial and recreational boats in the 1920s led to calls for further harbor improvements. Also, the consensus gradually changed from development of a commercial harbor to a recreational harbor. In 1928, Newport Beach voters approved funds for work on the west and east jetties. In 1933, a federal grant and matching funds from an Orange County bond measure provided funds to extend the jetties and dredge the entire Lower Newport Bay. On May 23, 1936, Newport Harbor was dedicated. The completion of the harbor improvements increased recreational and commercial boating activity. The South Coast Shipyard produced all types of pleasure craft. With the United States entry into World War ll, the boatyards quickly shifted to the wartime production. South Coast and the new Lido Shipyard produced minesweepers, sub chasers, and other military vessels. By the end of the war, the summer beach resort town had become a city of 10,000 people. The postwar boom in Southern California led to the next stage in the City's development. The Irvine Company began to open some of its vast land holdings east of the City to residential development. During the 1950's the City annexed over 4,382 acres, more than tripling its land area. In 1960, the City had a population of 26,565 people. The 1960's saw the development of major employment, commercial, and educational centers in Orange County. The City annexed another 2,280 acres, including the Newport Dunes and the future sites of Newport Center and Fashion Island. In 1970, the City's population had reached 49,442 people. The expansion and development of the City led to a period of introspection in the 1970's. In 1969, a citizens committee completed work on a set of community goals titled Newport Tomorrow, which served as the basis for the City's 1973 General Plan. Newport Tomorrow also served as a catalyst for a series of special studies, which resulted in new development controls. In 1970, the Lower Newport Bay Civic District study began to analyze development around the lower bay, including height limits, the preservation of marine service facilities, public access, and view corridors. The study resulted in the adoption of the Shoreline Height Limitation Ordinance in 1972, which established new height and bulk restrictions around the bay. Height limits along Pack Coast Highway and other commercial areas were lowered from 85 to 26 feet. Residential development standards for Corona del Mar, Balboa Island, West Newport, and the Balboa Peninsula followed in 1973 and 1974, which set stricter floor area and height limits and higher off - street parking and open space requirements. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -7 A proposed land exchange between the County of Orange and the Irvine Company cleared the way for the development of the Upper Newport Bay with residential uses and marinas in the early 1960's. Newport Beach residents began a movement to preserve the Upper Bay, first winning local government support, then at the County, then at the State. In 1973, an appellate court ruled that a proposed land exchange Upper Newport Bay tiro 1952 was unconstitutional. In 1974, a committee composed of Federal, State, and local agencies and interested members of the community produced a plan that recommended preservation of the Upper Bay. The Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve (Upper Newport Bay Marine Park) was created in 1975 as result of the purchase of 527 acres of land in and around the bay from the Irvine Company and the transfer of 214 acres of tidal wetlands from the County of Orange to the State. The City continued to expand and develop in the 1980's and 1990's, albeit at a slower pace. The City's population was 65,283 in 1980, and increased to 66,643 in 1990. Land use and development policies continued to be refined. In 1988, comprehensive amendments to Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan were adopted to establish reasonable density and intensity limits, allow for modest growth, and to better correlate land uses with the circulation system. Specific plans were adopted for the older commercial districts on the Balboa Peninsula, including Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village. By the year 2000, the population had reached 70,032. Coastal History Notes 1905 Balboa Pier and Balboa Pavilion constructed. 1909 Balboa Island Ferry service established. 1911 First yacht club established in Newport Beach. 1913 Frost Life Saving Corps organized. 1917 First commercial fish cannery opens. 1918 Newport to Balboa boardwalk constructed. 1922 Duke Kahanamoku introduces sufing at Newport 1922 City purchases Newport Pier (McFadden Wharf). 1923 First public restrooms built at McFadden Place. 1923 First City lifeguard service created. 1934 Sea salt works dike constructed in Upper Bay. 1936 Fun Zone opens. 1948 First Newport- Ensenada Yacht Race. 1958 Newport Dunes opens. 1969 Floods breach salt works dikes, sifts Upper Bay. 1971 Fun Zone saved from condominium development. 1982 Upper Newport Bay dredged to Gear silt build -up. 1982 First LCP Land Use Plan certified. 2000 Upper Newport Bay Interpretative Center opens. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -8 Newport Beach in 2004 At the beginning of the 21St Century, Newport Beach is a community of 75,662 people covering 25.4 square miles, including 2.5 square miles of bay and harbor waters. The City has over 30 miles of bay and ocean waterfront. Over 63 percent of the City is in the coastal zone. While Newport Beach is no longer a sleepy little beach town, the bay and beach continue to play an important role in the community's character and economy. Newport Harbor is the largest small craft harbor in the United States with over 9,000 boats at 2,119 commercial slips and side ties, 1,221 bay moorings, and 1,230 piers. Beach attendance averages 9.4 million people annually. Newport Beach continues to be a major visitor destination. In FY 2001, the City received 7.2 million visitors (people other than those who reside or work here). Over 80 percent of the City's visitors are here for purposes of leisure. The City has 16 hotel properties with 2,977 rooms and 535 seasonal housing units. However, the vast majority are day visitors. Aerial view of the Balboa Peninsula Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 1 -9 2.0 Land Use and Development 2.1 Land Use The Coastal Land Use Plan was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The Land Use Element may contain more precise development limits for specific properties. Should a conflict exist, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. 2.1.1 Land Use Categories Policy 2.1.1 -1 The land use categories in Table 2.1.1 -1 establish the type, density and intensity of land uses within the coastal zone. If there is a conflict between the development limits of the Land Use Element and the Coastal Land Use Plan, the provision that is most protective of coastal resources shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. Table 2.1.1-1 Land - Plan Categories tQ o:".; 1: >.. "" Uses =, °: ,Dan;" /listens'° -11-k Residential Neighborhoods Single Unit Residential Detached —RSD The RSD category applies to a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. RSD -A 0.0 – 5.9 DU/AC RSD -B 6.0 – 9.9 DUTAC RSD -C 10.0 –19.9 DUTAC RSD -D 20.0 – 29.9 DUTAC Single Unit Residential Attached —RSA The RSA category applies to a range of attached single - family residential dwelling units on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. RSA -A 0.0 – 5.9 DU/AC RSA -B 6.0- 9.9DU/AC RSA -C 10.0 –19.9 DUTAC RSA -D 20.0 – 29.9 DU /AC Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -1 Table 2. 1.1 -1 Land Use Plan Categories Ilse Cate "' Yisest, as I Donsr Two Unit Residential -RT The RT category applies to a range of two family residential dwelling units such as duplexes and townhomes. RT -A 0.0- 5.9DU/AC RT -B 6.0- 9.9DU/AC RT -C 10.0 -19.9 DUTAC RT -D 20.0 - 29.9 DU /AC RT -E 30.0 - 39.9 DU /AC Multiple Unit Residential -RM The RM category is intended to provide primarily for multi - family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. RM -A 0.0 - 5.9 DU /AC RM -B 6.0 - 9.9 DU /AC RM -C 10.0 -19.9 DU /AC RM -D 20.0 -29.9 DU /AC RM -E 30.0 - 39.9 DU /AC RM -F 40.0 - 52.0 DU /AC Commercial Districts and Corridors The CN category is intended to provide for a limited range of retail and service uses Neighborhood developed in one or more distinct centers 0.00 - 0.30 FAR Commercial -CN oriented to primarily serve the needs of and maintain compatibility with residential uses in the immediate area. Corridor Commercial- The CC category is intended to provide a range CC of neighborhood- serving retail and service uses along street frontages that are located and designed to foster pedestrian activity, CC -A 0.00 - 0.50 FAR CC-13 0.00 - 0.75 FAR General Commercial- The CG category is intended to provide for a CG CG -A wide variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve citywide or regional needs. 0.00 - 0.30 FAR CG -B 0.00 - 0.75 FAR Recreational and The CM category is intended to provide for Marine Commercial- commercial development on or near the bay in CM a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal- related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, CM -A 0.00 - 0.30 FAR encourage mutually supportive businesses, CM -B encourage visitor - serving and recreational 0.00 - 0.50 FAR uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the bay on waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the bay. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -2 Table 2.1.1-1 Land Use Plan Categories '.t.a`Rd#(7seCatebo �� a ' a W4 vr "." Uses, *� ,�" t;+'7" JVDeri's'_i /Intens Visitor Serving The CV category is intended to provide for Commercial —CV accommodations (e.g. hotels, motels, hostels), goods, and services intended to primarily serve visitors to the City of Newport Beach. Limited CV -A 0.00 – 0.75 FAR Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g . time shares, fractionals, condominium - hotels) ( LUOVA) are an allowed use when provided together with traditional overnight, hotel visitor accommodations. Furthermore, any permitted LUOVA shall be subject to specific restrictions on the quantity, duration of owner use of such CV -B facilities, management of the 0.00 –1.50 FAR accommodations as part of the hotel facility and an allowance for transient overnight use by the general public when not owner occupied. All of these requirements shall be further defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit process. General Commercial The COG category is intended to provide for Office --COG administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. Hotels, motels, and convalescent hospitals are not permitted. COG -A 0.00 – 0.30 FAR COG -B 0.00 -0.75 FAR COG -C 0.00 –1.30 FAR Mixed Use Districts Mixed -Use Buildings: Floor area to land ratio of 1.5, The MU -V category is intended to provide for where a minimum floor area land ratio the development of properties for (a) mixed -use of 0.35 and d maximum structures that vertically integrate housing with of 0.5 shall be used Mixed Use Vertical— retail uses, where the ground floor shall be for nonresidential MU -V restricted to retail and other pedestrian- active Purposes and a uses along the street frontage and/or the upper maximum of 1.0 for floors used for residential units, or (b) structures residential. containing nonresidential uses including retail, office, restaurant, and similar uses. Nonresidential Buildings: Floor area to land area ratio of 0.75. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -3 Table 2. 1. 1 -1 Land Use �Iand(lse Oat o Plan Categories n. : "' :,.Uses,' Deitsr /frtte%ri... Mixed -Use Buildings: Floor area to land area ratio of 1.5, where a minimum floor area to The MU -H category is intended to provide for land area ratio of 0.25 the development of areas for a horizontally and maximum 0.5 shall distributed mix of uses, which may include be used for retail uses and maximum of 1.0 Mixed Use Horizontal— general or neighborhood commercial, for residential. MU -H commercial offices, multi - family residential, visitor - serving and marine - related uses, and /or Nonresidential only: buildings that vertically integrate residential with Floor area to land area commercial uses. ratio of 0.5. Residential only: 20.1 -26.7 units per net acre. Mixed -Use Buildings: Floor area to land ratio The MU -W category is intended to provide for of 1.5; where a commercial development on or near the bay in minimum floor area to a manner that will encourage the continuation land ratio of 0.35 and of coastal- dependent and coastal- related uses maximum of 0.7 shall and visitor - serving uses, as well as allow for the be used for development of mixed -use structures with nonresidential Mixed Use Water residential uses above the ground floor. purposes and a Related —MU -W Freestanding residential uses shall be maximum of 0.8 for prohibited. Overnight accommodations (e.g. residential. hotels, motels, hostels) are allowed. Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations (e.g. Nonresidential only: time shares, fractionals, condominium- hotels) Floor area to land area may be permitted in lieu of allowable ratio of 0.5. residential development provided the use is above the ground floor. Residential only: 15 units per acre per net acre. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 24 Table 2. 1. 1 -1 Land Use Plan Categories te Public, Semi-Public, and Institutional Not applicable. School districts are exempted from local land use controls and development limits are The PF category is intended to provide public not specified. facilities, including public schools, cultural Development Public Facilities—PF institutions, government facilities, libraries intensities for other community centers, public hospitals, and public public institutions are utilities. more appropriately determined by their function rather than floor areas, such as number of hospital beds and number of students. Private Institutions N The PI category is intended to provide for privately owned facilities that serve the public, including places for religious assembly, private schools, health care, cultural institutions, PI -A 0.00 -0.30 FAR PI -B 0.00 -0.75 FAR PI-C museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and 0-00 – 1.00 FAR comnarahle facilities. Open spaces may include incidental The OS category is intended to provide areas buildings, such as Opens Space—OS for a range of public and private uses to protect, maintenance equipment and supply maintain, and enhance the community's natural storage, which are not resources. traditionally included in determining intensity limits. Not applicable for public uses. Private uses in this category may include incidental The PR category applies to land used or buildings, such as proposed for active public or private maintenance Parks and Recreation— recreational use. Permitted uses include parks equipment sheds, supply storage, and PR (both active and passive), golf courses ' marina restrooms, not included support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs in determining intensity and courts, private recreation, and similar limits. For golf facilities. courses, these uses may also include support facilities for grounds maintenance employees. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-5 Table 2.1.1-1 . Use Plan Categories Uses , ",'li,.Derisft (1if%ensf , La'ndse „. The TS category is intended to address the use, management, and protection of tidelands Tidelands and and submerged lands of Newport Bay and the Submerged Lands —TS Pacific Ocean immediately adjacent to the City Not applicable. of Newport Beach. The category is generally not applied to historic tidelands and submerged lands that are resent) filled or reclaimed. Notes.' Residential densities are calculated on net acreage, exclusive of existing and new rights -of -way, public pedestrian ways, and neighborhood parks. Floor area ratios (FAR) are calculated by the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the lot area, but do not include floor areas of parking structures. Lifeguard rescue boats 2.1.2 District/Corridor Policies Districts are uniquely identifiable by their common functional role, mix of uses, density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or environmental setting. Newport Beach's coastal zone districts are in transition as existing viable districts are enhanced, underperforming properties are revitalized, and opportunities are provided to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs. Corridors share common characteristics of districts by their identifiable functional role, land use mix, density /intensity, physical form and character, and /or environmental setting. They differ in their linear configuration, generally with shallow depth parcels located along arterial streets. They are significantly impacted by traffic, often inhibiting access during peak travel periods. Their shallow depths make Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-6 them unsuitable for many contemporary forms of commercial development that require large building footprints and extensive parking. Policy 2.1.24. Development in each district and corridor shall adhere to policies for land use type and densityfintensity contained in Table 2.1.1 -1, except as modified in Sections 2.1.3 to 2.1.8. 2.1.3 West Newport The West Newport Coast Highway Corridor extends from Summit Street to just past 60th Street. It is a mixed commercial and residential area, with the former serving the adjoining Newport Shores residential neighborhood, the West Newport residential neighborhood south of Coast Highway, and beach visitors. Commercial uses are concentrated on the north side of Coast Highway at the Orange Street intersection and east of Cedar Street to the Semeniuk Slough. Intervening areas are developed with a mix of multi - family apartments and, west of Grant Avenue, mobile and manufactured homes. Residential rn West Newport Commemiatin West Newport Primary commercial uses include community- related retail such as a dry cleaners, liquor store, deli, and convenience stores, as well as a few visitor - serving motels, dine -in, family -style restaurants, and fast -food establishments. Generally, they are developed on shallow parcels of substandard size and configuration due to past widening of West Coast Highway and contain insufficient parking. Many of the commercial buildings appear to have been constructed in the 1960's to 1980's, although some motels have been recently upgraded. A portion of the mobile homes are situated along Semeniuk Slough and the Army Corps restored wetlands, while a number of the single - family homes outside the area are also located along the Slough. A mobile home park containing older units, many of which appear to be poorly maintained, is located on the westernmost parcels and Local Coastal Program Coastal land Use Plan 2 -7 a portion of the tidelands. This site serves as the "entry" to the City and as a portal to the proposed Orange Coast River Park. Coast Highway fronting properties in West Newport will be improved by concentrating local and visitor - serving retail in two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street with expanded parking, enhancing existing and allowing additional housing on intervening parcels, and developing a clearly defined entry at the western edge with Huntington Beach. The latter may include improvements that would support the proposed Orange Coast River Park. Policies: 2.1.3 -1. Work with community groups and the County to facilitate the acquisition of a portion or all of the Western Entry Parcel (designated RM /OS) as open space, which may be used as a staging area for Orange Coast River Park with public parking, public park - related uses, and access to the ocean. As an alternative, accommodate multi- family residential on portions of the property not used for open space, public parking, and public park - related uses. Require the siting and design of new development, including landscaping and public access, to maintain buffers of sufficient size to protect sensitive or rare resources including but not limited to those within the Semeniuk Slough wetland against significant disruption of habitat values. 2.1.3 -2. Allow local and visitor - serving retail consistent with the CV category in two centers at Prospect Street and Orange Street. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -8 2.1.4 Mariners' Mile Mariners' Mile is a heavily traveled segment of Coast Highway extending from the Arches Bridge on the west to Dover Drive on the east. It is developed with a mix of highway- oriented retail and marine related commercial uses. The latter are primarily concentrated on bay - fronting properties and include boat sales and storage, sailing schools, marinas, visitor- serving restaurants, and comparable uses. A large site is developed with the Balboa Bay Club and Resort, a hotel, private club, and apartments located on City tidelands. A number of properties contain non - marine commercial uses, offices, and a multi- story residential building. The vitality of the Mariners' Mile Corridor will be enhanced by establishing a series of distinct retail, mixed -use, and visitor - serving centers. Harbor- fronting properties would accommodate a mix of visitor- serving retail, marine - related Mariners' Mile businesses and vertically integrated mixed -use structures. View and public access corridors from Coast Highway to the Harbor would be required, with a public pedestrian promenade developed along the length of the Harbor frontage. Parcels on the inland side of Coast Highway, generally between Riverside Avenue and the southerly projection of Irvine Avenue, would evolve as a pedestrian - oriented mixed - use "village" containing retail businesses, offices, services, and housing. Sidewalks would be improved with landscape and other amenities to foster pedestrian activity. Inland properties directly fronting onto Coast Highway and those to the east and west of the village would provide for retail, marine - related, and office uses. Streetscape amenities are proposed for the length of Mariners' Mile to improve its appearance and identity. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -9 Policies: 2.1.4 -1. For properties located on the inland side of Coast Highway in the Mariners' Mile Corridor that are designated as MU -H, (a) the Coast Highway frontages shall be developed for marine - related and highway - oriented general commercial uses in accordance with CM and CG categories; and (b) portions of properties to the rear of the commercial frontage may be developed for free - standing neighborhood- serving retail, mufti- family residential units, or mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with retail uses on the ground floor in accordance with the CN, RM , CV, or MU -V categories respectively. 2.1.4 -2. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as MU -W, encourage marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses. Vertically integrated mixed use structures are allowed as described below. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU-V categories. On sites developed with mixed -use structures, a minimum of 50 percent of the permitted square footage shall be devoted to non - residential uses. Mixed -use structures may only be developed on sites with 200 feet or more of street frontage along Coast Highway and, in aggregate, no more than 50 percent of the waterfront land area along Coast Highway between the Arches Bridge and the Boy Scout Sea Base may be developed with mixed use structures. 2.1.4 -3. Permit development intensities in areas designated as CG to be increased to a floor area ratio of 0.5 where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial development projects that provide sufficient parking. 2.1.4 -4. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as CV or CM, encourage marine - related and visitor - serving retail, restaurant, hotel /motel, institutional, and recreational uses. 2.1.4 -5. Development shall be designed and planned to achieve high levels of architectural quality and compatibility among on -site and off -site uses. Adequate pedestrian, non - automobile and vehicular circulation and parking shall be provided. 2.1.4 -6. Require sufficient area be provided for individual uses to prevent fragmentation and assure each use's viability, quality, and compatibility with adjoining uses. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -10 2.1.4 -7. For bay- fronting properties, provide plazas and other open spaces that protect existing and provide new view corridors and access from Coast Highway to the Harbor. 2.1.4 -8. For bay- fronting properties, require that development on the Bay frontage implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors including the development of a public pedestrian promenade along the bayfront. 2.1.4 -9. For bay- fronting properties require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: ■ Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor ■ Modulation of building volume and mass ■ Variation of building heights ■ Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see- through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor ■ Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor ■ Prevention of the appearance of the harbor being walled off from the public right -of -way ■ Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors ■ Encourage adjoining property owners to combine their view corridors to achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would be achieved independently ■ A site - specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the Coastal Development Permit process. 2.1.5 Balboa Peninsula Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village are to be enhanced as distinct pedestrian- oriented centers of Balboa Peninsula that would be interconnected through improved streetscapes along Newport/Balboa Boulevard, a waterfront promenade on Newport Harbor, and cross -access between the Harbor and beachfront. Lido Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village would contain a mix of visitor - serving, retail, small overnight accommodation facilities, and housing. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -11 Throughout the Peninsula, priority is established for the retention of marine - related uses. Lido Village Lido Village is primarily developed with commercial uses including grocery stores, restaurants, salons, home furnishings, apparel, and other specialty shops. It also includes Lido Marina Village, a pedestrian- oriented waterfront development that includes visitor - serving commercial uses, specialty stores, and marine uses. Movie theater in Lido Village Cannery Village Pedestrian -oriented retail use in Lido Village Lido Marina Village has experienced a high number of building vacancies and many retail stores are underperforming. Parking is limited. Multiple property ownerships have traditionally inhibited cohesive and integrated development. Lido Village has a unique location at the turning basin in Newport Harbor. The channel is wider than in other locations, providing an opportunity for waterfront commercial uses that will not negatively impact residential uses across the channel. Cannery Village is the historic center of the City's commercial fishing and boating industry and contains a mix of small shops, art galleries, professional offices, and service establishments. Marine - related commercial (boat sales) and marine - related industrial uses (boat repair) are also found in the area. Redevelopment of properties for residential, loft, and mixed residential and commercial uses, including live /work facilities, appears to be an emerging trend. Older developments include some single - family residential units combined with commercial uses on single lots. Although the residential component of mixed -use projects has performed well, there Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -12 has been less success in attracting the commercial uses envisioned for the area particularly on the waterfront. The goal in Cannery Village is a pedestrian - oriented residential neighborhood that provides opportunities for live /work facilities and supporting retail uses. Commercial or mixed -use buildings would be developed at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for mixed -use or free - standing housing and a mix of marine - related, residential uses on the Bay frontage, and Cannery V llage boardwalk retail and visitor - serving uses along Newport Boulevard Corridor. McFadden Square McFadden Square surrounds the Newport Pier and extends between the ocean front and harbor. Commercial land uses are largely concentrated in the strips along Balboa and Newport Boulevards, with residential along the ocean front and marine - related uses fronting the harbor. Numerous visitor- serving uses include restaurants, beach hotels, tourist - oriented shops (t -shirt shops, bike rentals, and surf shops), as well as service operations and facilities that serve the Peninsula. There are several bars in the area with some featuring live music, especially along the ocean front. McFadden Square Plaza Historically, the area has been known for its marine - related industries such as shipbuilding and repair facilities and boat storage on the harbor, some of which have been in continuous operation for over fifty years. Public parking is available in three lots, which primarily serve the beach users, tourists, and the restaurant patrons. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -13 Newport Pier The goal in McFadden Square is to revitalized the area as a pedestrian- oriented village that reflects its location on the ocean, pier, and bay front, serving visitors and local residents Lido Peninsula The MLI-W is applied to the Lido Peninsula to provide for the horizontal intermixing of recreational and marine - related and residential uses, in accordance with CM and RM categories respectively. Lido Peninsula commercial Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -14 Balboa Village Balboa Village is the historic center for recreational and social activities on the Peninsula. It has had a strong marine heritage, and has attracted fishermen, recreational boaters, summer residents, and beachgoers. Many of the retail uses are visitor - oriented and seasonal in nature, including a 'fun zone' along Edgewater Place that contains entertainment uses. Marine - related commercial uses, including ferries to Balboa and Catalina Islands and harbor Balboa Village tours, are present in the area. In general, Balboa Village is pedestrian- oriented with articulated building facades, and signage that is pedestrian scale. The Balboa Village core is surrounded by residences, with isolated pockets of commercial uses scattered along Balboa Boulevard. Peninsula Park also serves the area. Balboa Village and the greater Peninsula have experienced a transition to year - round residential occupancy while the visitor uses have continued. Cumulatively, there is more commercial space than can be supported by local residents, and marginal commercial space is used by businesses that are seasonal and do not thrive throughout the year. Balboa Village will continue to serve as the primary center of the lower Peninsula, surrounded by residential neighborhoods along and flanking Balboa Boulevard. The goal is an economically viable pedestrian oriented village that serves local residents, visitors, and provides residential in proximity to retail uses, entertainment, and recreation. Main Street — Balboa Village Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -15 Policies: 2.1.5 -1. For bay- fronting properties that are designated as MU -W, marine- related uses may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V categories. In the MU -W designation, free- standing and ground floor residential shall not be permitted in Lido Marina Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Island. 2.1.5 -2. Encourage uses that take advantage of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor - serving and retail commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential above the ground floor with retail uses. 2.1.5 -3. Discourage the development of new office uses on the ground floor of buildings in Lido Village that do not attract customer activity to improve the area's pedestrian character. 2.1.5 -4. In Lido Marina Village (designated as MU -W), marine - related uses may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V categories. Free - standing residential shall not be permitted. 2.1.5 -5. For interior parcels in Cannery Village and at 15th Street (designated as MU -H), permit mixed -use structures, where the ground floor shall be restricted to nonresidential uses along the street frontage such as retail sales and restaurants and the rear and upper floors used for residential including seniors units and overnight accommodations (comparable to MU -V). Mixed -use or commercial buildings shall be required on parcels at street intersections with intervening parcels developed for mixed -use or free - standing housing. 2.1.5 -6. Allow retail and visitor - serving commercial along the Newport Boulevard Corridor consistent with the CV category. 2.1.5 -7. Accommodate visitor- and local- serving uses that take advantage of McFadden Square's waterfront setting including specialty retail, restaurants, and small scale overnight accommodations, as well as mixed -use buildings that integrate upper floor residential with ground level retail. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -16 2.1.5 -8. On the Lido Peninsula, CM development shall occupy 30 percent of the total land area and residential development shall occupy 70 percent of the land area. One residential dwelling unit is allowed for each 2,900 square feet of lot area. 2.1.5 -9. On the Balboa Village bay frontage (designated as CV), prioritize water- dependent, marine - related retail and services and visitor - serving retail. 2.1.5 -10. For the Balboa Village core properties that are designated as MU -V, encourage local- and visitor- serving retail commercial and mixed -use buildings that integrate residential with ground level retail or office uses that attract customer activity and improve pedestrian character. 2.1.5 -11. Development and use of lands designated CV (Visitor Serving Commercial) within Balboa Village may include a component that is a visitor serving private institutional facility such as a nautical museum, or similar visitor serving private institutional use. 2.1.6 Balboa Island Marine Avenue is a two -block retail district on Balboa Island. Marine Avenue reflects the unique characteristics of the Balboa Island community. Balboa Island is known for its casual and laid - back lifestyle and Marine Avenue serves as its town square. Marine Avenue has a number of small - scale, locally -owned businesses, including restaurants, retail shops, art galleries, and services. This small -town downtown atmosphere has made Marine Avenue a popular visitor destination. Marine Avenue Although Marine Avenue does not have the typical "tourist- driven" mix of shops and businesses, visitors are drawn there to experience a Southern California coastal island community. The number and variety of businesses cannot be supported by the local economy alone and without local support, most of these businesses could not survive year- round. Therefore, the continued success of the retail economy on Marine Avenue is contingent on businesses that serve both local residents and visitors. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -17 Policy 2.1.6 -1. On Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue (designated as MU -W), marine - related uses may be intermixed with buildings that provide residential on the upper floors. Permitted uses include those permitted by the CM, CV, and MU -V category. Free- standing residential shall not be permitted. 2.1.7 Newport Dunes The Newport Dunes consists of 100 acres of State tidelands property on the Upper Newport Bay held in trust by the County of Orange. This area is designated PR and is intended for recreational and visitor - serving uses. Land uses and development limits are established pursuant to the Newport Dunes Settlement Agreement. The site is currently developed with a 406 -space recreational vehicle park, a 450 -slip marina, a restaurant, dry boat storage, boat launching facilities, surface parking, and beach day use Newport Dunes Aquatic Park facilities. This area also includes an undeveloped site for a 275 -room hotel with up to 500,000 square feet of floor area, 27,500 square feet of floor area for restaurants, and 5,000 square feet of floor area for retail commercial. Policies: 2.1.7 -1. Protect, and if feasible, expand and enhance, the variety of recreational and visitor - serving uses. Particular attention should be given to provision of lower cost uses. 2.1.7 -2. New development shall provide for the protection of the water quality of the bay and adjacent natural habitats. New development shall be designed and sited to minimize impacts to public views of the water and coastal bluffs. 2.1.8 Balboa Bay Tennis Club Located in Newport Center, the Balboa Bay Tennis Club is designated MU -H /PR. This is in recognition of the private recreational tennis courts and the potential development of short-term rental bungalows and a limited number of single - family homes. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -18 Policy 2.1.8 -1. Allow the horizontal intermixing of short -term rental units and single - family homes with the expanded tennis club faculties. Permitted uses include those permitted by the MU -H and PR categories. 2.1.9 Coastal Land Use Plan Map The Coastal Land Use Plan Map depicts the land use category for each property and is intended to provide a graphic representation of policies relating to the location, type, density, and intensity of all land uses in the coastal zone. Policy 2.1.9 -1. Land uses and new development in the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -19 2.2 General Development Policies 2.2.1 Location of New Development Coastal Act policies related to the location of new development that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30250 (a). New residential, commercial, or industrial development, except as otherwise provided in this division.. shall be located within, contiguous with, or in dose proximity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases for agricultural uses, outside existing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high -rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development. The Coastal Act provides for the protection of coastal resources by requiring that new development be located in areas in close proximity to existing development with available public services to minimize the impacts associated with the extension of infrastructure and services. Most of the areas of Newport Beach's coastal zone were developed during the first half of the 20th Century. Therefore, new development within the coastal zone will occur in the form of redevelopment or infill development within or adjacent to existing developed areas. These areas have adequate public services or are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. Banning Ranch The only exception is the 505 -acre Banning Ranch property. Save for oil field facilities, Banning Ranch is undeveloped, but is contiguous to the developed areas of Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, and Huntington Beach. Banning Ranch is designated as a deferred certification area due to unresolved land use and resource protection issues (see Section 2.2.4). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -20 Policies: 2.2.1 -1. Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and 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. 2.2.1 -2. Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. 2.2.1 -3 Provide commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads. 2.2.2 Coastal Development Review In order to ensure that development within the coastal zone is consistent with the LCP and any applicable policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, the City will require a coastal development permit prior to commencement of any development in the coastal zone, with the exceptions of developments in areas where the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction, developments where an amendment to a Coastal Commission- issued permit is required, developments determined to be categorically excluded according to the categories and s.' Beachfront residential development on the Balboa Peninsula Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -21 standards established by the Coastal Commission, and developments determined to be excluded from the coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30610 and its implementing regulations. Development may also be excluded from permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 30005 (b), 30608 and 30600 (e), which address nuisance abatement, vested rights and emergency circumstances, respectively. Policies: 2.2.2 -1. After certification of the LCP, require a coastal development permit for all development within the coastal zone, subject to exceptions provided for under the Coastal Act as specified in the LCP. 2.2.2 -2. Incorporate coastal development permit procedures into the implementation plan to ensure that all public and private development in the coastal zone is consistent with the LCP. 2.2.2 -3. Prior to approval of any coastal development permit, the City shall make the finding that the development conforms to the policies and requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.2.2 -4. Implement building design and siting regulations to protect coastal resources and public access through height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, building bulk, and other property development standards of the Zoning Code intended to control building placement, height, and bulk. Beachfront homes in West Newport Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -22 2.2.3 Exclusion Areas Excerpts from specific Coastal Act sections related to exclusion areas that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30610. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, no coastal development permit shall be required pursuant to this chapter for the following types of development and in the following areas: (e) Any category of development. or any category of development within a specifically defined geographic area, that the commission. after public hearing, and by two-thirds vote of its appointed members, has described or identified and with respect to which the commission has found that there is no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to. or along, the coast and, where the exclusion precedes certification of the applicable local coastal program, that the exclusion will not impair the ability of local government to prepare a local coastal program. Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act provides for a category of development, or a category of development within a specifically defined geographic area, to be excluded from the coastal development permit provisions of the Coastal Act provided there is no potential for any significant adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources or on public access to, or along, the coast. Residential Areas On June 14, 1977, the Coastal Commission adopted Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5, at the request of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act. The categorical exclusion is for the demolition and /or construction of all single - family and two- family residences and their appurtenant facilities in most residentially -zoned districts within the City of Newport Beach within the coastal zone. The categorical exclusion, however, does not include the first row of lots adjacent to the beach, bay or Infll residential development in Corona del Mar wetlands nor is the categorical exclusion applicable to major undeveloped residential sites within the coastal zone, Planned Community zoned districts or gated communities within the City. In Resolution No. 9190, the City Council found and determined that the exclusion applies only to Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula, Cameo Highlands, Cameo Shores, Corona del Mar, Corona Highlands, Irvine Terrace, Lido Isle, Shorecliffs, the Upper Bay and West Newport. Pursuant to Section 13249 (b) of the California Code of Regulations, a categorical exclusion order automatically terminates upon the effective date of the delegation of development review authority to a local government. Therefore, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -23 Categorical Exclusion Order E -77 -5 will terminate when the LCP is certified and adopted. The categorical exclusion was adopted in recognition that the residential areas in question contained little vacant land and that new development consisted primarily of the conversion of single - family dwellings to two- family dwellings and the replacement and improvement of existing single - family and two- family residences. These residential areas consist of well - established neighborhoods. Development in the 27 years since the adoption of the categorical exclusion has continued to be in the form of redevelopment or infill projects. The permitted residential unit type and maximum density of the Coastal Land Use Plan reflect the predominant form of development in these areas. Residential floor areas and building heights have been strictly controlled since the early 1970's to insure that the scale, size, and character of new development is compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Therefore, the City will seek a new categorical exclusion for these residential areas concurrently with certification of the LCP. Commercial Areas The Corona del Mar commercial area is generally located along Coast r Highway between Avocado Street (including the southwest corner) and Hazel Drive. Only the south side of Coast Highway is located within the coastal zone. It has been zoned for commercial uses since 1936 and developed as a business district for over 75 years. The commercial area Is completely urbanized and new development is limited to a maximum floor area to land area ratio of 0.75. Coast Highway in Corona del Mar Unlike other coastal commercial areas that largely serve the visitor market, Corona del Mar has the broadest base of local - serving retailers. The portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located in the coastal zone is located 1,000 to 2,500 feet from the shoreline. Given this commercial area's considerable distance from the shoreline and minimal use by coastal zone users, there is no potential for significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on public access to the coast or on coastal resources. Therefore, the City should seek a categorical exclusion for this commercial area concurrently with certification of the LCP. Policies: Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -24 2.2.3 -1. Pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act, request a categorical exclusion for the residential areas: Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula, Cameo Highlands, Cameo Shores, Corona del Mar, Corona Highlands, Irvine Terrace, Lido Island, Newport Center, Newport Heights, Newport Shores, Shorecliffs, Upper Newport Bay, and West Newport. 2.2.3 -2. Pursuant to Section 30610 (e) of the Coastal Act, request a categorical exclusion for the portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located in the coastal zone, which consists of all commercial properties on the south side of Coast Highway between Avocado Street (including the southwest corner) and Hazel Drive. 2.2.3 -3. Incorporate the terms and conditions of categorical exclusions into the implementation plan. 2.2.3 -4. Provide a graphical representation of the terms of the categorical exclusion order by depicting the subject properties on a Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map and incorporate into the implementation plan. In case a conflict exists between the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map and the text of the categorical exclusion order, the text of the categorical exclusion order shall govern the terms of the exclusion. 2.2.4 Deferred Certification Areas Deferred Certification Area (DCA) refers to an area which has not been officially segmented for purposes of LCP preparation and where both the land use plan and implementation plan have been deferred to some future date in order to avoid delay in certifying the balance of the LCP. The Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction in all deferred certification areas. Banning Ranch. Banning Ranch consists of 505 acres located north of the Semeniuk Slough and Coast Highway West and east of the Santa Ana River. Nearly all of Banning Ranch (454 acres) is located within the City's sphere of influence in unincorporated Orange County. Oil and gas operations are conducted throughout the County portion of the property (West Newport Oil Field) pursuant to California Coastal Commission Exemption E -144. These operations consist of 483 producing, idle, injection, and abandoned well sites and related service roads, pipelines, storage, and other facilities. The property contains a number of sensitive habitat types, including southern coastal bluff scrub, alkali meadow, southern coastal salt marsh, southern black willow forest, coastal brackish marsh, and vernal pools. The property also contains steep coastal bluffs along the southern and western edges of the mesa. The bluff faces have been eroded in some areas to form a number of gullies and ravines. Future land uses for Banning Ranch are currently under review Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -25 as part of a comprehensive update of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Banning Ranch shall remain a deferred certification area until such time as the future land uses for the property are resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and gas operations, public access, and the protection of the coastal resources on the property. Policies: Banning Ranch 2.2.4 -1. Designate the Banning Ranch property as an area of deferred certification until such time as the future land uses for the property are resolved and policies are adopted to address the future of the oil and gas operations and the protection of the coastal resources on the property. 2.2.4 -2. Depict the boundaries of deferred certification areas on the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and other applicable LCP maps. 2.2.4 -3. The Coastal Commission shall retain permit jurisdiction in all deferred certification areas. 2.2.5 Nonconforming Structures and Uses As one of the older coastal communities, Newport Beach has land uses and improvements that do not conform to the standards of the LCP or other policies and regulations that have been adopted over the years. This section is intended to establish policies to limit the expansion of nonconforming structures and uses to the maximum extent feasible and to bring these structures and uses into conformity in a timely manner, without infringing upon the constitutional rights of property owners. Policies: 2.2.5 -1. Legal nonconforming structures shall be brought into conformity in an equitable, reasonable, and timely manner as rebuilding occurs. Limited renovations that improve the physical quality and character of the buildings may be allowed. Rebuilding after catastrophic damage or destruction due to a natural event, an act of public enemy, or accident may Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -26 be allowed in limited circumstances that do not conflict with other policies and of the Coastal Land Use Plan. 2.2.5 -2. In the older commercial districts of Balboa Village and Corona del Mar, allow existing commercial buildings that exceed current intensity limits to be renovated, upgraded, or reconstructed to no more than their existing intensity only where a finding can be made that the development will not perpetuate or establish a physical impediment to public access to coastal resources, nor adversely impact coastal views or biological resources. Where such development cannot meet current parking standards, such approval may only be granted if the proposed development includes at least as much parking as the existing development, and provides for or facilitates the use of alternative modes of transportation such as ride - sharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycling or walking to the extent feasible. 2.2.5 -3. When proposed development would involve demolition or replacement of 50 percent or more of the exterior walls of an existing structure that is legally non - conforming due to a coastal resource protection standard, the entire structure must be made to conform with all current development standards and applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan.. 2.2.5 -4. The enlargement or intensification of legally established nonconforming uses shall be limited to only those uses normally permitted by right or by the approval of a use permit, but which were made nonconforming by additional regulations of the district in which they are located. Such enlargement or intensification shall be subject to discretionary review and approval by the City and shall not increase the degree of the use's nonconformity. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -27 2.3 Visitor - serving and Recreational Development 2.3.1 Commercial Newport Beach has thirty-seven distinct commercial areas within the coastal zone. These areas range from small strip commercial areas to large hotel complexes. Most of the coastal zone's commercial development is in the City's older business districts. These business districts were originally developed to serve harbor- related businesses and industries and to serve the City's original residential areas. Over the years, portions of these business districts have been redeveloping to visitor - oriented retail, water - related businesses, recreational uses, and mixed commercial /residential projects. The Coastal Land Use Plan allows for the continuation of this trend, while continuing to provide businesses that serve the needs of residents and are essential to the harbor operations. Oceanfront Boardwalk near Newport Pier Visitor - serving and recreational activities are an important part of the character and economy of Newport Beach. In 2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels, motels, timeshares, and bed & breakfast inns in the coastal zone and 18 citywide. These facilities provide a total of 2,287 rooms in the coastal zone and 3,520 rooms citywide. In FY 2001, Newport Beach received 7.2 million visitors {people other than those Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -28 who reside or work here). Over 80 percent of the City's visitors are here for purposes of leisure and the vast majority are day visitors. Other visitor - serving and recreational facilities located within commercial areas include restaurants, snack bars, boat rentals, sports equipment rentals, boat tours of the harbor, boat launching facili- ties, amusement and recreation facilities, and numerous shops selling specialized merchandise. Many of these facilities have become tourist attractions in their own right, such as the Balboa Pavilion, the Fun Zone, Balboa Ferry, the entire Marine Avenue area on Balboa Island, and certain restaurants. Edgewater boardwalk in Balboa Village Most of the lands suitable for visitor - serving and recreational uses are in the commercial areas surrounding and adjacent to the west end of Newport Harbor. Most of the waterfront land in this area has been designated for recreational and marine uses. Also, individual hotel and motel sites on the Balboa Peninsula, in West Newport, and adjacent to the Upper Newport Bay and other open space areas are designated for visitor - serving uses. A 2002 retail commercial market analysis verifies that the City's main coastal zone commercial areas largely serve the visitor market. In Balboa Village, Balboa Island, McFadden Square, and Mariner's Mile, visitors (people from outside each study area) account for the vast majority of retail sales. On Balboa Island, retail sales are dominated by apparel stores, specialty retail stores, and restaurants, which generally sell to tourists and other non - residents. In McFadden Square and Balboa Village, which are adjacent to beaches, restaurants are the single most prominent retail sales category, followed by apparel and sporting goods stores that primarily cater to visitors. Visitor Spending in Coastal Zone Commercial Area Percentage of Retail Spending By Visitors Balboa Island 85.1% Balboa Village 80.9% Corona del Mar 75.8% Lido - Cannery 48.0% McFadden Square 86.0% Mariner's Mile 96.6% Source.: Newport Beach General Plan Update Retail Commercial Market Analysis, December 2002. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -29 The lower percentage of retail spending by visitors in Lido - Cannery is due primarily to the presence of two large grocery stores that serve West Newport, Lido Isle, and the Balboa Peninsula and constitute over half of the retail sales. The extremely high percentage of retail spending by visitors in Mariner's Mile is due primarily to the high concentration of restaurants, entertainment boat operations, automobile and boat dealers, and marine- related retail stores. While the coastal zone commercial areas are heavily oriented to the visitor market, some commercial areas are also underperforming economically. McFadden Square and Balboa Village have sales per square foot that are below national averages in nearly every retail category. Many businesses have to drastically reduce their hours of operation or close down completely during the winter months. This often gives an impression of economic stagnation and can detract from the ability of the commercial district to attract customers. Therefore, these areas should continue to be permitted a wider range of commercial uses in order to maintain year - around economic viability. While a high proportion of spending in Corona del McFadden Square shops on the Oceanfront Mar is by visitors, many of the categories Boardwalk represented are not necessarily visitor - oriented. About half of the retail sales are generated by grocery stores and fumiture, home furnishings, and home improvement stores. This indicates that much of the retail spending in Corona del Mar is from customers from neighboring communities, but who are not necessarily coastal zone visitors. This is to be expected since the portion of the Corona del Mar commercial area located in the coastal zone is 1,000 to 2,500 feet from the shoreline. Policies: 2.3.1 -1. Permit visitor - serving retail and eating and drinking establishments in all commercially designated areas. 2.3.1 -2. Continue to provide waterfront - oriented commercial uses, including eating and drinking establishments and recreation and entertainment establishments, as a means of providing public access to the waterfront. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -30 2.3.1 -3. On land designated for visitor - serving and/or recreational uses, give priority to visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation over other commercial uses, except for agriculture and coastal- dependent industry. 2.3.1 -4. Protect oceanfront land designated for visitor - serving and /or recreational 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 for in the area. 2.3.1 -5. Protect special communities and neighborhoods which, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor destination points for recreational uses. 2.3.1 -6. Where feasible, reserve upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses for such uses. 2.3.1 -7. Give priority to visitor - serving and recreational uses in the mixed -use areas of the Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Island. 2.3.1 -8. LCP Amendment No. 2005 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -06 Part A) to the Coastal Land Use Plan changing a portion of land, not to exceed 4.25 acres in size, designated Visitor - Serving Commercial (CV) in Newport Center to a residential designation shall require a payment of a fee to mitigate for the loss of visitor - serving land. The mitigation fee shall be used for the protection, enhancement and provision of lower -cost visitor - serving uses at Crystal Cove State Park. The mitigation fee shall be in the amount of five million (5,000,000.00) dollars to off -set the loss of the priority land use in Newport Center. The mitigation fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any coastal development permit granted for any residential project within the newly designated area and to an entity, identified by the permitting agency, capable of implementing the mitigation at Crystal Cove State Park. Until paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the coastal development permit, the amount shall be increased every July 1st by an amount calculated on the basis of the percentage change from the year 2007 in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers as determined by the entity that grants the coastal development permit. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -31 2.3.1 -9. In Mariner's Mile, require that development on the Bay frontage implement amenities that assure access for coastal visitors. Pursue development of a pedestrian promenade along the Bayfront. 2.3.1 -10. Support continued operation of passenger /sightseeing boats, passenger /fishing boats ( "day boats "), and long -term boat rentals and sales. 2.3.1 -11. Support continued short-term rental of small boats while encouraging vendors to teach customers how to safely operate the watercraft. 2.3.1 -12. Support continued operation of entertainment and tour boats subject to reasonable regulations designed to ensure the operations don't have an adverse impact, such as unsafe navigation, impaired water quality, reduced visual quality, excessive noise, unsafe street traffic conditions, or parking shortages on the environment and land uses surrounding the harbor. 2.3.1 -13. Any proposal to demolish existing overnight accommodations shall be required to demonstrate that rehabilitation of the units is not feasible. Any hotel /motel rooms for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued on or before the effective date of adoption of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 (NPB- MAJ -1 -07) shall not be permitted to convert to a Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodation, except as provided in Policy 2.3.3 -7. 2.3.2 Open Space and Tidelands /Submerged Lands Newport Beach's open space designated areas in the coastal zone include beaches, parks, golf courses, yacht clubs, and environmentally sensitive habitat areas and other natural resources. These areas provide a wide range of recreational and visitor - serving uses and facilities. Nearly all of the oceanfront land, including the entire Balboa Peninsula, is public beach. In total, there are over 276 acres of public beaches on the shoreline. There are also approximately 415 acres of recreational and view parks on or adjacent to the shoreline. Rowing in the Upper Newport Bay Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -32 Tidelands and submerged lands are State lands held in trust by the City of Newport Beach, the County of Orange or State resource agencies. These lands are subject to the public trust doctrine and are limited to public trust uses, such as navigation, fisheries, commerce, public access, water- oriented recreation, open space and environmental protection. The waters of Newport Bay and of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Newport Beach are used for a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, diving, excursions, fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing, rowing, sailing, surfing, swimming, and wind surfing. Development in the form of marinas, moorings, piers, and equipment rentals provide recreational opportunities and access to the water. The Newport Dunes Aquatic Park is on 100 acres of State tidelands property held in trust by the County of Orange. The park is leased to a private operator and provides a recreational vehicle park, campgrounds, a marina, boat launching and storage facilities, beach day use facilities, and a swimming lagoon. Policies: 2.3.2 -1. Continue to use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. 2.3.2 -2. Continue to designate lands to provide visitor- serving and recreational facilities and view parks on or adjacent to the shoreline. Pirate's Cove 2.3.2 -3. Cooperate with the County of Orange to continue to provide a variety of visitor- serving and recreational uses at the Newport Dunes, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -33 including recreational vehicle park and campground areas as a means of providing alternative and lower cost overnight accommodations. 2.3.2 -4. Continue to administer the use of tidelands and submerged lands in a manner consistent with the tidelands trust. 2.3.3 Lower Cost Visitor and Recreational Facilities Camping at Newport Dunes A significant number of single - family homes, condominiums, and apartments serve as overnight visitor accommodations. Each year, hundreds of dwelling units in coastal zone residential areas are rented on a weekend, weekly or monthly basis. Most of these dwelling units have beach or bay front locations or are located within walking distance to the water. Because they typically provide additional sleeping accommodations and fully equipped kitchens, they provide an accommodation option comparable to or less expensive than staying in hotels and going out to west Newport motel restaurants for meals. Particularly for large families, these dwelling units provide an affordable alternative to hotels and motels. In 2003, weekly rates are as low as $900. The City requires short-term lodging permits for dwelling units rented for 30 days or less to insure that Newport Beach currently provides a variety of overnight visitor accommodations in all price ranges. In 2003, Newport Beach had 14 hotels, motels, timeshares, and bed & breakfast inns in the coastal zone providing 2,287 rooms. Peak summer rates ranged from $69 to $750 per night. The Newport Dunes provides a 406 -space recreational vehicle park, with tent camping permitted. In 2003, peak summer rates ranged from $42 to $139 per night. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -34 overcrowding and public nuisances do not result in adverse impacts to residential areas, coastal access, and coastal resources (see Section 2.7). In 2003, the City issued over 800 short-term lodging permits. The City provides approximately 360 acres of public beaches and parks in the coastal zone, which are available free of charge. Also, the County's Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve and the day use facilities at the County's Newport Dunes Aquatic Park are available free of charge. These areas offer a variety of free or lower cost recreational opportunities and are discussed further in Section 3.2. The City, County, and private organizations also provide several coastal - related educational and interpretative facilities and programs that are either free or have a nominal charge. These include the Muth Interpretative Center in the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, the Back Bay Science Center on Shellmaker Island, the Newport Aquatic Center at North Star Beach, and the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum. Policies: 2.3.3 -1. Lower -cost visitor and recreational facilities, including campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, hostels, and lower -cost hotels and motels, shall be protected, encouraged and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New development that eliminates existing lower -cost accommodations or provides high -cost overnight visitor accommodations or limited use overnight visitor accommodations such as timeshares, fractional ownership and condominium - hotels shall provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations commensurate with the impact of the development on lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations in Newport Beach or pay an "in -lieu" fee to the City in an amount to be determined in accordance with law that shall be used by the City to provide lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations. 2.3.3 -2. Encourage new overnight visitor accommodation developments to provide a range of rooms and room prices in order to serve all income ranges. Consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, the City shall in no event (1) require that overnight room rental be fixed at an amount certain for any privately owned and operated hotel, motel, or other similar visitor - serving facility located on either public or private land; nor (2) establish or approve any method for the identification of low or moderate income persons for the purpose of determining eligibility for overnight room rentals in any such facilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -35 2.3.3 -3. Identify, protect, encourage and provide lower -cost visitor - serving and recreation facilities, including museums and interpretative centers. 2.3.3 -4. Encourage visitor - serving and recreational developments that provide public recreational opportunities. 2.3.3 -5. Continue to provide and protect public beaches and parks as a means of providing free and lower - cost recreational opportunities. 2.3.3 -6. Continue to issue short- term lodging permits for the rental of dwelling units as a means of providing lower -cost overnight visitor accommodations while continuing to prevent Montero Avenue Beach conditions leading to increase demand for City services and adverse impacts in residential areas and coastal resources. 2.3.3 -7. Permit limited -use overnight visitor accommodations on the hotel resort property located at 1107 Jamboree Road where such accommodations are provided together with traditional overnight, hotel visitor accommodations and which shall be subject to specific restrictions, including on: quantity (no less than 391 units shall be traditional hotel units available for transient overnight use by the general public year round and no more than 88 of the total 479 units planned may be limited -use overnight visitor accommodations), duration of owner use of such facilities (maximum use of 90 days per calendar year with a maximum of 29 days of use during any 60 day period), management of the units as part of the hotel facility and allowance for transient overnight use by the general public when not owner occupied; all of which shall be further defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit process. 2.3.3 -8. A method to define whether a facility providing overnight accommodations is low, moderate, or high cost for the City of Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -36 Newport Beach coastal zone shall be developed in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified) and through the coastal development permit process. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -37 2.4 Coastal-dependent/related Development Coastal Act policies related to coastal- dependent and coastal - related development that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30255. Coastal -dependent developments shall have priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. Except as provided elsewhere in this division, coastal- dependent developments shall not be sited in a wetland. When appropriate . coastal- related developments should be accommodated within reasonable proximity to the coastal- dependent uses they support 2.4.1 Commercial Newport Harbor supports a wide range of coastal - dependent and coastal - related commercial uses. These include passenger /sightseeing boats, passenger - fishing boats, boat rentals and sales, recreational equipment rentals, entertainment boats, boat/ship repair and maintenance, and harbor maintenance facilities. These uses play an important role in the character of the harbor and provide the services necessary to sustain one of the world's great small boat harbors. Coasta I -de pendent]- related Coastal- dependent refers to a development or use that requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all Coastal - related refers to a development or use that is dependent on a coastal dependent development or use. Over the past 20 years, a number of marine - related businesses and industries in Newport Beach have moved to inland areas. This is reflective of a regional trend, largely due to increased environmental regulation in California affecting fiberglass manufacturing processes, as well as real estate price inflation in coastal communities. The Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use category s the primary method of providing for Basin Marine Shipyard the continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related commercial uses on or near the bay. The CM designation is applied to areas that have historically provided marine - related businesses and industries and visitor - serving and recreational areas. CM uses are also permitted in the Mixed Use (MU -V, MU -H, and MU -W) land use categories located on or near the bay to encourage the continuation Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -38 of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses, as well as allow for the integrated development of residential. Policies: 2.4.1 -1. Give priority to coastal- dependent uses over other uses on or near the shoreline. 2.4.1 -2. When appropriate, accommodate coastal - related developments within reasonable proximity to the coastal- dependent uses they support. 2.4.1 -3. Discourage re -use of properties that result in the reduction of coastal - dependent commercial uses. Allow the re -use of properties that assure coastal- dependent uses remain, especially in those areas with adequate infrastructure and parcels suitable for redevelopment as an integrated project. 2.4.1 -4. Design and site new development to avoid impacts to existing coastal - dependent and coastal - related developments. When reviewing proposals for land use changes, give full consideration to the impact on coastal- dependent and coastal - related land uses including not only the proposed change on the subject property, but also the potential to limit existing coastal - dependent and coastal- related land uses on adjacent properties. 2.4.1 -5. Maintain the Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use category and allow CM uses in the Mixed Use land use categories (MU -V, MU -H, and MU -W) in areas on or near the bay to encourage a continuation of coastal- dependent and coastal - related uses. 2.4.1 -6. Protect and encourage facilities that serve marine - related businesses and industries unless present and foreseeable future demand for such facilities is already adequately provided for in the area. Encourage coastal- dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand within existing sites and allowed reasonable long -term growth. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -39 2.4.2 Public Facilities Lands designated for public facilities that are on or adjacent to the shoreline are primarily used for public parking, public safety facilities, and educational facilities. These include coastal - dependentlrelated institutional uses, such as the Orange Coast College David A. Grant Collegiate Rowing Center, the Sea Scout Base, and the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory. Kerditff Marine Laboratory in Corona del Mar Policy 2.4.2 -1. Continue to designate lands for coastal- dependentirelated educational and recreational uses. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-40 2.5 Tidelands and Submerged Lands 2.5.1 The Tidelands Trust 2.5.2 Tidelands Leases Chapter 494 of the Statutes of 1919 granted to the City of Newport Beach all tidelands and submerged lands that were within its corporate limits at that time. Additional tidelands were granted by Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927. These tidelands and submerged lands consist primarily of the land bayward of the bulkhead and portions of bay beaches in the Lower Bay. The Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-41 Statutes of 1978) regranted to the City of Newport Beach all tidelands and submerged lands that were within its corporate limits on July 25, 1919. The Beacon Bay Bill established limitations on the use of tidelands and submerged lands to those in which there is a general statewide purpose, including the establishment, improvement and conduct of a public harbor, recreational facilities open to the public, and the preservation and enhancement of the lands in their natural state. The Beacon Bay Bill also modified some of the public trust restrictions on certain properties, such as portions of Beacon Bay and the Balboa Bay Club, subject to a requirement that revenue generated by these properties be used for public trust purposes. Beacon Bay Beacon Bay refers to an area located between Promontory Bay and the Balboa Island Channel. This area was tidelands that were filled and reclaimed in the 1920s as the result of an improvement plan, which included the development of a harbor facility that would become the Balboa Yacht Basin. Chapter 200 of the Statutes of 1931 allowed the area west of the Balboa Yacht Basin (designated as Beacon Bay) to be leased for residential purposes, A 72 -unit residential subdivision was developed in the 1930s, which Public beach at Beacon Bay included 35 homes located on approximately 4 acres of State tidelands. As indicated above, the Beacon Bay Bill released the residential lots of Beacon Bay located within State tidelands from the public trust land use limitations and allows existing leases to continue. These leases are limited to terms not to exceed 50 years and lease revenues have to be deposited into tidelands trust funds. Senate Bill 573 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 1997) revised the Beacon Bay Bill to require the residential lease revenue be deposited into specific tidelands trust funds. The current lease runs to June 27, 2043. In Fiscal Year 2002 -03, the City of Newport Beach received over $729,000 in lease revenues from Beacon Bay, which were deposited in tidelands trust funds and State Lands Commission Land Bank Fund. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-42 Balboa Bay Club The Balboa Bay Club and Resort is on approximately 12.6 acres of State tidelands held in trust by the City of Newport Beach and leased to the Balboa Bay Club, Inc. The property is located on the south side of the 1200 block of West Coast Highway and was filled and reclaimed in the 1920s as part of a public project to develop the Lower Bay as a harbor. The property is currently developed with a 132 - room resort hotel, restaurant, spa, private club facilities, and 144 -unit Bayfront walkway at the Balboa Bay Club and Resort apartment complex. The State Lands Commission has determined that the use of tidelands for private residential purposes is in conflict with the public trust limitations on use. This conflict was first addressed in the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74 of the Statutes of 1978) and later in Assembly Bill 3139 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 1994). AB 3139 recognized that the lease of the apartment complex (identified as Parcel D) for residential purposes provides fiscal and economic benefits to the public trust and a means of improving public access. Under the provisions of AB 3139, lease revenues are placed in tidelands trust funds to provide facilities and services that directly support public use of tidelands and submerged lands. Income from the apartments provides an income stream that allowed the lessee to finance the redevelopment of the club to transition it from a private membership facility to visitor - serving commercial land uses. AB 3139 therefore allows Parcel D to be leased for residential purposes until no later than December 31, 2044. In Fiscal Year 2002 -03, the City of Newport Beach received over $1,870,000 in lease revenues from Parcel D, which were deposited in tidelands trust funds and State Lands Commission Land Bank Fund. The redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club was completed in 2003 and provides public access to the hotel, restaurant, spa, the main parking lot, and a public walkway to and along the bulkhead. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -43 Harbor Island Developed in 1926, Harbor Island is a 35 -lot single - family community on a private island located between Linda Isle and Collins Island. Portions of tidelands surrounding Harbor Island have been filled or reclaimed and are no longer submerged or below the mean high tide line. Harbor Island residents have improved these lands with landscaping and other improvements, The State, through the adoption of Chapter 715, Statutes of 1984, found that these lands are generally inaccessible to the public and, in their present condition, are not suitable for public trust uses. Both the County of Orange (most of the subject lands are County tidelands) and City of Newport Beach are authorized to allow the Harbor Island tidelands to be used for non - permanent recreational and landscaping uses. These leases are limited to terms of 49 years or less and lease revenues have to be deposited into tidelands trust funds. Policies: 2.5.2 -1. Administer the use of tidelands and submerged lands in a manner consistent with the tidelands trust and all applicable laws, including Chapter 70 of the Statutes of 1927, the Beacon Bay Bill (Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978), SB 573 (Chapter 317, Statutes of 1997), AB 3139 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 1994), and Chapter 715, Statutes of 1984 and the Coastal Act. 2.5.2 -2. Promote the public's right of access to the ocean, beach, and bay and to the provision of coastal- dependent uses adjacent to the water in the leasing or re- leasing of publicly owned land. 2.5.2 -3. Evaluate and ensure the consistency of the proposed use with the public trust restrictions and the public interest at the time any tideland lease is re- negotiated or renewed. 2.5.2 -4. Negotiate or renegotiate tidelands leases at the fair market value based on the uses authorized in the lease and use the funds as required by law or the public trust. 2.5.2 -5. Require public access in a manner consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act and this LCP when the City issues new leases of public land, or renew existing leases. This requirement shall be understood to apply to all other public leaseholds in the coastal zone, including beaches leased to the Lido Isle Association. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-44 2.6 Industrial Development Coastal Act policies related to industrial development that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30250 (b) Where feasible, new hazardous Industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas. 30260. Coastal- dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reasonable long -term growth where consistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal - dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this division. they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Sections 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging: (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the public welfare; and (3) adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. 30262. Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 30260,... None of the City's industrial areas are located within the coastal zone. However, portions of Cannery Village (SP -3) are designated for a mixture of general commercial and light industrial uses to encourage marine - related business. When Newport Beach adopted its charter in 1954, oil and gas exploration, drilling, _ production, and refining was banned in the City. However, one oil field operation existed prior to the ban. The Newport Oil Field Is located In the western portion of Commercial and light industrial uses in Cannery Village Newport Beach. The field was divided into two areas known as the Cagney and Beach areas. The Beach Area discovery well was drilled in 1922 and discovery well in the Cagney Area was drilled in 1947. The Beach Area has been abandoned, but there were still 3 gas - producing wells in the Cagney Area. Oil and gas operations are also conducted throughout the County portion of the Banning Ranch property (West Newport Oil Field) pursuant to California Coastal Commission Exemption E -144. Banning Ranch is a deferred certification area due to unresolved issues relating to land use, the future of the oil and gas operations, and the protection of the coastal resources on the property (see Section 2.2.4). The City of Newport Beach and other coastal communities in Southern California have long opposed the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs. Newport Beach residents and visitors rely heavily on the bay and oceanfront beaches for recreation, and much of the City's economy is based upon its natural resources. Development of offshore tracts creates visual impacts and poses the threat of significant oil spills and resulting environmental damage. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -45 Policies: 2.6 -1. In the areas designated for industrial land uses, give priority to coastal- dependent and coastal - related industrial uses over other industrial uses on or near the shoreline. 2.6 -2. Continue to monitor the federal government's offshore oil leasing programs to insure the City and its citizens are fully aware of all proposed offshore activities, which could adversely affect the coastal environment, including participation in the other similar programs. West Newport Oil Field operations Local Government Coordination Program or 2.6 -3. Oppose and lobby against proposed lease sales off the coast of Orange County and elsewhere in the Southern California region, which could adversely affect the environment or the economy of the City of Newport Beach. 2.6 -4. Assist jurisdictions in other areas of the state that are opposed to offshore lease sale programs in their vicinity. 2.6 -5. Where feasible, locate new hazardous industrial development away from existing developed areas. 2.6-6. Encourage coastal- dependent industrial facilities to locate or expand within existing sites and permit reasonable long -term growth where consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-46 2.7 Residential Development Newport Beach has a wide variety of residential development types in the coastal zone, ranging from low- density single - family detached subdivisions to high - density high -rise condominiums. Most of the residential areas in the coastal zone were originally subdivided in the early 20th Century, with many developments marketed as vacation home sites. This established the grid system of small lots and narrow streets and alleys that still exists today. These subdivision characteristics and the development of two- family and multi - family development have resulted in relatively high residential densities in Newport Beach's coastal neighborhoods. Coastal zone residential areas are almost completely built out, with the exception of the Banning Ranch area ( see Section 2.2.4). Most residential building activity consists of remodeling and /or the total reconstruction of existing dwelling units. Newport Beach's proximity to major employment markets and its desirable coastal setting have led to steadily increasing land costs. In 2001, Newport Beach was one of the ten California communities with the highest median home prices. This high market demand is manifest in a number of development issues facing the City, including development on odd - shaped or physically constrained properties, trends towards larger dwelling units, and proposals to allow residential development in commercial areas. Hundreds of dwelling units in coastal zone residential areas are rented for 30 days or less. The vast majority of these rentals occur during the summer when the demand for parking and City services is greatest. Overcrowding and public nuisances associated with these short -term rentals have resulted in adverse impacts to residential areas, coastal access, and coastal resources. Since 1992, the City has required short-term lodging permits to assist in controlling overcrowding and unruly behavior. Short-term lodging permits require the owner of the short-term rental to agree to limit overnight occupancy of the unit to a specific number of occupants not exceeding that permitted by the Building Code. Short-term rental owners are also required to use best efforts to insure that the occupants and guests are law abiding, do not create unreasonable noise or disturbances, or engage in disorderly conduct. Short-term rental owners are also required to use best efforts to insure compliance Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-47 with all health and sanitation regulations. Illegal or "bootleg" dwelling units exist in Newport Beach, experienced most often in the older, beach - oriented areas of West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island and Corona del Mar. These units are found in two typical forms: the "splitting" of a single dwelling unit into two separate occupancies, and the conversion of garages to living space. These units usually have a number of health and safety code violations, due to conversion without proper building permits and inspections. Associated overcrowding, traffic congestion, and west Newport homes illegal vehicle parking have also resulted in adverse impacts to residential areas and coastal resources. Illegal dwelling units are less prevalent than in the past, due to increased year -round owner occupancy in these areas and Report of Residential Building Records inspections that occur when properties are sold. A Report of Residential Building Records is a report issued by the City describing the zoning of the residential building, the number of dwelling units permitted pursuant to the zoning classification, and other information relevant to the use, occupancy and construction of the residential building. Policies: 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. 2.7 -2. Continue the administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. 2.7-3. Continue to authorize short-term rental of dwelling units pursuant to permits and standard conditions that ensure the rentals will not interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. 2.7 -4. Continue to require Report of Residential Building Records inspections prior to the sale of residential properties to reduce and prevent violations of building and zoning codes by providing prospective owners of residential property with information as to permitted and illegal uses and construction. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -48 2.8 Hazards and Protective Devices 2.8.1 General Newport Beach is susceptible to hazards, including, storm surges, beach and bluff erosion, landslides and slope failure, and wildland fires. Newport Beach is also susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events like earthquakes and tsunamis. It is the mandate of the Coastal Act to reduce potential risks to life and property and to avoid substantial alteration of natural landforms. In reviewing coastal development permits, the emphasis needs to be placed on siting and designing new development to avoid hazardous areas rather than relying on protective devices. Policies: 2.8.1 -1. Review all applications for new development to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. 2.8.1 -2. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-49 2.8.1 -3. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. 2.8.1 -4. Require new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. 2.8.2 Tsunamis and Rogue Waves Tsunamis A tsunami is a sea wave caused by any large -scale disturbance of the ocean floor that occurs in a short period of time and causes a sudden displacement of water. Tsunamis can travel across the entire Pacific Ocean basin, or they can be local. Large -scale tsunamis are not single waves, but rather a long train of waves. The most frequent causes of tsunamis are shallow underwater earthquakes and submarine landslides; however, underwater volcanic explosions, oceanic meteor impacts, and even underwater nuclear explosions can also cause tsunamis. The highest elevation that the water reaches as it runs up on the land is referred to as wave runup, uprush, or inundation height. Inundation refers to the horizontal distance that a tsunami wave penetrates inland. The historical tsunami record for California suggests that the tsunami hazard in the Southern California region, from the Palos Verdes Peninsula south to San Diego, is moderate. However, the Southern California historical record is very short and it is possible that Southern California has been impacted by tsunamis for which there is no record. More significantly, there are several active faults immediately offshore of the Southern California area, and any of these could generate a future earthquake that could have a tsunami associated with it. Finally, several submarine landslides and landslide - susceptible areas have been mapped offshore, within 3.5 to 14 km (2.2 8.7 mi) to of the coastline. For the Orange County coastline particularly, near -shore tsunamis should be considered worst -case scenarios, as these have the potential to cause high runups that would impact the coastline with almost no warning. The Channel Islands and Point Arguello protect Newport Beach from most distantly generated tsunamis (teletsunamis) spawned in the Pacific Ocean, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Nevertheless, since the early 1800's, more than 30 tsunamis have been recorded in Southern California, and at least six of these caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Tsunamis generated in the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -50 Alaskan region take approximately 6 hours to make it to the Southern California area, while tsunamis generated off the Chilean coast take 12 to 15 hours to reach Southern California. Given those time frames, coastal communities in Southern California can receive adequate warning, allowing them to implement evacuation procedures. Alternatively, very little warning time, if any, can be expected from locally generated tsunamis. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting or landsliding (including earthquake - induced landsliding) immediately offshore from Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst -case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. Modeling off the Santa Barbara coast suggests that locally generated tsunamis can cause waves between 2 and 20 m (6 to 60 feet) high, and that these could impact the coastline with almost no warning, within minutes of the causative earthquake or slump. The tsunami inundation maps were prepared based on several sea water levels scenarios for 100- and 500 -year tsunamis. The findings are summarized below: Tsunami Inundation at Mean Sea Level. In this scenario, Newport Bay and most of the harbor would be inundated with the potential to damage small vessels and docks. Some of the properties adjacent to the Bay would also be impacted, especially the northwestern section of Balboa Island, which is predicted to be inundated. The water level in Upper Newport Bay is anticipated to rise some but the data available are insufficient to quantify the hazard in this area. Tsunami Inundation at Mean High Water. In this scenario, Most of the harbor area, including the inland, developed portion of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay could be inundated during such an event. Near -shore sections of Lido Isle and Linda Isle would also be impacted, and Lido Isle would be cut off from the mainland due to flooding along Newport Boulevard and 32nd Street. This scenario is expected to cause considerable damage to homes in the low -lying areas and to all moored boats. Tsunami Inundation at Extreme High Tide. In this scenario, a significant portion of Newport Harbor and the low -lying areas south of Coast Highway would be inundated by both the 100- and 500 -year wave runups. The 100 -year event shows that except for a small sliver of Lido Isle, the entire Newport Bay area would flood. Flooding is also anticipated in the area where Newport Dunes Resort is located. In the 500 -year event, all of Lido Isle is expected to flood. The probability of a tsunami occurring during extreme high tide is highly improbable and represents the worst -case scenario. However, these tsunami runups are possible if a tsunami occurs immediately offshore of Newport Beach, whether as a result of faulting or landsliding. Roque Waves Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -51 Rogue waves are very high waves, as much as tens of meters high, but compared to tsunamis, they are very short from one crest to the next, typically less than 2 km (1.25 mi) long. Rogue waves arise unexpectedly in the open ocean and their generating mechanism is a source of controversy and active research. Some theories on rogue wave formation include: ■ Strong currents that interact with existing swells making the swells much higher; • A statistical aberration that occurs when a number of waves just happen to be in the same place at the same time, combining to make one big wave; ■ The result of a storm in the ocean where the wind causes the water surface to be rough and choppy, creating very large waves. Rogue waves are unpredictable and therefore making planning nearly impossible. Nevertheless, some high waves that have historically impacted the Orange County coastline may be best explained as rogue waves. If this is the case, rogue waves have the potential to impact the Newport Beach area in the future. Policies: 2.8.2 -1. Review local and distant tsunami inundation maps for Newport Beach and adjacent coastal communities as they are developed to identify susceptible areas and plan evacuation routes. 2.8.2 -2. Periodically review and update tsunami preparation and response policies /practices to reflect current inundation maps and design standards. 2.8.2 -3. Participate in any regional effort to develop and implement workable response plans that the City's emergency services can adopt immediately for evacuation in the case of a tsunami warning. 2.8.2 -4. Prepare and deploy a system of tsunami detection and early warning systems. 2.8.2 -5. Include tsunami evacuation route information as part of any overall evacuation route sign program implemented in the City. Evacuation routes off of the peninsula and islands in the Bay should be clearly posted. An evacuation route traffic monitoring system that provides real -time information on the traffic flow at critical roadways should be considered. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -52 2.8.2 -6. Continue projects like the Surfside- SunseUWest Newport Beach Replenishment program to maintain beach width. Wide beaches provide critical protection against tsunami runup for structures along the oceanfront. 2.8.2 -7. Develop and implement a tsunami educational program for residents, visitors, and people who work in the susceptible areas. 2.8.2 -8. Require overnight visitor - serving facilities in susceptible areas to provide tsunami information and evacuation plans. 2.8.2 -9. Encourage the Newport-Mesa School District to include in their earthquake - preparedness curriculum information specifically related to the natural hazards that Newport Beach's citizens could face, and what to do about them. 2.8.2 -10. Support tsunami research in the Newport Beach offshore and Newport Bay areas. 2.8.3 Storm Surges and Seiches Two common coastal flooding processes include storm surges and seiches. Storm Surges A stone surge is an abnormal rise in sea water level associated with hurricanes and other storms at sea. Surges result from strong on -shore winds and /or intense low- pressure cells associated with ocean storms. Water level is controlled by wind, atmospheric pressure, existing astronomical tide, waves and swell, local coastal topography and bathymetry, and the storm's proximity to the coast. Most often, destruction by storm surge is attributable to: scorn bey acrnewea9e Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -53 ■ Wave impact and the physical shock on objects associated with the passing of the wave front. The water may lift and carry objects to different locations. • Direct impact of waves on fixed structures. This tends to cause most of the damage. • Indirect impacts, such as flooding and the undermining of major infrastructure (such as highways and railroads). Storm surges affect primarily ocean front property, and the low -lying areas of Newport Bay just inland from the jetties. Newport Bay is less affected by storm surge. Unlike tsunamis, which can occur anytime, storm surges are associated with bad weather. Given that during bad weather fewer people are expected to be at the beach, storm surges are more likely to impact residents than tourists, and the potential number of casualties can be expected to be significantly less. The most common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low -lying areas, including structures. Coastal flooding in Newport Beach occurred in the past when major storms, many of these ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) events, impacted the area. This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds. If a storm surge occurs . during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. In the Southern California F area, including Newport Beach, localized Balboa Peninsula houses destroyed by storm surge from the flooding and accelerated rates of coastal 1939 tropical storm erosion have occurred when storms are combined with high tides. This occurred during the 1977 -1978 storms, when the combination of high waves, local storm surges and high tides damaged several coastal structures in southern California. During the storms in 1988, the high water extended to the first row of houses behind the groin field at Newport Beach causing minor flood damage to these structures. Storm surging associated with a tropical storm has been reported only once in the history of Newport Beach, in 1939. This suggests that the hazard of cyclone - induced storm surges has a low probability of occurrence. Nevertheless, the one incident in 1939 caused millions of dollars in damage to Newport Beach. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -54 Seiches A seiche is defined as a standing wave oscillation in an enclosed or semi - enclosed, shallow to moderately shallow water body or basin, such as lake, reservoir, bay or harbor. Seiches continue (in a pendulum fashion) after the cessation of the originating force, which can be tidal action, wind action, or a seismic event. Seiches are often described by the period of the waves (how quickly the waves repeat themselves), since the period will often determine whether or not adjoining structures will be damaged. The period of a seiche varies depending on the dimensions of the basin. Whether an earthquake will create seiches depends upon a number of earthquake - specific parameters, including the earthquake location (a distant earthquake is more likely to generate a seiche than a local earthquake), the style of fault rupture (e.g., dip -slip or strike - slip), and on the configuration (length, width and depth) of the basin. Amplitudes of seiche waves associated with earthquake ground motion are typically less than 0.5 m (1.6 feet high), although some have exceeded 2 m (6.6 ft). A seiche in Hebgen Reservoir, caused by an earthquake in 1959 near Yellowstone National Park, repeatedly overtopped the dam, causing considerable damage to the dam and its spillway. The 1964 Alaska earthquake produced seiche waves 0.3 m (1 ft) high in the Grand Coulee Dam reservoir, and seiches of similar magnitude in fourteen bodies of water in the state of Washington. Upper Newport Bay, the harbor and some of the reservoirs in Newport Beach could be susceptible to seiches. However, there is no record of seiches impacting the area after both local and distant earthquakes. Wind - generated seiches in Newport Bay also have not been reported. Due to the small surface area of Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay, the probability that damaging seiches would develop in these bodies of water is considered low and are not considered a significant hazard in Newport Beach. If a seiche developed in Newport Bay, the waves are expected to be low, impacting primarily moored boats. Policies: 2.8.3 -1. Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush and impact reports prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion; high tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -55 year) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 -year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event. 2.8.3 -2. Prepare and periodically update (every 5 years) comprehensive wave uprush and impact reports for shoreline and coastal bluff areas subject to wave action that will be made available to applicants for new development on a beach or coastal bluff property for use in fulfilling the requirement of Policy 2.8.3 -1 above. 2.8.3 -3. Develop and implement shoreline management plans for shoreline areas subject to wave hazards and erosion. Shoreline management plans should provide for the protection of existing development, public improvements, coastal access, public opportunities for coastal recreation, and coastal resources. Plans must evaluate the feasibility of hazard avoidance, restoration of the sand supply, beach nourishment and planned retreat. 2.8.3 -4. Continue to utilize temporary sand dunes in shoreline areas to protect buildings and infrastructure from wave uprush, while minimizing significant impacts to coastal access and resources. 2.8.3 -5. Encourage the use of sand dunes with native vegetation as a protective device in beach areas. 2.8.3 -6. Encourage the use of non - structural methods, such as dune restoration and sand nourishment, as alternatives to shoreline protective structures. 2.8.4 Hurricanes and Tropical Storms Most hurricanes that affect the southern California region are generated in the southern portion of the Gulf of California. Though no hurricane- strength storms have reportedly hit the Los Angeles basin area in modern times, damage from wave swell and weather related to hurricanes that develop in the Baja California area has been reported throughout southern California. Swells caused by offshore storms and hurricanes in Baja California can cause localized flooding and erosion of the southern California coastline. Only one tropical- strength storm has ever been recorded as actually hitting California. Near the end of September 1939, a tropical storm with sustained winds of 80.5 km/hr (50 mi /hr) came ashore at Long Beach. The storm generated five inches of rain in the Los Angeles basin on September 25th, and between 15 and 30.5 cm (6 and 12 inches) of rain in the surrounding mountains. In Newport Beach, this storm produced 30 -foot high waves (as high as a three -story building) that tore away half of Newport Pier and destroyed most of Balboa Pier, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -56 damaged portions of the jetties, several homes and small vessels, and caused numerous drownings. Other less severe but still significant storms that impacted the southern California coastline occurred during 1927, 1938 -1939, 1941, 1969, 1977- 1978, 1983, 1988 and even more recently in 1995, and 1997 -1998. Many of these wet winters have been associated with ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) events. The main hazards associated with tropical cyclones, and especially hurricanes, are storm surge, high winds, heavy rain, flooding, and tornadoes. The greatest potential for loss of life related to a hurricane for coastal communities is from the storm surge, which if combined with normal tides can increase the mean water level by 4.6 m (15 ft) or more. Waves that high would breach or extend over the Balboa Peninsula and impact all development adjacent to the coastline, including areas along Corona del Mar. 2.8.5 Sea Level Rise Half the Newport Pier was destroyed by heavy surf from the 1939 tropical storm The level of the oceans has always fluctuated with changes in global temperatures. The last ice age ended approximately eighteen thousand years ago, and since then the world has been experiencing global warming - most of the ice caps have melted, most of the glaciers have retreated, and the sea level has risen. Until about 5,000 years ago, sea level rose rapidly at an average rate of nearly 0.4 in (1 cm) a year. Since then, sea levels have continued to rise but at a slower pace. We are currently in an interglacial period, meaning "between glacial' periods, and as a result, sea levels are relatively high. However, during the last major interglacial period (approximately 100,000 years ago), temperatures were about 1°C (2 °F) warmer than today and sea level was approximately 6 meters (20 feet) higher than today. Global sea level trends, therefore, have generally been estimated by combining the trends at tidal stations around the world. These records suggest that during the last century, worldwide sea level has risen 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 inches), much of which has been attributed to global warming. Although sea level rise by itself does not cause substantial changes in the landform, several processes associated with sea level rise can have dramatic effects on our environment. For example, a significant rise in sea level would inundate coastal wetlands and lowlands, and the increased surges and swells associated with this rise in sea level would accelerate coastal Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -57 erosion and exacerbate coastal flooding, thereby threatening local structures and habitat. Other related processes include higher water tables, increased sea -water intrusion into fresh water aquifers, and increased salinity of rivers, bays, and aquifers. The warmer climate may also result in a much higher probability of extremely warm years with increased precipitation in some areas, and drought in other areas. It is clear that global changes in climate will occur, but the local impacts are still being debated. In fact, recent studies have moved away from the global doomsday predictions to predictions at the local scale. Much work yet needs to be done in this area. Previous studies suggest that a 1 m (39 in) rise in sea level would generally cause beaches to erode 200 to 400 m (650 to 1,300 ft) along the California coast. Given that the width of the beaches in Newport Beach varies between 15 and 190 m (50 and 600 ft), a sea level rise of as little as 15 cm (6 in) could have a negative impact on the low lying areas around Newport Bay that are not protected by bulkheads and seawalls. Sea level rise would also cause increased sea -cliff retreat in the southern portion of the City where the beaches are narrow, and the surf pounds at the base of the bluffs, eroding away the soft bedrock that forms the cliffs. The record of sea level rise in the last century is poorly constrained in this region, however. Gauge records up and down the Pacific Coast show substantial variations in relative sea level rise. Based on the historical records from the two gauges closest to Newport Beach, in Los Angeles and San Diego, a 15 -cm rise in sea level in the Newport Beach area may take anywhere between 70 and 180 years, assuming that global warming does not accelerate in the next few decades. These estimates are too poorly constrained to engender policy changes and development of appropriate mitigation strategies. However, sea level rise would lead to the permanent inundation of low -lying areas, with potentially significant changes in land use, so it is not too soon to develop longer -term strategies that can be implemented to cope with these changes. 2.8.6 Coastal Erosion Beach Erosion Both natural processes and humans have modified the Newport Beach coastline extensively for over the past 180 years. The Balboa Peninsula did not begin to form until 1825. The wide sandy beaches that we associate with West Newport Beach are actually the result of shoreline stabilization programs that began as early as the 1920's, and beach sand nourishment programs that began in earnest in the 1960's. The "natural" beaches that characterized the southern California coastline prior to significant anthropogenic intervention were narrow strips of dry beaches on a sand- Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -58 starved coast. These beaches would be unable to support the present -day demands for coastal access and recreation. In an undeveloped area, the availability of sand to replenish the beaches is dependent on floodwaters that bring sediment down from the mountains and into the littoral drift zone offshore. However, with the increase in dams and other flood control structures upstream, significantly less quantities of sediment reach the coast. Therefore, the sediments lost by natural near -shore processes are not being replaced. This is certainly the case in southern California, where most of the major streams have been dammed, or are lined in concrete, significantly reducing their sediment load. In the Newport Beach area, sand was historically delivered to the local beaches by the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers, and to a limited extent, as a result of coastal bluff erosion. With the construction of dams and channelization of portions of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers, there was a substantial reduction in the volume of sediment reaching the coastline. Construction of harbors, jetties, and other coastal barriers further reduced the amount of sand moved by along -shore currents. Beach sands occur from south of the Santa Ana River to the north entrance to Newport channel. Some of these deposits support dune vegetation, especially the sands forming the Balboa and Newport beaches. When the dune vegetation is well established, erosion of these sediments is minimal. However, foot or vehicular traffic and the burrowing action of rodents can easily compromise the health of this vegetation cover, exposing the near- surface sediments to erosion. Sand Is easily transported during storms Beach erosion in West Newport in the late 1960s and can erode quickly if up -drift sand sources are cut off. The narrow beaches south of the channel entrance are especially vulnerable to high waves caused by tsunamis or storm surge. Beach erosion may be a problem south of the channel entrance due to the impedance of sediment redistribution via longshore flow by seawalls and rocky bluffs to the north. The area north of the jetties is also vulnerable to inundation due to low beach relief and erosion of coastal dunes (see Section 4.1.4 for dune habitat protection). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -59 Bluff Erosion South of the channel entrance to Newport Bay, to the south of the beach nourishment project area, the coastline is defined by steep coastal bluffs with a narrow basal wavecut platform that is covered by a thin veneer of beach sand. The bluffs form steep cliffs, especially at points. The Newport Beach coastal bluffs consist of siliceous marine shales, marine sandstone, and siltstone of the Monterey Formation. The sandstone beds are resistant and cliff forming, while the siltstone beds are less resistant and form steep talus - covered slopes. Erosion of coastal bluffs due to increased water application The bedrock of the Monterey Formation is folded, and dips primarily to the east, away from the bluff face. Overlying the Monterey Formation are Pleistocene marine terrace deposits. These deposits are massive to crudely bedded, consist of medium to coarse sand with a trace of pebble -sized gravel, and are friable and locally loose. A resistant shell bed marks the base of the terrace deposits. At the base of the bluffs is a mantle of colluvium. It consists of angular, pebble- to boulder -size clasts of sandstone and siltstone. In some areas, this colluvial cover buries the bluffs almost to the top, and in some areas, the material is reworked and forms a low terrace with weak soil development. The colluvium is heavily vegetated and appears to protect the base of the cliffs against normal wave action. The elevated 100,000 -year old marine terrace deposits are prone to landslides along steep cuts (such as those along Coast Highway) and are susceptible to significant erosion by stream incision, including rilling and gullying along bluff tops. Several streams are cutting through the coastal bluffs, forming steep narrow gorges and undermining the bluffs where they emerge along the coastline. The cap of marine terrace deposits overlying bedrock of the Monterey Formation is heavily rilled along stream cuts and along the face of the bluffs; so it is retreating faster than the underlying bedrock. The shaley and silty parts of the Monterey Formation is very fissile and fractured. Sliding and slumping of this unit appears to be the primary mechanism for current Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -60 bluff retreat, with these processes occurring primarily along slopes that have been oversteepened by wave action (along rocky bluffs) or stream incisions. The more sandy parts of the Monterey Formation is the most resistant bluff - forming unit in the area. This geologic unit is prone to landsliding or mass wasting where undercut by wave action, especially at rocky bluffs or points, failing primarily as large blocks. A concern with urbanization of the bluff areas is that the bluff- forming materials become saturated when shallow ground water rises in response to the increased watering of lawns, generally in an attempt to grow non - native vegetation. Agricultural irrigation, septic tanks and leach lines also contribute to the increased water content of these deposits. This over - watering increases the weight of the sediments, lubricates any joints or fractures that can act as planes of weakness, and increases the chemical dissolution of the underling rocks. All of these processes can contribute to slope instability along the bluffs. Artificial Coastal Protection The use of artificial coastal protection structures was favored 30 to 50 years ago, when the groin Feld in West Newport was constructed. Other structures intended to protect the coast, such as concrete and wooden seawalls and bulkheads, riprap and rock aprons are located in and around Newport Harbor and the adjacent shoreline. However, it has been long observed that where such protective structures extend seaward beyond Rock groin along Newport Beach adjacent unprotected lots, immediate erosion and notching may occur down drift, especially during large storms and periods of high tide. As beach sand levels fall, storm waves tend to converge on projecting structures (i.e. groins) and the waves refract toward unprotected areas of the beach. Therefore given that improperly located artificial protective devices can have negative impacts that far outweigh their benefits, beach nourishment has emerged as the preferred method of shoreline stabilization in recent decades. Structures built perpendicular to the shoreline tend to slow the long -shore drift of sediments and thus starve the down -drift area of beach - nourishing sediments. This is seen on a larger scale with the system of groins in the West Newport. The area Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-61 east of the jetties has an erosional notch due to the blockage of littoral drift from the north. On a smaller scale, groins can have the same effect. In the case of West Newport Beach, eight rock groins were installed in the late 1960's and early 1970's to help maintain the beach. The effect of this groin field on the width of the beach is readily apparent (the beach on the northwest side of the groin field is wider than the beach where the groins are located). Southeast of the groin field, sand is being trapped by the west jetty at the harbor entrance, which stabilizes the Balboa Peninsula. The effect of these structures is complemented and augmented by regular beach sand replenishment. The protection of the beaches provides more than just a wider beach for recreational purposes and real- estate development; it serves as a buffer zone that provides protection from tsunami runup or storm surges, especially in areas where there are no dune deposits in front of residential or commercial development. Erosion stabilization measures that have been implemented in the Corona del Mar area include concrete covering on one unstable slope, vegetation along the tops and bases of bluffs, boulders at the base of bluffs, where no colluvial cover exists, and channelization of the streams to prevent further downcutting of the terrace and bedrock units. Policies: 2.8.6 -1. Prepare and periodically update comprehensive studies of seasonal and long -term shoreline change, episodic and chronic bluff retreat, flooding, and local changes in sea levels, and other coastal hazard conditions. 2.8.6 -2. Continue to monitor beach width and elevations and analyze monitoring data to establish approximate thresholds for when beach erosion or deflation will reach a point that it could expose the backshore development to flooding or damage from storm waves. 2.8.6 -3. Develop and implement a comprehensive beach replenishment program to assist in maintaining beach width and elevations. Analyze monitoring data to determine nourishment priorities, and try to use nourishment as shore protection, in lieu of more permanent hard shoreline armoring options. 2.8.6 -4. Maintain existing groin fields and jetties and modify as necessary to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects on shoreline processes. 2.8.6 -5. Permit revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff retaining walls and other structures altering natural shoreline Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -62 processes or retaining walls when required to sere coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing principal structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. 2.8.6 -6. Design and site protective devices to minimize impacts to coastal resources, minimize alteration of natural shoreline processes, provide for coastal access, minimize visual impacts, and eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. 2.8.6 -7. Discourage shoreline protective devices on public land to protect private property /development. Site and design any such protective devices as far landward as possible. Such protective devices may be considered only after hazard avoidance, restoration of the sand supply, beach nourishment and planned retreat are exhausted as possible alternatives. 2.8.6 -8. Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing development" for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure, e.g. residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit, and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping etc. 2.8.6 -9. Require property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach, shoreline, or bluff that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. 2.8.6 -10. Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Note: See Section 4.4.3 for Coastal bluff policies. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -63 2.8.7 Geologic and Seismic Geologic The Newport Mesa and San Joaquin Hills areas of the City include slopes that are surficially unstable and can become a problem during intense or sustained rainfall. Many of the geologic units underlying these areas are also easily erodible. Cuts made into these high relief areas may be unstable if planes of weakness are exposed. In addition to posing a hazard to life and property, landslides and slope failure can impact traffic flow along major routes, such as Coast Highway. Mudslides and debris flows also have the potential to impact development at the mouths of canyons and at the base of the hills. Compressible soils are characteristic of areas underlain by poorly consolidated stream and colluvial deposits. These soils have a moderate to high potential for differential settlement when a large load, such as a building, is applied to them. Compressible soils underlie a significant part of the City. Areas of the City where compressible soils are most likely to occur are active and recently active stream channels, estuary deposits, beach and dune deposits, and young alluvial fan deposits. In the San Joaquin Hills, compressible soils are commonly found in canyon bottoms, swales, and at the base of natural slopes. Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay materials. These materials can undergo significant volumetric changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressure induced by the swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements. Thick soil profiles developed on the older marine deposits west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the moderately expansive range. Potentially expansive bedrock may be exposed on natural slopes and ridges in the San Joaquin Hills, or may be uncovered by grading cuts made for developments. Man -made fills can also be expansive, depending on the soils used to construct them. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-64 Seismic The Newport- Inglewood fault extends across Newport Beach in a northwesterly direction. The southern portion of the City is underlain by the San Joaquin Hills fault, a recently discovered fault that does not extend to the surface but that could have associated, secondary faults at or near the surface. A major earthquake along any of these faults could result in substantial casualties and damage resulting in collapsed buildings, damaged roads and bridges, fires, flooding, and other threats to life and property. The San Joaquin Hills blind thrust was only discovered in the late 1990s and its geometry and behavior are not well constrained. However, an earthquake on this fault, due to its blind thrust geometry and location has the potential to be more damaging to Newport Beach than rupture of the Newport- Inglewood fault. Typically, earthquakes on thrust faults produce greater vertical accelerations than comparably sized strike -slip earthquakes (such as one on the Newport- Inglewood fault) and vertical motions are more damaging to structures. Scientists suggest the San Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault could produce a magnitude 6.8 to 7.3 earthquake. The Newport- Inglewood fault is considered the second most active fault in California. Prior to the discovery of the San Joaquin Hills fault, the Newport- Inglewood fault was thought to pose the greatest threat to Newport Beach because of its close proximity to the City, historic activity, and its recurrence interval. It runs from the City of Inglewood through Newport Beach where it extends out into the Pacific Ocean. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the range of 6.3 to 7.5 magnitudes, The 1933, 6.5 magnitude Long Beach earthquake occurred on the Newport- Inglewood fault, causing 120 deaths and severe damage. Unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed leaving people trapped beneath the rubble. Schools collapsed. The Long Beach earthquake epicenter was in the Newport Harbor area of Newport Beach. Buildings were damaged in the City as a result of this earthquake. The low population and development of the time attributed to decreased damage in the Newport Beach area. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 70 miles northeast of the City. This fault is capable of producing earthquakes in the magnitude 8+ range. Current estimates are that major earthquakes on this fault occur approximately every 145 years. The last major earthquake on the Southern San Andreas fault occurred in 1857. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-65 The Whittier fault is the northern extension of the Elsinore fault and is located approximately 20 miles north of the City. No major historical earthquakes have been attributed to the Whittier fault. However, trenching studies have documented recurrent movement of this fault in the last 17,000 years. The Southern California Earthquake Center determined there is a five percent chance of an earthquake occurring on the Whittier fault by 2024. The Whittier fault is thought capable of producing a magnitude 6.8 maximum magnitude earthquake, although some investigators propose an even larger magnitude 7.1 quake. In addition to the four fault systems mentioned above, there are several other known potential sources of strong ground shaking within 60 miles of Newport Beach. These include the Peralta Hills, Santa Monica - Hollywood, Puente Hills and Cucamonga faults. These faults could also affect Newport Beach, though not as severely. There are still many uncharted earthquake faults throughout California and several active offshore faults posing possible impacts for Newport Beach. Poorly consolidated sediments and shallow groundwater underlie portions of Newport Beach, particularly from West Newport to the tip of the Balboa Peninsula and in the areas in and around Newport Bay. These areas have a high susceptibility to liquefaction during earthquakes. Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes various types of ground failure. When liquefaction occurs, the sediments involved have a total or substantial loss of shear strength, and behave like a liquid or semi - viscous substance. Liquefaction can cause structural distress or failure due to ground settlement, a loss of bearing capacity in the foundation soils, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. The excess of hydrostatic pressure generated by ground shaking can result in the formation of sand boils or mud spouts, and /or seepage of water through cracks. The areas with the liquefaction potential are densely populated and possess considerable commercial property. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake will cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure. Newport Beach requires the properties in these areas to be built on compacted soils, which should lessen the liquefaction potential. Other secondary affects of earthquakes include ■ Fires. A high probability of fire following an earthquake results from the number of broken gas lines typically occurring during shaking. Water mains and lines often break as well, due to ground movement. The combination of fires and a water shortage seriously complicates the response to earthquakes and their secondary affects. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-66 ■ Dam Failure. Flooding caused by earthquake induced dam failure of the Prado Dam could impact Newport Beach. However, the probability of flooding due to dam failure is low since the Prado Dam is rarely full. Flooding could also result from the failure of the Big Canyon Reservoir. • Hazardous Chemical Spills. The north end and west side of the Newport Beach house a large percentage of the City's industries with large quantities of hazardous chemicals. This area would be most affected by hazardous chemical spills and hazardous chemical fires resulting from earthquakes. • Oil Spills and Pipeline Breakage. Oil fields and oil storage tanks can be seen on the west side of Newport Beach. Although the tanks are diked, a major earthquake could damage the tanks and dikes causing vast amounts of oil spillage. There are numerous underground pipelines traversing the City. An earthquake could easily cause a pipeline breakage, releasing either natural crude oil or refined petroleum products. Policies: 2.8.7 -1. Conduct hydrological studies of Big Canyon, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon to develop methods to control water quality, sedimentation, erosion, and slope failure and to protect downstream areas from debris flows. 2.8.7 -2. Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff, erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams. 2.8.7 -3. Require applications for new development, where applicable [i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards], to include a geologic /soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and subject to review and approval by the City. 2.8.7 -4. Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best available standards for seismic safety design. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-67 2.8.8 Fire Due to its weather, topography and native vegetation, the entire southern California area is at risk from wildland fires. The extended droughts characteristic of California's Mediterranean climate result in large areas of dry vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. Furthermore, the native vegetation typically has a high oil content that makes it highly flammable. The area is also intermittently impacted by Santa Ana winds; the hot, dry winds that blow across southern California in the spring and late fall, often igniting and /or spreading fires. Combine these conditions with the fact that more people than ever are living and playing in wildland areas, and the potential for major wildland fires to occur increases even further. Fires usually last only a few hours or days, but their effects can last much longer. An intense wildland fire may destroy all the vegetation. The fire also destroys most of the roots that hold the soil in place, allowing running water to wash the soil away. In addition, the organic material in the soil may be burned away or decompose into water - repellent substances that prevent water from percolating into the soil. As a result, even normal rainfall can cause exceptional 1993 Laguna Canyon fire advancing towards Newport erosion, flooding and debris flows from a Beach burned area. The 1993 Laguna Canyon wildland fire burned 17,000 acres, destroyed 366 homes, and forced the evacuation of Laguna Beach's 24,000 residents. In 1997, wildland fires charred many areas of southern California, leaving them barren before the next winter's heavy El Nino rainfall. Of the 25 large southern California wildland fires that occurred that year, ten produced debris flows after the first major winter storm, and flooding plagued eight other areas. Only four burn areas showed little erosion or runoff. Flood control facilities may be severely taxed by the increased flow from the denuded hillsides and the resulting debris that washes down. Recreation areas that have been affected may also be forced to close or operate at a reduced scale. In addition, the buildings that are destroyed by fire are usually eligible for reassessment, which reduces income to local governments from property taxes. In the aftermath of the 1993 Laguna Canyon fire, Newport Beach fire officials, in cooperation with federal, state, county, and other local officials, began analyzing the conditions that allowed this fire and others to occur. The areas at greatest risk of wildland fires are homes and structures in and around the urban wildland interface Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-68 areas. These areas include lower Buck Gully, Morning Canyon, the mouth of Big Canyon, and Spyglass Canyon. Newport Beach employs two different methods for reducing the risk of fire in these urban wildland interface areas: hazard reduction and fuel modification. Both methodologies use the principle of reducing the amount of combustible fuel available, which reduces the amount of heat, associated flame lengths, and the intensity of the fire that would threaten the adjoining structures. Hazard reduction reduces the amount of fuel within 100 feet of any structure, thus creating a defensible space used to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire and to create an area for firefighters to suppress the fire and save the structure. Fuel modification zone establishes a ribbon of land surrounding the homes designed to diminish the intensity of a wildfire as it approaches the homes. A fuel modification zone differs from a hazard reduction zone through a combination of methodologies, including the removal of native vegetation replaced with fire resistive plant species, as well as the reduction of amount of native combustible vegetation. In addition to reduction of the vegetation hazards, areas regulated by fuel modification requirements are also required to "harden" the structures immediately adjacent to the wildland area. This "hardening" is done by providing automatic fire sprinkler protection, installation of class "A" roof assemblies, installation of dual glazed windows, one -hour fire resistive construction on sides of the structure facing the wildland area, and the elimination of any combustible exterior structural elements, such as patio covers. Policies: Apply hazard reduction, fuel modification, and other methods to reduce wildfire hazards to existing and new development in urban wildland interface areas. 2.8.8 -2. Site and design new development to avoid fire hazards and the need to extend fuel modification zones into sensitive habitats. 2.8.8 -3. Use fire- resistive, native plant species from the City- approved plant list in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. 2.8.8 -4. Prohibit invasive ornamental plant species in fuel modification zones abutting sensitive habitats. 2.8.8 -5. Continue to maintain a database of parcels in urban wildland interface areas. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2-69 2.8.8 -6. Continue annual inspections of parcels in the urban wildland interface areas and, if necessary, direct the property owner to bring the property into compliance with fire inspection standards. 2.8.8 -7. Continue to regularly update building and fire codes to reflect the best available standards for fire safety design. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -70 2.9 Transportation 2.9.1 Public Transit The City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance requires new nonresidential developments that are estimated to employ 100 or more employees to reduce the number of peak - period vehicle trips, promote and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, and provide support facilities for alternative modes of transportation. Bus Transportation Public transportation services in Newport Beach are provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority District (OCTA) and consist of regular fixed -route service. OCTA operates the Newport Beach Transportation Center at Avocado and San Joaquin Hills Road. Demand for bus service from the inland areas to Newport Beach is intensified during the summer peak months. OCTA adds buses to beach routes most in demand to offset the increased load. The City's Subdivision Code provides for the dedication of transit facilities, such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters and similar facilities, by new development. The City's Public Works Department coordinates with OCTA on the location of transit facilities. Bus parking area in Balboa Village Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -71 Water Transportation Balboa Island Ferry The Balboa Island Ferry has been providing ferry service from Balboa Island to the Balboa Peninsula since 1906. Three ferries shuttle automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists across the Newport Channel, an average of one thousand people a day. The 500 - passenger Catalina Flyer provides daily passenger service from Newport Beach to Avalon on Catalina Island, transporting an average of 81,700 people each year. The City supports expanded use of water transportation uses linking the Harbor with other visitor - serving and recreation destinations and providing cross - Harbor service. Polices: 2.9.1 -1. Continue to implement the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. 2.9.1 -2. Continue to require new development to dedicate transit facilities, such as bus turnouts, benches, shelters and similar facilities, where appropriate. 2.9.1 -3. Locate and design larger commercial and residential developments to be served by transit and provide non - automobile circulation to serve new development to the greatest extent possible. 2.9.1 -4. Encourage the use of commercial and institutional parking areas for use as public parking during weekends and holidays in conjunction with public transit or shuttles to serve coastal recreational areas. 2.9.1 -5. Encourage OCTA to continue and expand summer bus service to coastal recreational areas. 2.9.1 -6. Maintain and enhance existing public water transportation services and encourage and provide incentives for expansion of these uses and land support facilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -72 2.9.1 -7. The City shall study alternative funding mechanisms to provide a low -cost public transportation system to serve beach areas impacted by traffic during summertime, peak -use periods. The City shall address feasible implementation measures for a summertime shuttle or other transit opportunities in the Implementation Plan of the LCP. 2.9.1 -8. Employment, retail, and entertainment districts and coastal recreational areas should be well served by public transit and easily accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists. Streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and recreational trails (including the Coastal Trail) should be designed and regulated to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit ridership. 2.9.1 -9. The City shall encourage employers to provide incentives for transit ridership (e.g. subsidies for transit use, shuttles to transit stations), ridesharing, vanpools, and other transportation demand measures designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 2.9.1 -10. Encourage new developments to design projects to facilitate transit ridership and ridesharing through such means as locating and designing building entries that are convenient to pedestrians and transit riders. 2.9.2 Bikeways and Trails Newport Beach provides an extensive system of bikeways and trails to serve bicyclists, equestrians, and pedestrians (see Bikeways and Trails Map). In addition to providing coastal access and recreational opportunities, these bikeways and trails also facilitate alternative modes of transportation. Policies: 2.9.2 -1. Maintain, expand, and encourage the use of bikeways and trails as alternative circulation routes. 2.9.2 -2. Continue to cooperate with state, federal, county and local agencies to coordinate bikeways and trails throughout the region. Bicycle racks at 32ntl Street end Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -73 2.9.2 -3. Develop and implement a uniform signing program to assist the public in locating, recognizing, and utilizing public bikeways and trails. 2.9.2 -4. Design and site new development to provide connections to existing and proposed bikeways and trail systems. 2.9.2 -5. Where appropriate, provide bicycle racks and hitching posts at public beaches and parks. 2.9.2 -6. Require new non - residential developments with floor areas of 10,000 square feet or more to provide bicycle racks for use by customers. Encourage smaller non - residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible. 2.9.2 -7. Require new non - residential developments with a total for 100 or more employees to provide bicycle racks, lockers, and showers for use by employees and tenants who commute by bicycle. Encourage smaller non - residential developments to provide such facilities, when feasible. Note: See Section 3.1 for public access policies. 2.9.3 Parking Parking in the coastal zone is a major issue in Newport Beach. Surveys indicate that the current supply is generally adequate in the winter for both residents and visitors. During the summer the demand for parking increases. During peak summer weekends, parking demand associated with beach and bay uses is virtually unlimited. Commercial All of the commercial areas in the coastal zone were originally developed at a time when little or no off - street parking was required. Therefore, a number of properties do not conform to current off - street parking requirements. In many coastal zone commercial areas, commercial parking demand is accommodated by on- street parking spaces and in public lots. This has created conflicts between commercial uses, residential uses, and coastal zone visitors. The City's off - street parking regulations are consistent with other coastal communities and are adequate to meet land use demands. Therefore, new development will be required to provide adequate off - street parking. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -74 The coastal zone's main commercial areas were studied during the summer of 2002 to determine if there is adequate parking. Field observations and analysis were conducted to inventory and review current parking conditions. A forecast of future parking adequacy was also conducted using a parking analysis model. West Newport. West Newport is a commercial strip on the north side of West Coast Highway between the Semeniuk Slough and the city limits. Of the 258 parking spaces, there are 4 R >a '" slightly more private off - street spaces (57 %) than public on- street spaces. There are also 174 public spaces on the south side of West Coast Highway rF dill "' in the West Newport Park lots and on ���. � � Seashore Drive. The 2002 field I observations indicate there is adequate parking on the north side of West Newport commercial West Coast Highway to meet land use demands. Public spaces along the south side were occupied with residential vehicles in the early morning and were replaced with beach traffic in the afternoon until the evening when residential vehicles returned. The parking analysis model indicates that parking in this area should be adequate to accommodate demand. Beach users mainly use the parking on the south side and it is anticipated that none of these spaces are needed to serve demand from the north side of the highway. Mariner's Mile. The Mariner's Mile commercial area is located on Coast Highway between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive. Marine - related, visitor serving, and entertainment businesses dominate the Mariner's Mile waterfront. Therefore, most coastal zone visitors in this area are patrons of these businesses. The vast majority (87 %) of 3,245 parking spaces in Mariner's Mile are private spaces designated for use by business patrons. The 2002 field observations indicate there is adequate parking during daytime hours, but that parking facilities reach effective capacity during evening hours, due to the concentration of restaurants and entertainment establishments. The parking analysis model indicates that a parking shortage should be experienced in the Mariner's Mile area during the weekday midday hours. This discrepancy with the 2002 field observations indicate that the area is experiencing a higher than normal amount of multi - purpose trips, and /or trips by alternative mode than Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -75 estimated in the parking requirements or that some land uses may not be open during the weekday midday hours as anticipated in the parking estimates. Balboa Peninsula. Lido /McFadden includes the Lido, Civic Center, Cannery Village, and Newport Pier commercial areas. The majority (56 %) of 5,393 parking spaces in Lido /McFadden are in public lots and on- street. In Balboa Village, the vast majority (73 %) of 1,267 parking spaces are in public lots and on- street. The 2002 field observations indicate that on both weekdays and weekends, public lots are used more heavily than any other type of parking and private lots have the lowest occupancy. Parking analysis indicates parking shortfalls in both Lido /McFadden and Balboa Village. Marine Avenue. Marine Avenue is a retail district on Balboa Island that is popular with residents and coastal zone visitors. Of the 134 parking spaces, Balboa Pier parking lot there are slightly more public on- street spaces (57 %) than private off - street spaces. The 2002 field observations indicate that parking is routinely at or above capacity and that parking demand extends well beyond the blocks immediately surrounding the business area. Marine Avenue on Balboa Island The model indicates a significant latent demand for parking in this area. The density of development along Marine Avenue and the pedestrian- oriented character of the development create a unique condition in this area. Land uses in the area generate trips with a much higher than normal amount of multi - purpose stops. In addition, many of the existing land uses cater to the needs of the local residents who walk to and from the sites, as well as to visitors. Therefore, the actual parking demand is less than the model is predicting. However, the demand is still much higher than the current supply. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -76 Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar is a commercial strip along East Coast Highway between Avocado Avenue and Hazel Drive. Only the south side of this commercial area is located within the coastal zone. The vast majority (88 %) of 2,031 parking spaces in Corona del Mar are private spaces designated for use by business patrons. The 2002 field observations indicate there is adequate parking to meet land use demands. The parking analysis model indicates that existing supply is more than adequate for the existing uses. Overestimated demand may be caused by a higher than expected number of multi - purpose trips or differences in the anticipated split of modes of transportation. Because of the amount of private parking in this area versus public spaces, it is less likely to have a large amount of shared parking occurring because of temporal differences in parking demand. Residential Most of the residential areas in the coastal zone were also developed at a time when there was little need for automobile parking. However, unlike commercial areas, high market demand has resulted in continual remodeling and reconstruction of residential properties. New dwelling units and remodels resulting in an increase in the number of habitable rooms are required to meet current off - street parking requirements. Street parking on the Balboa Peninsula While remodels and reconstruction have increased the amount of off - street parking, parking problems continue in coastal zone residential areas. Residential dwelling units with nonconforming parking continue to exist. Also, some garages are used for purposes other then parking, including storage, office space, or living areas. The popularity and demographics of the coastal zone sometimes leads to dwelling units with more people and automobiles than in inland areas. Illegal dwelling units also add to parking demand. Finally, some people simply prefer to use curbside parking due for convenience, particularly in areas where garages are accessed via narrow alleys. As a result, a significant number of coastal zone residents use public street parking or public lots instead of private off - street parking. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -77 Policies: 2.9.3 -1. Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. 2.9.3 -2. Continue to require new development to provide off - street parking sufficient to serve the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking available for coastal access. 2.9.3 -3. Require that all proposed development maintain and enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate parking pursuant to the off - street parking regulations of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005. 2.9.3 -4. Periodically review and update off - street parking requirements to ensure that new development provides off - street parking sufficient to serve approved uses. 2.9.3 -5. Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. 2.9.3 -6. Prohibit new development that would result in restrictions on public parking that would impede or restrict public access to beaches, trails or parklands, (including, but not limited to, the posting of "no parking" signs, red curbing, and physical barriers), except where such restrictions are needed to protect public safety and where no other feasible alternative exists to provide public safety. 2.9.3 -7. If public parking restrictions are allowed to protect public safety, require new development to provide an equivalent quantity of public parking nearby as mitigation for impacts to coastal access and recreation, where feasible. 2.9.3 -8. Continue to require properties with nonconforming parking to provide code - required off - street parking when new uses, alterations or additions result in increased parking demand. 2.9.3 -9. Approve no application for a modification or waiver of off - street parking requirements that are found to impact public parking available for coastal access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -78 2.9.3 -10. Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new public parking wherever feasible. 2.9.3 -11. Continue to require alley access to parking areas for all new development in areas where alley access exists. 2.9.3 -12. Provide incentives to encourage lot consolidation where lots are of insufficient size to accommodate on -site parking and sufficient commercial intensity of development. 2.9.3 -13. Encourage commercial and institutional development located near beaches and other coastal resources to provide parking for public access during weekends and holidays. 2.9.3 -14. Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas that achieve the following: • Provides adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons, and visitors of the coastal zone; ■ Optimizes use of existing parking spaces; • Provides for existing and future land uses; • Reduces traffic congestion; • Limits adverse parking impacts on user groups; • Provides improved parking information and signage; • Generates reasonable revenues to cover City costs; • Accommodates public transit and alternative modes of transportation. 2.9.3 -15. Set in -lieu parking fees commensurate with actual market value for the provision of off - street parking. 2.9.3 -16. Continue to rigorously enforce parking ordinances. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -79 f _ City of Newport Beach, California t? Local Coastal Program `e ° Coastal Land Use Plan - ., A VV S. 10� City Boundary Banning Ranch Deferred Certification Area West Newport Figure 2.1.3 -1 Local Coastal Program 0 250 500 1.000 Coastal Land Use Plan p Icp_lu am ntl Fgum2 -1 -8-1 ,mxd July12009 2-82 �P� 1 7TTT'f—1 1 `♦ i PJ TURNING vr� r ,�� Coastal ZoneBoundary a� �P BASIN, �w .. r kill Cash Mesa E • .. 4'. x cityflMne Balboa Bay Club PaceSC OCean �' oti s \I r /r / kTI ... 0 Mariner's Mile Figure 2.1.4 -1 e 9 ... #, I` Local Coastal Program o z5o soo i.o Fee Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -0O0 p kp Iu_ementl Rgum24 -0 -0..d July /2009 J =' m 14 TURNING 8. A :SIN �: Lido Marina Village :': �` Lido Vllage ��. VIA CI Cann Lido Village / Cannery e {. °w?� Lido Peninsula I McFadden - "' `m Figure 2.1.5 -1 Local Coastal Program o 250 Soo 1.000 \ Coastal Land Use Plan 2-84 Feet Icp W_a—. Fig.1.2.1 5-1 -x JVIy12WP x F- X 15th Street p Figure 2.1.5 -2 Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan oGG Icp_lu 3men4 Figure2-0 5 2. -z ApnI000i 2 -85 e 0 125 250 500 Feel CM'- arrNne I ' Crtya r � ir5: ?� ag�I0e 8eachi i +' Balboa Village RN Figure 2.1.5 -3 ' Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan e 0 130 260 520 Feet Agate Ave J� W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _ �, ManneAve VT$' Mw° a Y " O €. CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE J. z rF ADO Q Z PARK AVE p 12 250. ?s,3Y:50 F rl 2 -87 LIMA Balboa Island Commercial 4 Figure 2.1.6 -1 c r% A£ J fl X cayor y corm hlo5a \ cM orlrvi�re �� v rt guna Beach 0 °: <:.'. 75 as J� W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _ �, ManneAve VT$' Mw° a Y " O €. CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE J. z rF ADO Q Z PARK AVE p 12 250. ?s,3Y:50 F rl 2 -87 LIMA Balboa Island Commercial 4 Figure 2.1.6 -1 c r% A£ J fl X cayor y corm hlo5a \ cM orlrvi�re �� Pacific Ocean rf rt guna Beach 0 °: <:.'. 75 as J� W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _ �, ManneAve VT$' Mw° a Y " O €. CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE J. z rF ADO Q Z PARK AVE p 12 250. ?s,3Y:50 F rl 2 -87 LIMA Balboa Island Commercial Figure 2.1.6 -1 c r% Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Icn Li —M Piniim? -IA -1 mA AnnWW7 J� W1m •: = 1';° Y 7 i1''.ri.' _ �, ManneAve VT$' Mw° a Y " O €. CA .-. P AB ALONE PLBO BALE RAVE Ir BALBOA AVE J. z rF ADO Q Z PARK AVE p 12 250. ?s,3Y:50 F rl 2 -87 LIMA Balboa Bay Tennis Club a �{ Figure 2.7.8 -1 t` Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 2 -89 0 125 250 500 Feet 3.0 Public Access and Recreation 3.1 Shoreline and Bluff Top Access 3.1.1 Shoreline Access In terms of implementing the Coastal Act, there are two basic types of public access: vertical access, or access to the shoreline, and lateral access, or access along the shoreline. Newport Beach has developed an extensive system of access to ocean beaches and the bay (see Coastal Access Map). Virtually all of the Pacific Ocean shoreline beaches are public and the bay is accessible via public beaches, parks, shoreline trails, walkways and boardwalks. The City will continue to require all new development, causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, to provide easements or dedications in areas where public access is inadequate. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -1 Pacific Ocean Beaches West Newport/Balboa Peninsula West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula have over 5 miles of wide, sandy beaches. Vertical access to these beaches is provided by 89 street ends, which occur every 200 to 500 feet. The Oceanfront Boardwalk runs along the beach for approximately 3 miles from 36th Street in West Newport to F Street on the Peninsula. This multi -use concrete walkway is 12 to 22 foot wide and is popular with pedestrians, bicyclists, and skaters. Oceanfront Boardwalk at I Street Corona del Mar. City- operated Corona del Mar State Beach (Big Corona) is a half mile -long sandy beach located southerly of the Newport Harbor entrance. Vertical access to this beach is provided by an access road near the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Jasmine Avenue and by walkways at Lookout Point and Inspiration Point view parks on Ocean Boulevard. Little Corona Beach is a small sandy cove with rocky intertidal platform reefs. The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is offshore. Vertical access is provided by a walkway at Poppy Avenue (Glen Drive). The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area contains natural habitats and the provision of additional public access on Little Corona Beach must be consistent with the protection of these resources. Big Corona Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -2 Lower Newoort Bay /Harbor Waterfront commercial areas also provide vertical and lateral access to Lower Newport Bay. Commercial developments in Lido Village, Cannery Village, McFadden Square, and Balboa Village and on the Lido Peninsula provide public access easements to and along the waterfront. In most cases, these easements have been integrated into the project's design, such as restaurants with outdoor waterfront dining areas and boarding areas for charter and excursion vessels. New development will present additional opportunities to extend and enhance waterfront access in these areas. Particular attention should be given to extending the Lido Manna Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront commercial properties in Lido Village and to provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel to connect the Cannery Lido Marina Village boardwalk Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 1grh Street. A connection from Lido Village to Mariner's Mile should also be provided, if feasible. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -3 Mariner's Mile. The Mariner's Mile is a commercial area with a shoreline consisting of bulkheads. Commercial and institutional developments in Mariner's Mile provide public access easements to and along the waterfront. Although the easements are fragmented, with new development, there is an opportunity to provide a continuous waterfront walkway from the Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club. Bayside. The Bayside area shoreline Mariners Mile consists mainly of bulkheads, with a few small beaches. Beacon Bay Beach (Lot 1) is accessible from Beacon Bay Drive via walkways at the Cape Cove, Shelter Cove, and Reef Cove Street ends. Bayside Drive County Beach is accessible from Bayside Drive via the Orange County Harbor Patrol facility. Lateral access to Promontory Bay is provided by a walkway along Bayside Drive and a public access easement along the bulkhead adjacent to Newport Marina Apartments. This public access easement connects to a quarter mile walkway on a floating dock in the Balboa Island Channel. Lateral access is also provided around the Balboa Yacht Basin. Balboa Island. Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar's bayside shoreline is at the harbor entrance and is characterized by high coastal bluffs with a few small sandy coves. China Cove is accessible from Cove Street and Shell Street. Rocky Point (Pirate's Cove) is accessible by a trail at Lookout Point on Ocean Boulevard and Corona del Mar State Beach. There is also a small pocket park in an unnamed street end off of the 2300 block of Bayside Drive that provides access to Carnation Cove. Lido Isle. On Lido Isle, vertical access to the Lower Bay is provided by walkways within 13 street end easements. These street ends are leased to Lido Isle Association with the condition that the association maintain and operate all walkways in a manner that allows for open public access. There are also public beaches at Via Genoa (Parcel B) and at Via Trieste (Parcel C). All of Balboa Island's beaches are public. There are 33 street ends Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3-4 that provide vertical access and the Bay Front Boardwalk that circles the island enhances lateral access. There are also 4 street ends that provide access to the Grand Canal. Upper Newport Bay The Upper Newport Bay is coastal wetlands bordered by 40 to 100 -foot high bluffs. Most of the Upper Newport Bay area is in the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. Due to the steep coastal bluffs and high number of sensitive environmental resources within the marine park, access is more restricted than other coastal areas. Still, ample public access is available. The 752 -acre Upper Newport Bay Marine Park preserves one of the largest coastal Upper Newport Bay Marine Park wetlands in Southern California. In addition to protecting its diverse habitats, the marine park provides canoe, kayak, and walking tours. Shellmaker Island in the marine park serves as a staging area for tours of the Upper Newport Bay. Shellmaker Island is only open to the public when programs and tours are scheduled and is accessible from Back Bay Drive. The marine park is also accessible from University Drive and Back Bay Drive. Back Bay Drive The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is located on the bluffs on the north and northwest sides of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. This 140 -acre regional park provides hiking, bike, equestrian trails to and along the marine park. The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is accessible from University Drive and Bayview Way. Access to and along the Upper Newport Bay is also provided by Back Bay Drive, a 3.5 -mile multi - model road that runs along the base of the bluff on the easterly side of the bay. Back Bay Drive begins at Jamboree Road and ends at East Bluff Drive, where it connects with a trail that continues west of Jamboree Road and along San Diego Creek into central Orange County. The Lookout at the corner of Back Bay Drive and East Bluff Drive serves Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -5 as a staging area for tours of the bay. On the west side of the bay, access is provided via North Star Beach. North Star Beach has a sandy beach and is the site of the Newport Aquatics Center, a public recreation and launching facility. North Star Beach is accessible from White Cliffs Drive, off of Polaris Drive. The area north of the Newport Aquatics Center contains natural habitats and the provision of additional public access in this area must be consistent with the protection of these resources. On the east side of the bay, access is provided by Big Canyon Nature Park. Big Canyon Nature Park is a passive open space area that provides hiking trails from Jamboree Road to the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. The mouth of Big Canyon contains natural habitats and the provision of additional public access must be consistent with the protection of these resources. Semeniuk Slough Semeniuk Slough, also referred to as the Oxbow Loop, is a coastal salt marsh. The slough is accessible via 9 street ends in Newport Shores and the Newport Shores View Park. The provision of public access must be consistent with the protection of the adjacent natural resources. Policies: 3.1.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. 3.1.1 -2. Protect and enhance all existing public street ends providing public access to the shoreline, beaches, coastal parks, and trails. 3.1.1 -3. Develop and implement a uniform coastal access signing program to assist the public in locating, recognizing, and utilizing public access trails. Where appropriate, include information advising the public of environmentally sensitive habitats, safety hazards, and to respect adjacent private property. Boardwalk through coastal sage scrub habitat Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -6 3.1.1 -4. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including signs and fences, which inhibit public access. 3.1.1 -5. Allow public access improvements in environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) when sited, designed, and maintained in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to the ESHA. 3.1.1 -6. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, the State Coastal Conservancy, Orange County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, and trails. 3.1.1 -7. Continue to protect the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through historic use or legislative authorization. Where substantial evidence of prescriptive rights exists, actively pursue public acquisition or require access easements as a condition for new development. 3.1.1 -8. Where there is substantial evidence that prescriptive rights of access to the beach exist on a parcel, development on that parcel must be designed, or conditions must be imposed, to avoid interference with the prescriptive rights that may exist or to provide alternative, equivalent access. 3.1.1 -9. Protect, expand, and enhance a system of public coastal access that achieves the following: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -7 Does not violate private property rights. 3.1.1 -10. Cooperate with state agencies in planning and implementing the Newport Beach segment of the California Coastal Trail. 3.1.1 -11. Require new development to minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline. 3.1.1 -12. Implement building design and siting regulations to protect public access through setback and other property development regulations of the Zoning Code that control building placement. Walkway and bikeway along Promontory Bay 3.1.1 -13. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral public access for all new shorefront development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Such dedication or easement shall extend from the limits of public ownership (e.g. mean high tide line) landward to a fixed point seaward of the primary extent of development (e.g. intersection of sand with toe or top of revetment, vertical face of seawall, dripline of deck, or toe of bluff). 3.1.1 -14. Require a direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, unless adequate access is available nearby. Vertical accessways shall be a sufficient size to accommodate two -way pedestrian passage and landscape buffer and should be sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from existing or proposed development to the maximum feasible extent. 3.1.1 -15. Encourage the acceptance, improvement and opening of OTDs to the public by the City, a public agency, a private association, or other appropriate entity. 3.1.1 -16. Require all direct dedications or OTDs for public access to be made to a public agency or other appropriate entity that will operate the accessway on behalf of the public. Require accessways to be opened to the public Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -8 once an appropriate entity accepts responsibility for maintenance and liability. 3.1.1 -17. Require new development in waterfront commercial areas to provide public access easements to and along the waterfront. Where appropriate, integrate public access easements into the project designs, such as restaurants with outdoor waterfront dining areas and boarding areas for charter and excursion vessels. 3.1.1 -18. Require new development on ocean- fronting, residentially zoned properties located between the Santa Ana River Jetties and the Newport Harbor West Jetty to conform to the setback requirements of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 to prevent impacts to public access. 3.1.1 -19. Develop and implement a long -range plan for public 15'h Street Beach trails and walkways to access all appropriate commercial areas of the harbor. 3.1.1 -20. Extend the Lido Marina Village boardwalk across all of the waterfront commercial properties in Lido Village. 3.1.1 -21. Provide a continuous waterfront walkway along the Rhine Channel connecting Cannery Village and McFadden Square waterfront commercial areas with Las Arenas Beach at 19"' Street. 3.1.1 -22. Provide a walkway connecting the Lido Village area with Mariner's Mile, if feasible. 3.1.1 -23. Provide a continuous walkway along the Mariner's Mile waterfront from the Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge to the Balboa Bay Club. 3.1.1 -24. Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. 3.1.1 -25. Where marine sales and service equipment and operations present Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -9 security or public safety concerns, waterfront access detours may be necessary in some areas in order to maintain facilities and services essential to the operation of the harbor. 3.1.1 -26. Consistent with the policies above, provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. 3.1.1 -27. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. 3.1.1 -28. Encourage the creation of waterfront public spaces and beaches, with adjacent water access and docking facilities that serves as the identity and activity "centers" of Newport Harbor for special events of community/regional interest. Balboa Pier Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -10 1 Balboa Pier Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -10 3.1.2. Bluff Top Access In addition to direct access to and along the shoreline, Newport Beach has worked to preserve a number of prominent bluff top locations for public viewing of the shoreline (see Coastal Access and Recreation Map). Castaways View Park West Newport. The Sunset View Park provides an ocean view trail along the bluff top above the lower campus of Hoag Hospital. This park is accessible from Superior Avenue. The planned extension of this park to Superior Avenue will provide a connection to a bluff top trail in a park planned on the undeveloped CalTrans West property. Connections to future bluff top trails and parks developed in conjunction with future development in the Banning Ranch property present the opportunity for a continuous bluff top trail through West Newport. Lookout Point Newport Heights /Cliff Haven. Cliff Drive Park, Ensign Park, and Kings Road Park are located on the bluff top above Mariner's Mile and Coast Highway. These parks provide views of the Lower Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Cliff Drive Park and Ensign Park are accessible from Cliff Drive. Kings Road Park is accessible from Kings Road. Corona del Mar. A half -mile linear view park that provides spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean is located along the bluff top above Corona del Mar State Beach. The park begins at Lookout Point above Pirate's Cove and runs along Ocean Boulevard to Inspiration Point at the end of Orchid Avenue. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -11 Upper Newport Bay. Castaways Park is a 17.4 -acre view park. Castaways Park has bike and hiking trails and overlooks that provide panoramic views of the Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Castaways Park is accessible from Dover Drive and Polaris Drive. Castaways Park contains natural habitats, which are separated and protected from public recreation and viewing areas. Westcliff Park, Galaxy Park, and Bayview Park are bluff top parks Bluff habitat protected at Castaways Park that provide views of the Upper Newport Bay. Westcliff Park is accessible from Polaris Drive. Galaxy Park is accessible from Galaxy Drive. Bayview Park is accessible from Mesa Drive. The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve is a 140 -acre regional park that surrounds the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. The park provides hiking, bike, and equestrian trails and is accessible from Irvine Avenue, University Drive and Bayview Way. Newporter Knoll is a 12 -acre passive open space area located on the bluff above Shellmaker Island. The 4 -acre Newporter North View Park is adjacent and provides a bluff top trail and overlook. The Newporter North View Park is accessible from San Joaquin Hills Road. Both areas contain natural habitats and the provision of additional public access must be consistent with the protection these resources. A 10.74 -acre passive open space and view park is planned for the bluff above the Newport Dunes. The Upper Bayview Landing park site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. This park will provide views of the bay and serve as a staging area for bicyclists and pedestrians. Policies: 3.1.2 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. 3.1.2 -2. Site, design, and maintain public access improvements in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs (see Section 4.4.3). 3.1.2 -3. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, the State Coastal Conservancy, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -12 Orange County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance public access to and along coastal bluffs. 3.1.3 Beach Encroachments On June 11, 1991, the Coastal Commission approved the Oceanfront Encroachment Policy (Amendment No. 1 23), which established a policy and -rt mitigation program relating to private improvements within the Oceanfront ` public right -of -way. The City Council finalized this policy with the adoption of Resolution No. 91 -80 on July 11, 1991. This policy established conditions and restrictions on the nature and extent of these improvements and a mitigation program involving the reconstruction of West Newport street end 33 unimproved street ends between 36th Street and Summit Street to provide additional parking and improved public access. In 2002, the final five street ends were reconstructed. Pursuant to the mitigation program, a minimum of 85 percent of the encroachment fees will be used for the construction and maintenance of improvements which directly benefit the beach - going public such as parking spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along the beach and similar projects. Policies: 3.1.3 -1. Continue to maintain and improve the Oceanfront public right -of -way for public access purposes. 3.1.3 -2. Continue to restrict the nature and extent of improvements that may be installed over public rights of way on the oceanside of beachfront residences and to preserve the City's right to utilize oceanfront street easements for public projects. 3.1.3 -3. Limit the maximum oceanward extent of encroachments to the following encroachment zones: A. Santa Ana River to 52nd Street. A maximum of 15 feet oceanward of the rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation of the side property lines. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -13 B. 52nd Street to 36th Street. A maximum of 10 feet oceanward of the rear (ocean facing) property line within the oceanward prolongation of the side property lines. C. 36th Street to E Street. Between A Street and a point 250 feet southeast of E Street, up to the inland edge of the Oceanfront Boardwalk (7 to 8 feet oceanward of the rear property line) and within an oceanward prolongation of the side property lines. D. E Street to Channel Road. No encroachments are permitted from a point 250 feet southeast of E Street to Channel Road, with the exception of landscaping trees existing prior to October 22, 1991 and groundcover. 3.1.3 -4. Limit encroachments within encroachment zones as follows: A. Prohibit any structural, electrical, plumbing or other improvements that require issuance of a building permit. B. Prohibit pressurized irrigation lines and valves. C. Prohibit any object that exceeds 36 inches in height, with the exception of landscaping. D. Prohibit any encroachments that impact public access, recreation, views and /or coastal resources. E. Require landscapi ng to be designed and maintained to avoid impacts to public access and views. F. Restrict landscaping in dune habitat areas to native vegetation. 3.1.3 -5. Require annual renewal of encroachment permits and a fee. 3.1.3 -6. Require encroachment permits to specify that the property owner waives and gives up any right to contest the validity of the oceanfront street easement, and that the encroachment permit is revocable, without cause, if the City proposes to construct public improvements within that zone. 3.1.3 -7. Require encroachment permits to specify that the construction of any seawall, revetment or other erosion control devices, if necessary, shall occur within, or as close as feasible to, private property. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -14 3.1.3 -8. Incorporate into the implementation plan regulations specifying the types of improvements permitted within encroachment zones, a prohibition on improvements that could impair or restrict public access or views, procedures for the encroachment permit applications, City administration of the policy, and other appropriate provisions. 3.1.3 -9. As mitigation for any impact on beach access resulting from the encroachments: A. Maintain 33 street ends between 36th Street and Summit to provide an average of 2 parking spaces per street, and additional spaces where feasible. B. Meter West Newport street West Newport street end improvements end parking spaces in the same manner as the West Newport Park in order to encourage public use of the spaces. C. Maintain a hard surface walkway perpendicular to Seashore Drive at Orange Avenue. The walkway shall extend oceanward a sufficient distance to allow a view of the surfline by an individual seated in a wheelchair. At least one handicapped parking space shall be designated at the Orange Avenue street end and at least one other handicapped parking space at one other West Newport street end. D. Require a minimum of 85 percent of the fees generated by encroachments will be used for the construction and maintenance of improvements which directly benefit the beach -going public such as parking spaces, restrooms, vertical or lateral walkways along the beach and similar projects. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -15 3.1.4 Bay /Harbor Encroachments Shore connected structures, such as piers, floats, and bulkheads have long been permitted in the bay and harbor. Newport Beach, in conjunction with Federal, State, and County agencies, has established a set of Harbor Lines to define bayward limits for various types of structures. Harbor Lines and other regulations were originally established to insure navigable channels and safe harbor operations and to minimize conflicts with adjacent properties. However, such regulations are increasingly used as a means of protecting public views and public access. Policies: Residential piers 3.1.4 -1. Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor structures within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead Lines, and Project Lines. 3.1.4 -2. When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval from the County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other resource management agencies, prior to issuing permits. 3.1.4 -3. Design and site piers, including remodels of and additions to existing piers so as not to obstruct public lateral access and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal resources. 3.1.4 -4. In residential areas, limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers and floats. Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing. 3.1.4 -5. Encourage the joint ownership of piers at the prolongation of common lot lines as a means of reducing the number of piers along the shoreline. 3.1.4 -6. Continue to prohibit private piers at street ends. 3.1.4 -7. Design and site bulkheads to protect the character of the existing shoreline profiles and avoid encroachment onto public tidelands. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -16 3.1.4 -8. Limit bulkhead expansion or encroachment into coastal waters to the minimum extent necessary to repair, maintain, or replace an existing bulkhead and do not allow the backfill to create new usable residential land areas. 3.1.5 Private /Gated Communities Throughout Southern California, access to the shoreline is restricted to the public due to private residential communities. Exclusive gated communities in some cases totally circumvent public access to the shoreline. Such communities present a major issue in terms of protecting, expanding, and enhancing coastal access. Most of the shoreline in Newport Beach is publicly owned and accessible. However, there are a few private residential communities that impede public access to and along the shoreline. These communities are Balboa Coves, Bay Island, Bayshores, Bayside Place, Collins Island, De Anza Bayside Village, Linda Isle, and Harbor Island. Some of these communities are on small private islands. They do not impede access to public beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs; however, they do block public access to and along their immediate shoreline. Balboa Coves, Bayside Place, Bayshores and De Anza Bayside Village are on the mainland, but are situated so as not to block public access other than to their immediate shoreline. In all of these areas, the shoreline consists mainly of bulkheads with a few small and isolated sandy beaches. De Anza Bayside Village Balboa Coves. Balboa Coves is a 68 -lot single - family gated community located on the Newport Island Channel southwest of the Newport Boulevard /Coast Highway Bridge. The community is accessible from Coast Highway via Balboa Coves, a private street. The shoreline is on the south side of the community and consists of a series of manmade coves with narrow sandy beaches. Bay Island. First developed around 1904, Bay Island is a 25 -unit (currently developed with 24 units, including one caretaker's unit) single family cooperative on a private island in the Newport Channel. A gated pedestrian bridge at the end of Island Avenue connects Bay Island with the Balboa Peninsula. Motor vehicles are prohibited on the island. Off - street parking for residents is provided at a 48 -space parking structure located at 501 West Bay Avenue. The shoreline consists mainly of Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -17 bulkheads, with the exception of the east side of the island, which has a relatively wide sandy beach. Bayshores. Developed in 1941, Bayshores is a 258 -lot single - family gated community located on the Lido Channel southwest of the Coast Highway /Newport Bay Bridge. The 39 -unit Anchorage Apartments is also located within the community. The community is accessible from Coast Highway via Bay Shores Drive, a private street. The shoreline is on the south and east sides of the community and consists of bulkheads and two small sandy beaches. Bayside Place. Bayside Place is a 7 -lot single - family gated community located off of the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. The community is accessible from Bayside Drive via Bayside Place, a private street. The shoreline (Carnation Cove) consists of bulkheads and rocky beaches. Public access to the shoreline is available at an adjacent street end pocket park. Collins Island. Created in 1906, Collins Island is a 7 -lot single - family community on a private island in the Balboa Island Channel. A gated bridge at the end of Park Avenue connects Collins Island with Balboa Island. The shoreline consists of bulkheads. De Anza Bayside Village. De Anza Bayside Village is a 343 -space mobile home park located on the Upper Newport Bay adjacent to the Newport Dunes. The community is accessible to Bayside Drive via Bayside Way, a private street. The shoreline is on the north side of the community and consists of bulkheads and a small sandy beach at the community center. The community includes the undeveloped De Anza / Bayside Marsh Peninsula, Harbor Island. Developed in 1926, Harbor Island is a 35 -lot single - family community on a private island located between Linda Isle and Collins Island. A gated bridge connects Harbor Island to the mainland at the end of Harbor Island Road. The shoreline consists mainly of bulkheads. The State, through the adoption of Chapter 715, Statues of 1984, found that tidelands surrounding Harbor Island are generally inaccessible to the public and not suitable for public trust uses (see Section 2.5.2). Harbor Island Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -18 Linda Isle. Created in 1933 and developed in the 1960s, Linda Isle is a 107 -lot single - family community on a private island southwest of the Coast Highway Bridge. A gated bridge connects Linda Isle to the mainland at Bayside Drive. The shoreline consists of bulkheads and a small sandy beach. All of these communities are long established. New development is generally of a type and scale that does not have a direct adverse impact on existing public access. Such new development generally consists of additions or demolition and subsequent reconstruction of existing structures. Requiring public access under such circumstances would not present a reasonable relationship between the exaction and a project and would be disproportionate to the impact. However, new development resulting in significant increases in land use density or intensity would have the potential to have a direct adverse impact on public access. Similarly, new development that limits or eliminates private recreational facilities within such communities could place additional demand on public recreational facilities, including beaches. Under such circumstances, public access mitigation in a manner consistent with the public access policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan would be required. Policies: 3.1.5 -1. Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or other structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. 3.1.5 -2. Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. 3.1.5 -3. Require public access consistent with public access policies for any new development in private /gated communities causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -19 3.1.6 Preferential Parking Districts Newport Island In Newport Beach, there is only one preferential parking district in the coastal zone. It was established for Newport Island in 1981 due to impacts associated with vehicle parking on streets and alleys by nonresidents for extended periods of time. The establishment of the Newport Island preferential parking district was determined not to adversely impact coastal access and recreation due to the island's isolated location, lack of beaches and swimming areas, and narrow streets. The establishment of additional preferential parking districts may be necessary where no other practical or feasible alternative exists to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Under such circumstances, if there is a direct impact to coastal access or recreation, preferential permit parking fees could be established to fund mitigation programs. Policies: 3.1.6 -1. Prohibit the establishment of new preferential parking districts in the coastal zone except where such restrictions would not have a direct impact to coastal access, including the ability to use public parking. 3.1.6 -2. Require a coastal development permit to establish new, or modify existing, preferential parking districts. 3.1.6 -3. Use preferential parking permit fees to fund programs to mitigate impacts to coastal access. 3.1.6 -4. Where appropriate, establish a graduated preferential parking permit fee schedule where progressively higher fees are required for each permit for households with multiple permits. 3.1.6 -5. Limit the number of preferential parking permits issued per household to reduce potential adverse impacts to public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -20 3.1.7 Temporary Events 22n° street Beach Newport Beach's coastal areas have long been the venue for temporary events, including film production, surfing contests, volleyball tournaments, runs, races, concerts, boat shows, and other such competitions, exhibitions, and events. Also, a number of view parks have become popular locations for large private gatherings. The nature and frequency of such events has raised concerns relating to their impact to coastal resources, public access, and on adjacent residential areas, during these events. Newport Beach regulates temporary events by requiring special event permits. It is City policy that athletic contests using City streets are not permitted during the summer (June 15 - September 15). Surfing contests are not permitted during the Memorial Day weekend or during the summer. There are also limits on the number of such events that can be conducted each year and a minimum number of weeks between each surfing contest. However, exceptions can be granted. Inspiration Point and Lookout Point have become popular locations for weddings and other events. Peninsula Park is also a popular location for weddings, as well as company picnics and other private gatherings. Excessive reservations for the use of these parks has seriously limited public access. Furthermore, the use of these parks by caterers, party rental companies, professional parry, event, or wedding planners for private parties presented the appearance of commercialization of public parks. This prompted the establishment of a policy placing restrictions on reservations from the Memorial Day weekend to the Labor Day weekend. The number of attendees or participants at any one time is also restricted. Policies: 3.1.7 -1. Continue to require special event permits for temporary events and continue to require applications to provide details on event characteristics, including duration (including set up /assembly and break down /dismantle start and completion times), event hours, per day estimated attendance, parking arrangements, traffic control, noise control, waste removal, insurance, equipment to be used, food Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -21 service, entertainment, sponsorships, and advertising and marketing plans. 3.1.7 -2. Condition special event permits for temporary uses in the coastal zone to minimize impacts to public access, recreation and coastal resources. 3.1.7 -3. Continue to limit the number and frequency of temporary events in the coastal zone held from the Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day. 3.1.7 -4. Require a coastal development permit for temporary events held in the coastal zone that meet all of the following criteria: 1. Held between the Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day; 2. Occupy any portion of a public sandy beach area; and 3. Involve a charge for general public admission where no fee is currently charged for use of the same area. A coastal development permit shall also be required for temporary events that do not meet all of these criteria, but have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to public access, recreation and /or coastal resources. Penimsua Park Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -22 3.1.8 Temporary Closures For many years, large crowds have been drawn to the streets of West Newport during the Independence Day holiday. The party atmosphere that pervades the area attracts these crowds. Large parties are held at many of the rental homes in the area, which often extend into the front yards and balconies, and even onto rooftops. The large crowds, the consumption of alcohol and the interaction between partygoers and Independence Day crowds in West Newpon the crowds In the streets has resulted in an average of over 170 arrests and over 1,350 citations each year. The potential for a serious outbreak of violence exists throughout the daylight hours and increases dramatically in the evening. This environment dissuades visitors and residents from enjoying the beach or bay during Independence Day. The City has tried to reduce illegal drinking and minimize the potential for violence by significantly increasing the number of police and temporarily closing certain streets to pedestrians and visitors. The street closures do not restrict access to the beach but do function to fragment the crowds and reduce the number of people parading along Seashore Drive — an area where most arrests are made. The street closures are temporary — typically lasting less than twenty -four hours. Policies: 3.1.8 -1. Pursuant to the Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code, the City may adopt rules and regulations regarding the temporary closing of portions of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when necessary for public safety. 3.1.8 -2. The City may temporarily close certain streets in West Newport for a period of no more than twenty -four hours during the Independence Day holiday when, in the opinion of the Police Chief or his designee, the closure is necessary to protect the public safety. In no event shall any street closure prevent or interfere with the public's access to the beach or bay. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -23 3.2 Recreation and Support Facilities 3.2.1 Recreational Opportunities Throughout its history, Newport Beach has been a major recreational center. There are over 8 miles of sandy beaches that provide opportunities for sunbathing, volleyball, swimming, surfing, windsurfing and other recreational activities. Beach attendance averages 9.4 million people annually. Newport Bay and Harbor are used for a wide variety of recreational activities, including boating, diving, excursions, fishing, kayaking, paddle boarding, parasailing, rowing, sailing, swimming, and windsurfing. The City provides approximately 180 acres of public parks in the coastal zone (see Coastal Access and Recreation Map). These parks provide areas and facilities for a variety of recreational activities. The City also provides two recreational piers. The 800 - foot Newport Pier is located at the end of Newport Boulevard (McFadden Place) in McFadden Square. Beach near Balboa Pier Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -24 The 950 -foot Balboa Pier is located at the end of Main Street in Balboa Village. The City also provides ten public docks in the harbor, which can be used for boat launching and fishing. The City and County also co -own the Newport Aquatic Center. Located on Northstar Beach, the Newport Aquatic Center provides an opportunity for the public and members to kayak and canoe in Upper Newport Bay as well as advanced training facilities for world -class athletes. The County and the State also operate recreational areas in Newport Beach. The County's 100 -acre Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides opportunities for camping, boating, canoeing, kayaking, swimming and other water and beach activities. The 752 -acre Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and 140 -acre Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve provide opportunities for canoeing, kayaking, horseback riding, biking, and hiking. Commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay play an important role in providing and enhancing recreational activities in the coastal zone. A large number of businesses provide recreational services to residents and visitors of the coastal zone. These include charter, entertainment and excursion vessels, sports equipment rentals, launching facilities, amusement facilities, and shops and restaurants. Policies: 3.2.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. 3.2.1 -2. Continue to provide opportunities for a wide range of recreational activities at City parks and beaches. 3.2.1 -3. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the needs of new residents when allowing new development. 3.2.1 -4. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, and Orange County to protect, expand and enhance opportunities for recreational activities at County and State beaches and parks. 3.2.1 -5. Continue to allow recreational commercial uses in commercial areas adjacent to beaches and the bay. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -25 3.2.2 Support Facilities and Services Newport Beach provides abundant coastal access and recreational opportunities. However, it is equally important to provide adequate support facilities and services to enable the public to fully avail themselves of these opportunities. Support facilities include parking, restrooms and showers. Support services include lifeguard services and instruction and education programs. It is also important that such facilities and services be well distributed throughout the area to avoid overcrowding or overuse by the public (see Support Facilities Map), The lack of informational signage to direct the public to support facilities can impede public access. Many of Newport Beach's smaller beaches are difficult to find and access to some coastal areas is not easily apparent due to intervening topography or development. Furthermore, coastal visitors seeking support facilities can impact residents and coastal resources. For example, coastal visitors searching for parking areas contribute to traffic congestion and noise. Visitors sometimes damage habitats and bluffs to reach coastal areas when paths or trails are not clearly identified. A comprehensive coastal access signing program will reduce these impacts and ease conflicts between property owners and coastal visitors. Parking West Newport. West Newport has over a mile and a half of wide sandy public beaches. Public parking is provided primarily by 240 spaces at West Newport Park and by on- street parking in the residential neighborhoods, including an average of two on- street parking spaces at beach street -ends between 36th Street and Summit Street. Balboa Peninsula. The Balboa Peninsula , " has over three miles of wide public ' ' {l'll''' beaches and several smaller bay Palling lot in West Newport Park beaches. There are over 7,400 public parking spaces, over half of which are on- street. The rest are in municipal lots, including 400 spaces in the McFadden Place /Newport Pier lots and 650 spaces in the Balboa Pier lot. Balboa Island. Balboa Island has approximately 8 acres of public beaches around the island. Public parking is provided exclusively by on- street spaces. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -26 Corona del Mar. Corona del Mar has the Corona del Mar State Beach and Little Corona, China Cove, and Rocky Point beaches. Public parking is provided primarily by the 540 -space parking lot at the Corona del Mar State Beach and on- street parking on Ocean Boulevard. Upper Newport Bay. Public parking for the Upper Newport Bay area is provided at various recreation areas around the bay. The North Star Beach facility provides an 80 -space parking lot. The Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve provides a parking area with approximately 103 spaces and on- street parking is also available on University Drive and Bayview Way. The parking for The Lookout at the corner of Back Bay Drive and Eastbluff Drive is provided on- street at Eastbluff Drive. The Newport Dunes Aquatic Park provides 784 day use parking spaces; approximately 70 spaces are planned at the Back Bay Science Center at Shellmaker Island. Recreation and Convenience Facilities Newport Beach provides a number of recreational facilities to enhance the enjoyment of the beaches, bay, and coastal parks. At the beaches, between 65 and 75 beach volleyball courts are typically provided and play courts and/or sports fields are provided at West Newport Park, Channel Place Park, Newport Island Park, 38th Street Park, Las Arenas Park, Newport Elementary School, and at the Balboa Island Community Center. Turf areas and /or playground equipment are also provided at most coastal parks. The County's Newport Dunes Aquatic Park also provides recreational facilities. Picnic tables near Newport Pier Newport Beach provides a number of facilities for the convenience of residents and coastal visitors. At the beaches, picnic facilities are provided at West Newport Park, the Newport Pier area, 15th Street Beach, the Balboa Pier area, West Jetty Park, Las Arenas Park, and Corona del Mar State Beach. Barbecues are provided at Channel Place Park, Newport Island Park, Veteran's Memorial Park, Peninsula Park, and Corona del Mar State Beach. In addition, approximately 70 fire rings are provided in the Balboa Pier area and Corona del Mar State Beach. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -27 Beach restrooms are provided at Newport Pier, 15th Street Beach, Balboa Pier, Balboa Village, Las Arenas, Corona del Mar State Beach, and Little Corona Beach. On Balboa Island, restrooms are provided at the ferry landing, the community center, and at the fire station on Marine Avenue. F 71 < Restroom facilities are also provided at most active coastal parks. Most beach restroom facilities include showers. #. Additionally, freestanding showers are provided at Newport Pier and 15th Street Restroom and shower facilities at Balboa Pier Beach. Restroom and /or shower facilities are also provided at the County's Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, and at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. Services and Programs Newport Beach is regarded as having one of the finest lifeguard services in the world. In 2003, Newport Beach provides 16 fulltime lifeguards and 180 seasonal lifeguards operating out of up to 40 lifeguard towers. The lifeguard fleet consists of 13 trucks and 3 rescue boats. Newport Beach lifeguards average 4,100 rescues, 83,000 preventative actions, 3,400 medical aid calls, and 570 lost person calls each year. The Junior Lifeguard Program continues to be the most popular program during the summer months, drawing about 1,200 participants each year. It has provided invaluable training in water safety practices and rescue techniques to over 20,000 youths since its inception in 1983, and is a prime source for identifying future lifeguards. Newport Beach offers "beach camps" for children in the summer months, allowing children from all communities to enjoy a week at the beach. Also countless day Junior Lifeguard training camps visit the beaches for their field trips. Newport Beach also provides instruction in a number of coastal recreation activities, including volleyball, surfing, and sailing. In 2003, Newport Beach has a fleet of 14 Sabots and 3 Lidos, which are used to teach over 200 children a year to sail. Newport Beach also conducts volleyball and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -28 surfing tournaments. Educational and Interpretative Facilities The City, County, and private organizations provide several coastal - related educational and interpretative facilities and programs. Located in the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, the Muth Interpretative Center is a 10,000 square foot educational facility, which provides exhibits and programs on the ecology of the Upper Newport Bay. The Back Bay Science Center planned for Shellmaker Island will include exhibits for water quality education and research programs and ecological interpretive stations. Located on a replica of a Delta paddlewheeler, the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum Marine provides exhibits and programs on the nautical heritage of Newport Harbor, Southern California and the Pacific Region. Tide pool excursion at Little Corona The Little Corona tide pools in the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area receives thousands of visitors each year. The Little Corona tide pools are managed by the Newport Beach's Tidepool Ranger program. Tidepool Rangers are trained volunteers who educate and interact with visitors to the tide pools. Tidepool Rangers inform visitors of the rules and regulations of the Marine Conservation Area and protect tide pool resources. The great number and variety of support facilities and services reflects Newport Beach's commitment to protecting and enhancing public coastal access and recreational opportunities. However, changes in demographics and recreational interests have and will continue to alter the public's demand for support facilities and services. Therefore, it is important that Newport Beach continue to have the ability to respond to these changes while continuing to provide comparable facilities and levels of service. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -29 Policies: 3.2.2 -1. Continue to protect public coastal access recreational opportunities through the provision of adequate support facilities and services. 3.2.2 -2. Distribute support facilities and services in coastal areas to avoid overcrowding and overuse by the public. 3.2.2 -3. Maintain the ability to distribute, remove and relocate support facilities and services in coastal areas in response to changes in demographics and recreational interests while continuing to provide comparable facilities and levels of service. 3.2.2-4. Develop parking management programs for coastal zone areas to minimize parking use conflicts between commercial uses, residential uses, and coastal zone visitors during peak summer months. 3.2.2 -5. Continue to cooperate with the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, Orange County, and private organizations to protect, expand and enhance support facilities and services at County and State beaches and parks. 3.2.2 -6. As part of a uniform coastal access signing program, provide information to direct the public to parking areas, restrooms, and other support facilities. Newport Pier Park Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -30 3.2.3 Access for Persons with Disabilities People with disabilities that limit their mobility require special improvements in order to be afforded access to coastal resources. Newport Beach is working to ensure that persons with disabilities have access to coastal areas through the retrofitting of existing public facilities or the construction of new facilities. West Newport/Balboa Peninsula. With relatively level terrain, West Newport and the Balboa Peninsula provide a good point of coastal access for people with disabilities. Parking spaces for the disabled are provided at West Newport Park, the Newport Pier, and the Balboa Pier. Accessible restrooms are also provided at these locations. The Oceanfront Boardwalk provides a smooth level pathway along the beach for almost the entire length of the peninsula. Newport Pier and Balboa Pier are also accessible and have smooth concrete decks. Hard surface pathways are provided at 11th Street, MM 12th Street, Orange Street, and Island Avenue. These pathways extend oceanward to allow a view of the surfline by persons in wheelchairs. Sidewalks Island Avenue disabled access along the perimeter of parking lots at Newport Pier and Balboa Pier and at the Newport Elementary School playground also provide access near the surfline. Newport Beach also provides beach wheelchairs at the lifeguard headquarters at Newport Pier. Upper Newport Bay. Castaways Park is accessible, with parking spaces and restrooms for the disabled provided at Bob Henry Park. Castaways Park has trails and overlooks that provide panoramic views of the Newport Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Parking spaces for the disabled are provided at the Newport Aquatic Center. The Newport Aquatics Center provides recreation and launching facilities. At the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, parking spaces and restrooms for the disabled are provided at the Muth Interpretative Center. The Muth Interpretative Center also hosts many wheelchair - accessible programs, including walks with local naturalists and campfire events for families. The Newport Dunes Aquatic Park also provides access to the Upper Newport Bay. Parking spaces and restrooms for the disabled are provided and all buildings and boardwalks are accessible. The Upper Newport Bay is also accessible via Back Bay Drive, which provides Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -31 access to and along the easterly side of the bay. Parking spaces and restrooms for the disabled are provided at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. Balboa Island. Public parking is limited to on- street spaces. The Bay Front Boardwalk is accessible most of the way around the island; however, a low sea wall separates the walkway from the beaches. Accessible public restrooms are provided at the Balboa Island Fire Station on Marine Avenue and the ferry landing. Corona del Mar. Parking spaces for the disabled are provided at Corona del Mar State Beach parking lot. A paved pathway is provided on top of the East Jetty and allows views of the harbor entrance and the ocean. Both restroom buildings are accessible. A beach wheelchair is also provided at the lifeguard facility. Lookout Point and Inspiration Point Inspiration Point view parks are also accessible and provide spectacular views of the harbor entrance and Pacific Ocean. Policies: 3.2.3 -1. Ensure that planned public facilities include provisions for adequate access for the persons with disabilities and that existing facilities are appropriately retrofitted to include such access as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act in a manner consistent with the protection of coastal resources. 3.2.3 -2. Continue to provide beach wheelchairs commensurate with demand. 3.2.3 -3. Design guardrails on piers, trails, and public viewing areas to take into consideration the views at the eye level of persons in wheelchairs. 3.2.3 -4. Encourage the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department of Fish and Game, and Orange County to provide accessible facilities at County and State beaches and parks. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -32 3.3 Vessel Launching, Berthing, and Storage Newport Harbor is the largest small craft harbor in the United States with over 9,000 boats at 2,119 commercial slips and side ties, 1,221 bay moorings, and 1,230 piers. Newport Beach recognizes the importance of protecting and enhancing services and facilities that are essential to a working harbor. 3.3.1 Vessel Launching Vessel launching refers to areas or facilities where vessels may be placed into and retrieved from the water. This could be as simple as hand - carried boat launching at a beach, or involve structures, such as ramps and docks, or equipment such as cranes, lifts, and hoists. Newport Harbor provides a variety of locations and water, am vftin Lower Newport eay and facilities for vessel launching. public trailer vmthinthaupperNewpori ' Bay, exd6Waor g p the upper Newport Bay Marne Park launching facility with 7 lanes is located at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park. Hand carried boat launching is permitted at Newport Aquatic Center at North Star Beach, the Orange County Harbor Patrol facility, and at 21 street end beaches on the Balboa Peninsula and 22 street end beaches on Balboa Island. Vessel launching facilities are provided at the Orange Coast College David A. Grant Collegiate Rowing Center and the Boy Scout Sea Base in association with their programs. Private vessel launching sites are also provided at commercial marinas and boat yards. Yacht clubs and boating associations also provide vessel launch sites for their members. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -33 Policies: 3.3.1 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance vessel - launching facilities in Newport Harbor. 3.3.1 -2. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance low -cost public ffid launching facilities, such as trailer launch ramps, boat hoists, commercial 19'^ Street public dock landing facilities, and organized recreational boating launch facilities. 3.3.1 -3. Develop and implement a signage program to assist boat owners/operators and the public to locate public launching facilities. 3.3.2 Berthing and Storage Berthing refers to areas or facilities intended for the storage of a vessel in water. These can involve anchorage and mooring areas, marinas, or individual slips. In addition to the simple docking or mooring of vessels by their owners, berthing can also be associated with boat rentals, vessels used in the charter boat industry, brokered vessels stored for sale, yacht and sailing clubs, and vessels staged for entry into upland shipyards. Offshore moorings Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -34 Newport Beach provides over 1,200 bay moorings in the harbor. Approximately 450 are onshore moorings (moorings linked to the beach) and 750 are offshore moorings (moorings anchored into the Harbor floor). The County Harbor Department provides a guest mooring area offshore of the Harbor Patrol facility. Anchorages are water areas outside of navigation channels designated for the temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle. A free public anchorage area is provided off of Lido Isle. Newport Harbor has 16 marinas providing over 2,100 slips. The 172 -slip Balboa Yacht Basin is city -owned and operated. Guest slips are provided at the Orange County Harbor Patrol facility and at several commercial marinas. Newport Beach also provides 5 public docks on the Balboa Peninsula and 5 public docks on Balboa Island for loading and unloading passengers, supplies, and boating gear and for similar purposes. A guest dock is also planned for the Rhine Wharf. A large number of vessels are berthed at piers. Most of Newport Harbor's over 1,200 piers are connected to residential properties. Commercial piers are used primarily to berth charter, entertainment, and excursion vessels and vessels for sale or rent. The Rhine Channel Policies: Dry storage of vessels is on -land storage of vessels including vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles, on boat stands, or by other means. Commercial dry storage facilities are provided at the Newport Dunes Aquatic Park and at some boat yards. Some yacht clubs, boating associations, and community associations provide dry storage for their members. 3.3.2 -1. Provide a variety of berthing opportunities reflecting State and regional demand for slip size and affordability throughout Newport Harbor. 3.3.2 -2. Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand marinas and dry boat storage facilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -35 3.3.2 -3. Continue to provide shore moorings and offshore moorings as an important source of low -cost public access to the water and harbor. 3.3.2 -4. Provide anchorages in designated areas, which minimize interference with navigation and where shore access and support facilities are available. 3.3.2 -5. Continue to enforce the ordinances that require moored and docked vessels to be seaworthy and navigable and thereby preserve the positive image of the harbor and promote public use of the water. 3.3.2 -6. Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned- it' Street boat launch and onshore moorings marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. 3.3.2 -7. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities and services for visiting vessels, including public mooring and docking facilities, dinghy docks, guest docks, club guest docks, pump -out stations and other features, through City, County, and private means. 3.3.3 Harbor Support Facilities Harbor support facilities are uses, equipment, and vessels that provide repair, maintenance, new construction, parts and supplies, fueling, waste removal, cleaning, and related services to vessels berthed in, or visiting the harbor. Harbor support facilities are considered essential to maintaining a working harbor. Increased environmental regulation and real estate price inflation in coastal communities have impacted a number of harbor support businesses. Those businesses that do not have to be on the water have moved to inland locations. Those that are more water dependent have been involved in land use conflicts with residential and other land uses. Newport Beach has used land use controls as the primary method to provide for the continuation of harbor support uses and minimize land use conflicts. However, additional strategies and incentives may be necessary to protect these facilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -36 Marine service station Policies: 3.3.3 -1. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance facilities necessary to support vessels berthed or moored in the harbor, such as boat haul out facilities. 3.3.3 -2. Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance existing harbor support uses serving the needs of existing waterfront uses, recreational boaters, the boating community, and visiting vessels. 3.3.3 -3. In considering the essential nature of land uses that support the harbor, consider whether or not such support uses can be relocated to inland locations and /or if technological advances will eliminate the need such support uses in the foreseeable future. 3.3.34. Support private sector uses, such as vessel assistance, that provide emergency, environmental enhancement and other services that are not provided by the public sector and that are essential to the operation of a working harbor. 3.3.3 -5. Develop strategies to preserve uses that provide essential support for the vessels berthed or moored in the Harbor. 3.3.3 -6. Develop and implement a signing program to assist owners /operators of visiting vessels to locate harbor support facilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 3 -37 i i I / / / I / I I • . 1. •I t H j1 1 �h .• , .A `• ! City of Newport Beach, California (West Newport Area) Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan M I.IJ.CP05AcrossRacMpImxd A 01 • , �f 3 -38 McPeO� M r NO81H OMIe July / 2009 Coastal Access ' and Recreation: Mao 3 -1 (M., 1 013) l LEGEND ra Public Beach Location A Public Beach Access Location Potential Access Point - Coastal Zone Boundary ti Lateral Access INO Potential Lateral Access ti Vertical Access Blufftop Access Potential Blufflop Access w City Boundary Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park McPeO� M r NO81H OMIe July / 2009 Syr . City of Newport Beach, California (Upper Newport Bay) Local Coastal Program ia' Coastal Land Use Plan � Y UPPER NEWPORT BAY -IPA 3 -39 nicnp CR 6 E A .......... Y L,✓ �II l Coastal Access and Recreation: Map 3 -1 (Map 2 01 ]) OMw December /2005 LEGEND M Public Beach Location A Public Beach Access Location Potential Access Point Coastal Zone Boundary ti Lateral Access 'S. Potental Lateral Access `V Vertical Access Blufftop Access Potential Blufftop Access City Boundary • !- Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park OMw December /2005 )§&/ kW I� 3] 0 °)\)�)) \ \}} �j\}0Ammm0 - 4 < / /// /2■ >. . §: Nlr4 4 � A m d 3 i |\ � � \E cm \ \\ _�;, � }] /\ � >�) I . . . . . . . . . . . . . WFW PACIFIC L 'HARI is, 8AC80A OCEAN Vessel Launching, Berthing and Storage Map 3-4 LEGEND Public Launch Site Public Pumpout Site Public Dock & View Point, Coastal Zone Boundary City Boundary Mooring Sites OAnchorage Sites City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area) N4 RTH Local Coastal Program ft Coastal Land Use Plan 3-43 4.0 Coastal Resource Protection 4.1 Biological Resources 4.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats The Coastal Act criteria for determining whether an area qualifies as an ESHA are based upon ecological importance, including the rarity or function of the habitat, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -1 and the habitat's sensitivity. Rarity relates to either the natural limited occurrence of the habitat in the region or of the diminishment of what was an extensive habitat due to cumulative losses. Function relates to the importance of the habitat to the ecosystem, such as functioning as a migration corridor for wildlife. Sensitivity relates to the habitats tolerance to disturbance or degradation. The following terrestrial (non- marine) natural communities are known to occur within the coastal zone in Newport Beach and the City's sphere of influence: • Dune habitats, including southern coastal foredunes and southern dune scrub. • Scrub habitats, including southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub, and Diegan coastal sage scrub. • Chaparral habitats, including southern mixed chaparral and southern maritime chaparral. ■ Riparian habitats, including southern willow scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern arroyo willow forest, southern black willow forest, and southern sycamore alder riparian woodland. • Marsh habitats, including coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, and southern coastal salt marsh. • Southern coastal needlegrass grassland. • Southern hardpan vernal pools. • Freshwater seeps. • Alkali meadows. The California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) "List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database" (CNDDB) provides an inventory of California's natural communities and identifies those that are considered rare because of their highly limited distribution. These rare communities may or may not contain individual species that are rare, threatened, or endangered. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -2 In determining whether a habitat area meets the statutory definition of ESHA contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act and should be designated as an ESHA, the following attributes need to taken into consideration: • The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Game. • The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law. • The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as designation as a 1B or 2 species by the California Native Plant Society. • The presence of coastal streams. ■ The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas. Several of the natural communities that occur in Newport Beach are designated rare by the CDFG and are easily disturbed or degraded by human activity and therefore are presumed to meet the definition of ESHA under the Coastal Act. These include southern dune scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, southern willow scrub, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern arroyo willow forest, southern black willow forest, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, and southern coastal purple needlegrass grassland. Although not all riparian habitat types are rare throughout the state, in southern California over 90% of the original riparian habitats had been lost to development by 1989. All remaining native riparian habitats in southern California, including southern coast live oak riparian forest, meet the definition of ESHA both because of their rarity and because of their important roles in the ecosystem. For example, many species of birds nest and roost in riparian habitat but forage in adjacent coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Another important habitat within the City of Newport Beach is coastal sage scrub (CSS). Although CSS has suffered enormous losses in California (estimates are as high as 85 %), there are still thousands of acres in existence and this community type is no longer listed as rare by CDFG. Nevertheless, where CSS occurs adjacent to coastal salt marsh or other wetlands, or where it is documented to support or known to have the potential to support rare species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher, it meets the definition of ESHA because of its especially valuable role in the ecosystem. CSS is important transitional or "edge" Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -3 habitat adjacent to saltmarsh, providing important functions such as supporting pollinators for wetland plants and essential habitat for edge- dependent animals like several species of butterflies that nectar on upland plants but whose caterpillars require wetland vegetation. CSS also provides essential nesting and foraging habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a rare species designated threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Wetland habitats with the City of Newport Beach that may meet the definition of ESHA include coastal brackish marsh, coastal freshwater marsh, southern coastal salt marsh, southern hardpan vernal pools, freshwater seeps, and alkali meadows. Areas within the City of Newport Beach that are dominated by one of the habitats discussed above are presumed to be ESHA, unless there are strong site - specific reasons to rebut that presumption. Factors that should be considered when making site - specific assessments include: • Patch size and connectivity. Very small patches of habitat that are effectively isolated from other natural areas may lose many of their natural ecological functions. Functional patch size is dependent upon both the ecological needs of the species of importance supported by the habitat and the spatial scale of the habitat. For example, what is isolated for a small mammal may not be for a bird and what is small for a coyote may not be for some insects. • Dominance by invasive, non - native species. Non- native species often provide poorer habitat for wildlife than native vegetation and proliferation of exotic plant species alters ecosystem processes and may threaten certain native species with extirpation. However, there are probably no habitats in southern California that have not been invaded by exotic species, and the remaining stands of native grassland are almost always dominated by non- native annual species. Only where exotic species are so overwhelmingly dominant that the native community can no longer perform its functions in the ecosystem should the presence of exotic species rebut the presumption of ESHA. • Disturbance and proximity to development. Disturbance is the negative effect of human activities such as dumping, vegetation removal, development, pollution, etc. Habitat areas bordering development may be subject to impacts from negative edge effects, such as lighting, non - native invasive plant species, domestic animals, and human activity. The negative effects of disturbance are strongest immediately adjacent to development and decline with distance from the edge. However, where very small patches of habitat are effectively surrounded by development, these impacts may be severe. In general, disturbance by itself is not enough to Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-4 rebut the finding of ESHA. Disturbance that is clearly reversible (e.g., presence of trash or illegal dumping) is not determinative. ■ Fragmentation and isolation. Where there are large areas of more -or -less continuous development, native communities may be reduced to small islands of habitat that are distant from other natural habitats. This fragmentation and isolation can create barriers to migration, reduce wildlife food and water resources and generally compress territory size to reduce existing wildlife populations to non - viability. The smaller a particular habitat patch is, the greater the proportion of its area that experiences negative edge effects. Where the habitats discussed above occur in the City of Newport Beach the presumption is that they are ESHA and the burden of proof is on the property owner or project proponent to demonstrate that that presumption is rebutted by site - specific evidence. However, if quantitative data gathered by a qualified biologist demonstrates that a habitat area is degraded beyond the point of restoration, or that it is not rare and is so small and isolated that it no longer has habitat value or a special nature or role in the ecosystem, the habitat area does not meet the statutory definition of ESHA contained in Section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, such habitat areas do not warrant the special land use and development restrictions established for ESHA in this Coastal Land Use Plan. Policies: Define any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). Using a site - specific survey and analysis by a qualified biologist, evaluate the following attributes when determining whether a habitat area meets the definition of an ESHA: A. The presence of natural communities that have been identified as rare by the California Department of Fish and Game. B. The recorded or potential presence of plant or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law. C. The presence or potential presence of plant or animal species that are not listed under State or Federal law, but for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, such as Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -5 designation as a 1B or 2 species by the California Native Plant Society. D. The presence of coastal streams. E. The degree of habitat integrity and connectivity to other natural areas. Attributes to be evaluated when determining a habitat's integrity /connectivity include the habitat's patch size and connectivity, dominance by invasive /non- native species, the level of disturbance, the proximity to development, and the level of fragmentation and isolation. Existing developed areas and existing fuel modification areas required by the City of Newport Beach Fire Department or the Orange County Fire Authority for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA. 4.1.1 -2. Require a site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a filing requirement for coastal development permit applications where development would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or natural communities listed in Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the attributes listed in Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESA's depicted on Map 4 -1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of areas containing potential ESHA. 4.1.1 -3. Prohibit new development that would necessitate fuel modification in ESHA. 4.1.1 -4. Protect ESHAs against any significant disruption of habitat values. 4.1.1 -6. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to preclude new development within and minimize impacts to ESHAs. 4.1.1 -6. Require development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas to be sited and designed to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade those areas, and to be compatible with the continuance of those habitat areas. 4.1.1 -7. Limit uses within ESHAs to only those uses that are dependent on such resources. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -6 4.1.1 -8. Limited public access improvements and minor educational, interpretative and research activities and development may be considered resource dependent uses. Measures, including, but not limited to, trail creation, signage, placement of boardwalks, and fencing, shall be implemented as necessary to protect ESHA. . Where feasible, confine development adjacent to ESHAs to low impact land uses, such as open space and passive recreation. 4.1.1 -10. Require buffer areas of sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the habitat they are designed to protect. Terrestrial ESHA shall have a minimum buffer width of 50 feet wherever possible. Smaller ESHA buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 50 -foot wide buffer is not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the ESHA given the site - specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance. 4.1.1 -11. Provide buffer areas around ESHAs and maintain with exclusively native vegetation to serve as transitional habitat and provide distance and physical barriers to human and domestic pet intrusion. 4.1.1 -12. Require the use of native vegetation and prohibit invasive plant species within ESHAs and ESHA buffer areas. 4.1.1 -13. Shield and direct exterior lighting away from ESHAs to minimize impacts to wildlife. 4.1.1 -14. Require mitigation in the form of habitat creation or substantial restoration for allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources that cannot be avoided through the implementation of siting and design alternatives. Priority shall be given to on -site mitigation. Off -site mitigation measures shall only be approved when it is not feasible to fully mitigate impacts on -site. Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of the project alternative that would avoid impacts to ESHA. 4.1.1 -15. Apply the following mitigation ratios for allowable impacts to upland vegetation: 2:1 for coastal sage scrub; 3:1 for coastal sage scrub that is occupied by California gnatcatchers or significant populations of other rare species; 3:1 for rare community types such as southern maritime chaparral, maritime succulent scrub; native grassland and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -7 1:1 for southern mixed chaparral. The ratios represent the acreage of the area to be restored /created to the acreage impacted. 4.1.1 -16. For allowable impacts to ESHA and other sensitive resources, require monitoring of mitigation measures for a period of sufficient time to determine if mitigation objectives and performance standards are being met. Mid - course corrections shall be implemented if necessary to meet the objectives or performance standards. Require the submittal of monitoring reports during the monitoring period that document the success or failure of the mitigation. To help insure that the mitigation project is self- sustaining, final monitoring for all mitigation projects shall take place after at least three years with no remediation or maintenance activities other than weeding. If performance standards are not met by the end of the prescribed monitoring period, the monitoring period shall be extended or the applicant shall submit an amendment application proposing alternative mitigation measures and implement the approved changes. Unless it is determined by the City that a differing mitigation monitoring schedule is appropriate, it is generally anticipated that monitoring shall occur for a period of not less than five years. 4.1.1 -17. In conjunction with new development, require that all preserved ESHA, buffers, and all mitigation areas, onsite and offsite, be conserved /dedicated (e.g. open space direct dedication, offer to dedicate (OTD), conservation easement, deed restriction) in such a manner as to ensure that the land is conserved in perpetuity. A management plan and funding shall be required to ensure appropriate management of the habitat area in perpetuity. 4.1.1 -18. Require all direct open space dedications or OTDs to be made to a public agency or other appropriate entity that will manage the open space area on behalf of the public. 4.1.1 -19. Encourage the acceptance of direct open space dedications or OTDs to the public by the City, a public agency, a private association, or other appropriate entity. 4.1.1 -20. Give consideration to applying the Open Space land use category to lands with open space restrictions, dedications, or offers to dedicate. 4.1.1 -21. Dedicated open space areas, or areas where there are open space offers to dedicate, open space easements, and /or open space deed Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -8 restrictions shall be protected consistent with the requirements of the dedication, offer to dedicate, easement or deed restriction. 4.1.1 -22. The City shall maintain an inventory of open space dedications or offers to dedicate to ensure such areas are known to the public and are protected through the coastal development permit process. 4.1.2 Marine Resources Marine Habitats Newport Beach and surrounding ocean waters have very diverse marine habitats. These include the marshes and wetlands in Upper Newport Bay, the developed channels, beaches, and hard structures (bulkheads, seawalls, docks, pilings, and jetties) of Lower Newport Bay, and the intertidal and subtidal landforms (sandy beaches, rocky intertidal, sandy subtidal, and subtidal reefs) along the coast of Newport Beach. Section 30230 of Newport Beach Manne ConseNation Area the Coastal Act requires that marine resources be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Protection of marine habitats is required not only for their biological significance, but also for their commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational value. Open estuary and salt marsh habitats occur in the Upper Newport Bay and the Semeniuk Slough. The Upper Newport Bay is one of the largest coastal wetlands remaining in southern California and is an ecological resource of national significance. The Semeniuk Slough is a relatively large, uninterrupted open estuary/coastal salt marsh that provide wildlife with a relatively large, diverse area for foraging, shelter, and movement. The habitats of the Semeniuk Slough and the Upper Newport Bay are discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Areas). Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine plant that grows in Newport Harbor at depths below the low tide line and into the navigational channels. This true marine grass forms meadows and attracts many invertebrates and fishes that use the vegetation as foraging and nursery habitat. Eelgrass is discussed in more detail in Section 4.1.4 (Eelgrass Meadows) and Section 4.2.5 (Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -9 The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is located along the Corona del Mar shoreline and extends 200 feet offshore. Numerous types of invertebrates, algae, seagrass, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and marine mammals occasionally pass through. The Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area 11). The Newport Submarine Canyon is a unique coastal feature that begins immediately seaward of the Newport i�a�_. 35 M M Pier at a depth of 8 meters (25 feet) Bottom depths rapidly increase to .j nearly 30 meters (100 feet) within _ 400 meters (1,200 feet) from shore and 100 meters (300 feet) deep within 1,300 meters (3,900 feet) from shore. This geological feature is believed to have been formed by the ancestral Santa Ana River, and it is''i the exit pathway for southward - moving sands transported through Representation of the Newport Submarine Canyon littoral drift currents at the end of the San Pedro Littoral Cell. In an effort to reduce the sand loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed six groins along West Newport to hold the sand. The groins have been partially successful. Biologically, the submarine canyon is unique because it acts as a pathway for cold, nutrient -rich waters that upwell from deeper offshore waters to the shallower nearshore shelf. Additionally, the canyon acts as a pathway through which deeper water species of fish, squid, shark, and jellyfish, sometimes can be found close to shore. The canyon is also an important fishing zone for the Dory Fishing Fleet. Sensitive Marine Species Several species of marine mammals frequent the nearshore waters along the Newport Beach coastline. All marine mammals are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Several whales are federally listed endangered species: The marine mammals that have the greatest potential to occur locally are California sea lion (Zalophus califomicus), harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California gray whale Sea lion on the West Jetty Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -10 (Eschrichthius robustus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), Pacific white sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), and Dall's porpoise (Phocenoides daib). The most common, the California gray whale, was delisted as an endangered species in 1994 because of significant increases in its population numbers in recent years. California gray whales are common between December and April, as they migrate between their summer feeding grounds in the Bering Sea and their Baja California calving lagoons. Individuals sometimes enter the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel. Pods of bottlenose dolphin are occasionally observed swimming in the surf zone or immediately outside the surf zone along the Newport coastline. California sea lions are frequently observed within Newport Harbor, particularly in the vicinity of the sports fishing boats near the Balboa Pavilion. Despite the substantial declines in the distribution of giant kelp cover along the shoreline between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach, a stand of giant kelp has maintained itself within Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, along the west jetty. The giant kelp bed is discussed further in Section 4.1.3 (Environmental Study Area 13). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -11 Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) is a sensitive marine resource that occurs in rocky shoreline and rocky subtidal habitats at depths to approximately —20 feet MLLW. Its sensitivity is related to its use by invertebrates and fishes as nursery habitat and its susceptibility to long -term damage because it is a very slow growing species. Revegetation occurs naturally through seeding and eventually spreading of roots and rhizomes over surfaces of rocks. Surfgrass is located within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area, along the outer fringes of the intertidal reefs and the tops of shallow subtidal reefs. California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) are fish that are associated with many beaches in southern California. Grunion lay their eggs in the wet beach sands during the highest spring tides between late February or early March, to as late as early September. Historically, these grunion 'runs" have occurred on west - facing beaches upcoast of Newport Pier, where the beach slopes tend to be more gradual rather than south facing beaches downcoast of Newport Pier. However, there has been no recent grunion activity observed on these beaches. Grunion run activity has also occurred on Corona del Mar State Beach and Rocky Point Beach, in the Harbor Entrance mouth. Although California halibut (Paralichthys califomicus) does not have a formal special species status, the California halibut is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. After several months, the larval fish settle to the bottom, and migrate into shallow coastal waters, including Newport Bay. Halibut are distributed throughout the waters of Lower and Upper Newport Bay, primarily as juveniles, although larger individuals are caught near the ocean entrance and offshore. Young -Of- The -Year (YOTY) prefer shallow waters between about —0.45 meter (1.5 feet) and —1.0 meter (3.5 feet) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), whereas juveniles prefer deeper channel bottoms to a maximum depth of approximately 4.5 meters (15 feet) MLLW. After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. Invasive Marine Species Caulerpa taxitolia Caulerpa taxifolia is an extremely harmful, invasive species that has recently been introduced into southern California waters. It has been located within Huntington Harbour and in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in northern San Diego County. This species has a characteristic bright green color, flat, leafy fern -like fronds (branches), a nd below - ground root system. Caulerpa algae can be extremely harmful to marine ecosystems Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -12 because it invades and out - competes native habitats by forming a dense blanket of growth on mud, sand, or rock surfaces. It can grow in shallow coastal lagoons as well as in deeper ocean waters, and can grow rapidly and up to 9 feet in length. However, its usual form observed so far is much smaller in length. The ecological consequences of the spread of this invasive algae can be extremely serious and can result in a significant loss of plant and animal productivity. Therefore, the spread of this species is being closely monitored and areas that have become infested are being treated chemically to eradicate any growth. The management, control, and eradication of this species is the responsibility of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). Newport Bay is not currently known to be infested by this species, however, continued surveillance for undetected or new infestations is a high priority to the SCCAT. Project site surveys for the presence of Caulerpa taxifolia are required by NOAA and CDFG prior to bottom- disturbing projects such as dredging, dock replacement, bulkhead repair. Assembly Bill 1334 (Chapter 338, Statutes of 2001) prohibits the sale, possession, and transport of Caulerpa taxifolia throughout California. The Bill also bans species of Caulerpa that look similar to C. taxifolia and are believed to have the capability to become invasive. The importation of the Mediterranean strain of Caulerpa taxifolia into the United States and interstate trade, including via the Internet, is also a federal offense under the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1999 and the Plant Protection Act of 2000. Water Quality Runoff from the surrounding watershed threatens the biological diversity and functionality of Newport Bay and the surrounding coastal waters. This runoff includes various pollutants, such as fecal material from pets, oil and grease, fertilizers, and other urban -based pollutants. In addition, increased sediment loads decrease the extent of tidal inundation, diminish water quality, degrade habitat for endangered species, migratory water birds, and marine and estuarine fishes, and contribute to the decline of kelp forests. Water quality and sedimentation issues are discussed further in Section 4.2 (Wetlands and Deepwater Areas) and Section 4.3 (Water Quality). Policies: 4.1.2 -1. Maintain, enhance, and, where feasible, restore marine resources. 4.1.2 -2. Provide special protection to marine resource areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -13 4.1.2 -3. Require that uses of the marine environment be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 4.1.2 -4. Continue to cooperate with the state and federal resource protection agencies and private organizations to protect marine resources. 4.1.2 -5. Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. Rocky intertidal reefs at Little Corona 4.1.3 Environmental Study Areas Newport Beach has several relatively large, undeveloped areas that contain natural habitats and may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources. These areas are designated as environmental study areas to define them geographically, provide an overview of known and potential biological resources, identify potential threats to those resources, and propose potential mitigation measures. The following areas are designated as environmental study areas: 1. Semeniuk Slough (Santa Ana River Marsh) 2. North Star Beach 3. West Bay 4. Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and DeAnzalBayside Marsh Peninsula 5. San Diego Creek Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -14 6. Eastbluff Remnant 7. Mouth of Big Canyon 8. Newporter North 9. Buck Gully 10. Morning Canyon 11. Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area 12. Castaways 13. Kelp Beds in Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Most of these study areas are protected as parks, conservation areas, nature preserves, and other open space areas. Nevertheless, the natural habitats in each of these study areas are subjected to various potential impacts from the surrounding urban environment. Potential adverse impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts are identified in the narratives below and summarized in Table 4.1 -1 (Environmental Study Area Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Portions of the environmental study areas listed above are known to contain habitat that constitutes Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). As such, they will be subject to more stringent development controls and resource protection measures. Within these study areas, those natural communities /habitats identified in Section 4.1.1 are presumed to be ESHA, unless there is compelling site - specific evidence to the contrary. As is evident from the descriptions provided below, large portions of these environmental study areas support one or more community types that meet the definition of ESHA. Eelgrass meadows within Newport Bay and coastal foredunes on the Balboa Peninsula are not included in the list of environmental study areas since their locations shift due to fluctuations in growing conditions. Eelgrass meadows and coastal foredune habitats are discussed in Section 4.1.4 and Section 4.1.5, respectively. Study Area No. 1: Semeniuk Slough Semeniuk Slough is a remnant channel of the Santa Ana River from the time when the river emptied into Newport Bay; it forms a loop around the Newport Shores residential area in West Newport. The 103 -acre Semeniuk Slough Environmental Study Area (ESA) includes the main slough channel immediately north of Newport Shores and the coastal salt marsh habitat to the north, including a narrow sliver of salt marsh habitat in the far north of the ESA, flanked by the Santa Ana River on the west and Semeniuk Slough Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -15 Banning Ranch on the east. Several smaller interconnected channels and inundated depressions are located throughout the salt marsh habitat. Semeniuk Slough is exposed to limited tidal influence through a tidal culvert connected between the Santa Ana River and the slough. The site contains a healthy stand of sensitive coastal salt water marshhabitat . The state endangered Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) breeds in nearby wetland habitats including Upper Newport Bay and salt marsh in Huntington Beach but not in Semeniuk Slough. However, small numbers of Belding's savannah sparrows forage in Semeniuk Slough, especially during the winter when breeding birds disperse. A Belding's savannah sparrow was observed within the Semeniuk Slough site on July 10, 2002. The state and federal endangered California least tern (Sterna albifrons browni), which has a large nesting colony on the Huntington Beach side of the Santa Ana River mouth, forages occasionally in the slough channels. Western snowy plovers (federal threatened) are observed occasionally in Semeniuk Slough. The California brackish water snail (Tryonia imitator), a Federal Species of Concern, has been collected in substantial numbers in the channels of Semeniuk Slough. The Semeniuk Slough ESA is characterized by open estuarine, southern coastal salt marsh, and ornamental plant communities. The S -curved channel, also referred to as Oxbow Loop, is bordered to the north by southern coastal salt marsh vegetation, which is dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and salt grass. Most of the natural areas occur to the west of the parcel. Sea fig has invaded some of the upland portions of the parcel. Other ornamental plant species are found along the margin of the Slough, primarily in the eastern portions of the parcel and include myoporum (Myoporum sp.), acacia (Acacia sp.), Mexican fan palm, pine (Pious sp.), and eucalyptus. Many houses in the Newport Shores development bordering the slough have small docks and patios that encroach into the slough. The proximity to the Newport Shores residential development has introduced numerous ornamental and non- native species to the eastern perimeter of the site, and also allows use of the slough for recreational use. A few oil -well related structures are located in the southern part of the ESA, immediately north of the main slough channel. The land surrounding these structures has been cleared. Two roads bisect the study area - one leading from the Santa Ana River levee to the Banning Ranch area, and the other leading to the oil well structures. Potential impacts to this area include water quality degradation, human activity, encroachment, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -16 Study Area No. 2: North Star Beach Located at White Cliffs Drive and North Star Lane, North Star Beach is bordered by the main channel of Upper Newport Bay to the east, Galaxy Drive to the north, and residential development to the south and west of the site. The 11.8 -acre North Star Beach ESA supports a small riparian area �; x + composed of southern willow scrub. k Southern willow scrub is considered a sensitive habitat, and is listed as rare Southern coastal bluff scrub habitat (in the background) at North or threatened or is otherwise Star Beach protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFG, or local agencies. Southern willow scrub is utilized by many species of vertebrates, including birds, amphibians, and mammals. Sensitive species, such as the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, have the potential to occur within this site. The beach parcel located south of the Newport Aquatics Center (NAC) consists of dredged sand material and supports predominately ruderal plant species including cheeseweed (Malva pariflora), red - stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), sea rocket, and black mustard (Brassica nigra). The bluff located to the west of the beach and the NAC facilities, and east of the adjacent residential area supports several non - native ornamental trees and shrubs including acacia, myoporum, and pine. Several saltbush shrubs are located throughout the sandy beach and bluff areas within this parcel. A small wetland supported by nuisance water runoff (from the western bluffs and residential area) is located just north of the NAC facilities. This area mainly supports willow (Sa /ix spp.), palm (Phoenix sp.), and sedge. North of where the wetland reaches the bay, native saltwater marsh and southern coastal bluff scrub habitat is found that lacks the exotic species present in the southern portion of the study area. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -17 Study Area No. 3: West Bay i - w The 84.4 -acre West Bay ESA is located along Irvine Avenue from University Drive south along the east side of Galaxy Drive. It is bordered by the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park to the east, residential development to the north and west, and the North Star Beach ESA to the south. This parcel consists of four characteristic plant communities, including Diegan coastal sage scrub, Non-native grasslands and coastal sage scrub habdat southern coastal bluff scrub, disturbed at Upper Newport Bay Nature re Preserve Preserve southern willow scrub, and non - native grassland. Much of the non - native grassland was most likely remnant coastal sage scrub habitat prior to being cleared. The Dieagan coastal sage scrub habitat is located primarily near the bay, with a few stands that border Irvine Avenue, and is primarily composed of California sagebrush, coyote brush, prickly pear (Opunfia sp.), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. menziesh), and lemonadeberry. The southern section of the study area overlooking the bay supports southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Plant species associated with this area include saltbush, tree lupine (Lupines arborous), prickly pear, coyote brush, California buckwheat, coastal goldenbush, and California bush sunflower. This area is contiguous with the bluff habitat along North Star Beach. A small drainage located near 23rd Street (the remnant of Indian Springs) transports nuisance water runoff from the residential area located west of Irvine Avenue, and crosses the southern portion of the West Bay ESA before reaching the bay. This drainage supports a disturbed southern willow scrub plant community dominated by willow, eucalyptus, and giant reed. Several coastal sage scrub restoration areas, revegetated with young native shrubs, are located along the gradual slopes located north of the drainage. Black mustard and wild oats dominate the non - native grassland plant community, which is found throughout the parcel and most often bordering Irvine Avenue. This site is used as open space as well as for recreational opportunities and includes the Muth Interpretive Center operated by the County of Orange. A paved bike and pedestrian trail is located along the crest of the West Bay parcel. Several dirt trails transect the north end of the parcel. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -18 Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Study Area No. 4: Upper Newport Bay Marine Park/DeAnza Bayside Marsh Peninsula The Upper Newport Bay Marine Park is located within the upper two- thirds of Upper Newport Bay. The site is bordered by Irvine Boulevard and residential areas to north and west, the lower reach of Upper Newport Bay to the south, and San Diego Creek to the east. The 787.6 -acre Upper Newport Bay Marine Park extends from Shellmaker Island to the Jamboree Road Bridge. The DeAnza Bayside Marsh Peninsula is located outside of the Maine Park boundaries at the southern -most section of Upper Newport Bay, immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge. quality salt marsh, intertidal mudflats, and subtidal habitats, (Zostera marina). southern coastal salt marsh habitat at Upper Newport Bay It consists of high including eelgrass Upper Newport Bay, one of the largest coastal wetlands remaining in southern California, is an ecological resource of national significance. Sensitive natural habitats within Upper Newport Bay include estuarine marine open water, coastal freshwater marsh, intertidal mudflat, salt panne, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern coastal salt marsh. Salt marsh habitat within Upper Newport Bay includes cordgrass- dominated low salt marsh, pickleweed- dominated mid salt marsh, and high salt marsh. This ESA supports several listed bird species and an endangered plant. The resident population of the state and federal endangered light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) in Upper Newport Bay represents about 65 percent of the California population of this species. Upper Newport Bay has consistently supported the highest numbers of rails of any southern California wetland, and is believed to be the only viable subpopulation remaining in the United States. The highest number of breeding clapper rails during the 1990s in Upper Newport Bay was 158 pairs in 1996. The 1999 census recorded 104 pairs. Low salt marsh dominated by cordgrass is the species' preferred nesting habitat, but it has been known to breed in brackish and even freshwater marsh. Clapper rails are found throughout the Upper Bay, heavily utilizing cordgrass marsh for nesting at several Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -19 locations, including Shellmaker Island, Middle Island, Upper Island, and salt marsh habitat above the Main Dike. The state endangered Belding's savannah sparrow is a year -round resident and breeder in Upper Newport Bay. Its preferred nesting habitat is pickleweed- dominated mid salt marsh. In 1996, the population in Upper Newport bay was 252 pairs. The state and federal endangered California least tern is a seasonal resident in Upper Newport Bay from April to early September. They nest on Least De AnzaBayside Marsh Peninsula Tern Island, the smaller of two islands in the uppermost sedimentation basin. In 1999, 40 pairs of least terns nested on this island. In 2000, 60 least tern pairs nested in Upper Newport Bay and fledged 12 young. Skimmers and Forsters terns nest on the second, and larger island (Skimmer Island) in the uppermost sedimentation basin. The federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher nests in coastal sage scrub along the margins of Upper Newport Bay. There are at least 10 pairs breeding in upland habitat surrounding Upper Newport Bay. Other listed bird species that occur in Upper Newport Bay on a seasonal basis but do not breed there include the state and federal endangered California brown pelican, the federal threatened western snowy plover, and the state endangered American peregrine falcon. The state and federal endangered plant salt marsh bird's beak occurs at several sites in high salt marsh habitat in Upper Newport Bay. It is the only listed plant species confirmed to occur in the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. In addition to these listed species, a number of bird species that are Federal Species of Concern and /or State Species of Special Concern use the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. The California brackish water snail, a Federal Species of Concern, is common around freshwater discharges to the Upper Bay. Because of its diversity of habitats and its location on the Pacific Flyway, Upper Newport Bay supports an impressive number and diversity of birds, particularly during fall and winter when shorebirds and waterfowl arrive from their northern breeding grounds. There are approximately 182 bird species that regularly occur in Newport Bay over a calendar year. Only about 18 percent of these are year Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -20 round residents. The large number of non - resident bird species indicates Newport Bay's value not only to the local resident bird community, but also to a large number of migratory gulls, terns, raptors, shorebirds and waterfowl that are key species in ecosystems in other areas of the continent. At least 78 fish species have been identified in various studies of Upper Newport Bay. Newport Bay is an important habitat for resident estuarine species, as well as a spawning and nursery ground for a variety of marine species including California halibut (Paralichthys califomicus), yellowfin croaker, white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) and barred sandbass. The ecological diversity and functionality of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park has been threatened by sedimentation from the surrounding watershed. The primary source of freshwater and sediment loads to Upper Newport Bay is San Diego Creek. Sediment from the San Diego Creek watershed has filled open water areas within the Bay. This sedimentation has decreased the extent of tidal inundation, diminished water quality, degraded habitat for endangered species, migratory water birds, and marine and estuarine fishes. Heavy sedimentation during the 1998 El Nino required dredging in 1998 and 1999. Recently, a long- term management plan was developed to control sediment deposition in the Upper Bay to preserve the health of Upper Newport Bay's habitats. That plan identified basin configurations and depths to control sedimentation in the Upper Bay. The slopes of the bluffs along Upper Newport Bay are unstable and have required stabilization devices and bluff repairs. Irrigation practices on the tops of the bluffs have contributed to both erosion and eutrophication problems in the Upper Bay. Study Area No. 5: San Diego Creek The 37.3 -acre San Diego Creek ESA is bordered by Jamboree Road to the west, Bayview Way and a commercial automobile dealership to the north, MacArthur Boulevard to the east, and the residential area adjacent to University Drive on the south. The San Diego Creek site is contiguous with the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park, and merges with the bay in the vicinity of Jamboree Road. This study area includes two main parcels: the main channel of San Diego Creek and an adjacent saltwater marsh mitigation area Main channel of San Diego Creek Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -21 located to the north. The San Diego Creek study area is dominated by southern willow scrub and southern coastal salt marsh communities. These habitats are considered sensitive, and are listed as rare or threatened or are otherwise protected by the USFWS, CDFG, or local agencies. Southern willow scrub is utilized by many species of vertebrates including birds, amphibians, and mammals. Sensitive species, such as the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher, have the potential to occur within this site. Southern coastal salt marsh also provides habitat for many sensitive plants and animals, which have the potential to occur within this site. The California brackish water snail, a Federal Species of Concern, is common around freshwater discharges to the Upper Bay, including San Diego Creek. The marsh site is separated from the main channel by an earthen levee, but is hydraulically recharged by San Diego Creek during high water events through an existing culvert. The marsh site consists of two primary habitat types: southern coastal salt marsh (aquatic) and southern willow scrub. The middle of the site is inundated with low -to- moderate amounts of water, and is dominated by salt marsh and emergent wetland vegetation including pickleweed, salt grass, and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). Portions of this area have been revegetated with native plants. The eastern portion of the site gives rise to southern willow scrub and primarily consists of willow (Salix sp.), mule fat, and cattails. The upland areas of this site support a mixture of habitat types and consist of shrub species, including California bush sunflower, saltbush, and mule fat. The main channel is characterized by southern willow scrub. This area is dominated by willow and mule fat, and supports a few isolated cottonwood trees (Populus sp.). Two exotic species, giant reed and brass buttons, are commonly found throughout the riparian zone. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area included human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -22 Study Area No. 6: Eastbluff Remnant Southern coastal bluff scrub at Eastbluff Remnant The 36.5 -acre Eastbluff Remnant ESA extends along the eastern side of Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to Eastbluff Drive, and is bordered by Upper Newport Bay to the north and west, residential development to the east, and San Joaquin Hills Road to the south. This study area consists of three main plant communities, including southern coastal bluff scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and southern willow scrub. Most of the study area consists of steeply sloped west - facing bluffs. The areas support mainly southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation with some evidence of Dieagan coastal sage scrub species. Plant species associated with this area include saltbush, tree lupine, coastal goldenbush, California bush sunflower, coyote brush, California buckwheat, prickly pear, cholla (Opuntia sp.), California sagebrush, and lemonadeberry. There are varying degrees of previous disturbance, mostly resulting from the adjacent residential area to the east. Several non - native species are found throughout these areas, including sea fig, tree tobacco, sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), black mustard, and castor bean. The Dieagan coastal sage scrub habitat dominates the upper, less steep portions of the parcel, and is primarily composed of California sagebrush, coyote brush, prickly pear, and Mexican elderberry, poison oak, and lemonadeberry. Southern willow scrub vegetation may be found within several tributaries to Newport Bay and along the eastern edge of Back Bay Road, where water accumulates before entering the bay. These areas are dominated by willow and mule fat. Dense stands of Mexican elderberry, willow, and poison oak dominate the north - facing slopes in the northeastern portion of the East Bluff parcel. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -23 Study Area No. 7: Mouth of Bia Canyon The 52.0 -acre Big Canyon ESA is located on the east side of Newport Bay, between Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. The Mouth of Big Canyon site is bordered by Upper Newport Bay to the west and residential development to the east, north, and south of the site. Many trails throughout this area provide good access for the public to observe the variety of habitats and plant communities. The backbone routes for these trails are Utility Fresh water marsh at the mouth of Big Canyon access roads needed to provide access for maintenance vehicles that service the utilities that have been installed in this site. This site provides an opportunity to establish an interpretive area that allows public access to a broad range of habitats and plant community areas that should be reestablished as a destination for the public. Seven plant communities characterize this site, including southern willow scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, non - native grassland, southern coastal bluff scrub, southern coastal salt marsh, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, and coastal freshwater marsh. Big Canyon is oriented perpendicular to the bay. The upper (eastern) portion of the creek supports native plants characteristic of southern willow scrub communities dominated by densely growing willows and mule fat. The upland areas within the eastern region contain a mixture of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub and non- native grassland. Plant species found in this area include coyote brush, lemonadeberry, black mustard, and sweet fennel. The canyon is outlined by intermittent stands of ornamental trees and shrubs including eucalyptus and acacia, which are located next to the adjacent residential zones. The mouth of the canyon widens towards the bay and supports a mixture of southern coastal bluff scrub and Diegan coastal sage scrub along both the north and south - facing slopes. These areas are dominated by California sagebrush, California buckwheat, prickly pear, saltbush, lemonadeberry, and Mexican elderberry. The western reach of the canyon creek forms a pond, while supporting a mature southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and coastal freshwater marsh. Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii spp. fremontii), western sycamore, and willow Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -24 dominate the overstory of the riparian forest. Stinging nettle (Urtica diocia) can be found amongst the herbaceous layer. The northern margins of the riparian forest show evidence of dryer climates and supports revegetated species such as holly - leaf redberry and jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). The coastal freshwater marsh is surrounded by cattail and sedge. Remnants of the southern coastal salt marsh habitat are evident on the dredge sand deposits located immediately south of the freshwater marsh, where pickleweed is the dominant plant species. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, creek water quality runoff, sedimentation, erosion, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Study Area No. 8: Newporter North The Newport North is located in bluff and mesa habitats along Back Bay Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road adjacent to Upper Newport Bay. The 49.2 -acre Newporter North ESA is bordered by Upper Newport Bay to the west, the Hyatt Newporter Hotel to the south, Jamboree Road to the east, and residential development to the east and north of the site. The Newporter North ESA is Diegan coastal scrub on the slopes of Newporter North characterized by five plant communities, including southern willow scrub (disturbed), coastal freshwater marsh, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and non - native grassland. A drainage (John Wayne Gulch) runs east to west from Jamboree Road to the bay. The upper (eastern) portion of the drainage supports native plant species that are characteristic of southern willow scrub communities including willows, mule fat, and Mexican elderberry. This drainage also supports many exotic species including myoporum, tree tobacco, eucalyptus, pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana), and sweet fennel. The lower (western) portion of the drainage widens into a coastal freshwater marsh before reaching the bay. This area is thickly vegetated and dominated by cattail, sedge, and brass buttons. Additionally, there is a wetland restoration area located in the far northeast portion of this parcel, which is dominated by willows, mule fat, and cattails. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -25 Diegan coastal sage scrub occurs at higher elevations within the parcel along the south and north - facing slopes. Plant species associated within this area include California sagebrush, coyote brush, California bush sunflower, California buckwheat, Mexican elderberry, coastal goldenbush, and deerweed. An area located just south of San Joaquin Hills Road supports densely growing coastal sage scrub vegetation. A small square parcel of coastal sage scrub bordered by Newporter Way and Jamboree Road is found within this section of the study area. The steeper west - facing slopes, located above Back Bay Drive to the north and south of the main canyon, support southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Plant species associated with this area include saltbush, tree lupine, prickly pear, coyote brush, California buckwheat, coastal goldenbush, and California bush sunflower. Historically, most of the upland areas located in the southwestern portion of the parcel most likely supported coastal sage scrub communities; however land modification and clearing has disturbed these areas, leaving many sections supporting only non - native grasslands. Common species found within the non- native grassland community include black mustard, white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), and pampas grass. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Study Area No. 9: Buck Gully Buck Gully is a natural feature extending between Little Corona Beach and the San Joaquin Hills. The 74.2 -acre Buck Gully ESA does not include the sections of the canyon that are located outside of the coastal zone or within Newport Coast. The ESA is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and residential and commercial development to the southeast, northwest, and north of the site. Pacific Coast Highway bisects the canyon. Drainage from Buck Gully Buck Gully southwest from Coast Highway empties on to Little Corona Beach. The portion of Buck Gully between the extension of Fifth Avenue and Little Corona is under private ownership. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -26 The Buck Gully ESA is dominated by Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral, with southern willow scrub, annual grassland, and coastal freshwater marsh occurring as smaller components of the community. Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral encompass the majority of the gully - from the upper rims to the alluvial bottoms. A narrow ribbon of southern willow scrub riparian habitat is supported by an unnamed creek that flows along the canyon bottom the length of the gully. Patches of annual grassland occur throughout the chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitats and also in areas where native vegetation has been cleared for fire prevention. The narrow, western reach of the canyon is largely encroached upon by the adjacent residential areas to the southeast and northwest. The upper slopes in this area of the canyon support a mix of disturbed southern mixed chaparral, a small patch of coastal sage scrub, and non - native ornamental vegetation originating from the surrounding homes. Typical chaparral species in this area include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and ceanothus ( Ceanothus sp.) Non - native and ornamental species include giant reed (Arundo donax), acacia, eucalyptus, myoporum, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), castor bean (Ricinus communis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). The canyon bottom in this area is dominated by riparian vegetation including willows (Salix spp.), blackberry (Rubes sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). A small freshwater marsh comprised almost exclusively of cattail is situated at the mouth of the gully adjoining Little Corona Beach. The central section of the canyon immediately northeast of the Coast Highway, while closely confined by residential development, contains fewer ornamental plant species than the coastal portion and supports southern mixed chaparral and southern willow scrub habitats with species compositions similar to the lower canyon. The chaparral in this area supports toyon, laurel sumac, ceanothus, chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), southern honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata), redberry (Rhamnus crocea), bush monkey flower (Mimulus aurandacus), and sugar bush (Rhus ovata). Approximately adjacent to the intersection of 5th Avenue and Poppy Avenue, the gully veers east and opens into a broader canyon. The southern slopes of the canyon in this area support dense stands of southern mixed chaparral, while the northern slopes support disturbed annual grassland, possibly established as chaparral and coastal sage scrub, but subsequently cleared for fire prevention by homeowners. At present, the annual grassland contains black mustard (Brassica nigra), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), wild oats (Avena fatua), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), barley (Horedum sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and fennel. Diegan coastal sage scrub becomes more Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -27 dominant as the canyon slopes on the upper portions of the canyon veer eastward. This community is composed of California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), white sage (Salvia apiana), prickly pear (Optunia sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, and California bush sunflower (Encelia califomica). The canyon floor of Buck Gully supports a southern willow scrub community, dominated by willows and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), with occasional western sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and cottonwood (Populus fremonth). Associated plant species include cattail, blue elderberry, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), rush (Juncus spp.), and nutsedge (Cyperus sp.). The upper canyon is broader than the lower canyon and is therefore less impacted by adjacent development. Vegetation in this area is primarily Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral, interrupted by occasional patches of annual grassland, and southern willow scrub associated with the creek at the canyon bottom. The lower (western) portion of Buck Gully is isolated from the upper Buck Gully by the Coast Highway. This area is closely confined by residential development on the south and north. The proximity to development, accessibility by local residents and their pets, and abundance of non - native ornamental plant species detract from the quality of habitat for wildlife species in this area. The upper (eastern) portion of Buck Gully is a broad, open, relatively undisturbed canyon. Coastal sage scrub and mixed chaparral dominate much of the area, except for the riparian corridor along the canyon bottom and the tops of the canyon, which are influenced by the adjacent residential development. Much of the native vegetation near the rim of the canyon has been removed to reduce wildfire hazard. Ornamental and non - native plant species from the adjacent residential development have encroached into Buck Gully, especially in the lower, narrow portions. Annual grasslands in Buck Gully consist of nonnative annual grasses and forbs. Some non - native inclusions were also observed in the Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, and southern willow scrub habitats. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include erosion, contaminated urban runoff, increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Study Area No. 10: Morning Canyon Morning Canyon is oriented perpendicular to the coastline between Corona Highlands and Cameo Highlands. The 11.2 -acre study area is bordered by the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -28 Pacific Ocean to the west, Pelican Hills Golf Course to the east, and residential development to the north and south of the site. Morning Canyon is under private ownership. & Morning Canyon is characterized by ;. sa disturbed, remnant, southern mixed i• P. chaparral vegetation on the ca nyon floor and along the upland slopes. This area, however, contains few 11� i1ii; remaining native species and is dominated by non - native and ornamental species that have invaded the canyon from adjacent residential areas located immediately to the northwest and southeast. Native plant species in the remnant Morning Canyon near Pelican Bay Golf Course southern mixed chaparral community include coyote brush, toyon, mountain mahogany (Cercopcarpus betuloides), lemonadeberry, and blue elderberry. Non- native species include fennel, pampas grass, acacia, date palm (Phoenix sp.), fig (Ficus sp.), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), tree tobacco, pittosporum (Pittosporum sp.), and castor bean. The canyon bottom once supported a southern willow scrub and willows, mule fat, and mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) can still be observed growing among the dominant non - native vegetation, though these species are no longer common enough to consider this habitat to be southern willow scrub. Nonnative plant species now dominate the bottom and lower slopes of the canyon and include giant reed, acacia, hottentot fig, eucalyptus, myoporum, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper tree, Peruvian pepper tree, pampas grass, ivy (Hedera sp.), and fennel. Although most of the native riparian- associated species have been displaced by non - native and ornamental species, the area is still used by riparian wildlife, such as American crow (Corvus brachyrhyncus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla garrulous), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana). The presence of a perennial watercourse along with a structurally diverse woody vegetation community provides the necessary habitat attributes that are essential to riparian- associated species. The lower, southwestern section of Morning Canyon is separated from the upper section of Morning Canyon by the Coast Highway. The entire canyon is very narrow and closely bordered by residential development on the northwest and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -29 southeast, the Pacific Ocean to the southwest, and the Pelican Hills Golf Course at the northeastern edge of the area. Ornamental species have completely displaced native vegetation in much of canyon and now dominate throughout the majority of this ESA. Pets from the adjacent residences likely use the area and further discourage wildlife use of the canyon. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, erosion, sedimentation, and uncontrolled public access. Study Area No. 11: Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area The 85.8 -acre Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area extends from Little Corona Beach to Cameo Shores Road. The refuge's coastline length is 0.6 miles (mi). It extends a distance of 200 feet (ft) offshore and to depths of about 18 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). This refuge is significant because it is the first section of rocky intertidal and rocky subtidal habitat south of Point Fermin, along with the Irvine Coast Marine Conservation Area. While sections of the refuge are within high Arch Rock in the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area visitor use areas (Little Corona Tide Pools) and have exhibited declines in biodiversity related to public use as well as natural processes, the downcoast section of the refuge in the vicinity of Cameo Shores is relatively inaccessible and exhibits less human -use disturbances. The beach is fronted by a sandstone bluff mixed with native coastal scrub and introduced vegetation. Intertidal areas consist of platform intertidal reefs and pocket sandy beaches, with conspicuous offshore rocks, stacks, and arches. Subtidally, the seafloor is a mixture of sand bottom and reefs. The siltstone reefs extend seaward of the limits of the refuge to depths of about 50 ft. Numerous types of plants, invertebrates, fishes, and seabirds occur within the limits of the refuge, and marine mammals (sea lions, bottlenose dolphin, and gray whales) will occasionally pass through. Tide pools use at Little Corona is managed by the City's tide pool ranger program, which includes docent -led tours of more than 3,000 students annually. Runoff from the surrounding watershed and streets enter the refuge at several points, the largest being Buck Gully, which drains across the sandy beach into the refuge. This runoff consists of various pollutants, such as fecal material from pets, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -30 oil and grease, fertilizers, and other urban -based pollutants. In addition, Buck Gully runoff contributes to high- suspended sediment loads to the refuge, particularly during years of high rainfall and runoff, which increases water turbidity and reduces submarine light levels. Water quality in the refuge is also likely influenced by the quality of the tidal waters flushed from Newport Bay on the outgoing tides, which tend to move downcoast oriented longshore currents. Heavy human use of the refuge has a major impact on the refuge's intertidal marine resources, resulting from illegal collecting and trampling of intertidal plants and invertebrates. Party boats and commercial and sport fishing vessels, as well as skin divers and scuba divers frequent the waters of the refuge for fishing and collecting. Commercial lobster fishermen also utilize the nearshore reefs within the refuge. These activities have a potential to reduce the productivity of the nearshore fishery. The Irvine Coast Marine Conservation Area will expand to include the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area and parts of the Laguna Beach Marine Conservation Area, and will be named the Crystal Cove State Marine Reserve under the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). The goal of the MLPA (Chapter 1015, Statutes of 1999) is to set up a system for evaluating and coordinating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the state. The MLPA states that "marine life reserves" are essential elements of an MPA system because they "protect habitat and ecosystems, conserve biological diversity, provide a sanctuary for fish and other sea life, enhance recreational and educational opportunities, provide a reference point against which scientists can measure changes elsewhere in the marine environment, and may help rebuild depleted fisheries." The CDFG is required to develop a comprehensive master plan that combines ecosystem management with protection and public outreach for the state's MPAs, including the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area. Under state marine reserve status, commercial and recreational fishing could be further restricted or prohibited to protect marine resources. Study Area No. 12: Castaways The 23.3 -acre Castaways ESA is located east of Dover Drive and south of Castaways Lane along Upper Newport Bay. A church and offices are located to the north, residential developments are located immediately west and Lower Castaways is located between the study area and the Coast Highway Bridge. Several trails cross throughout the site and can be accessed via Castaways Lane. The Castaways site is designated as a view park. The existing trail system encourages and directs the public to locations where the views of the coast, harbor and bay can be enjoyed with minimal impacts to the natural habitats. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -31 Coastal bluff scrub at Castaways The Castaways site is characterized by four plant communities: southern willow scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub (a restoration area), southern coastal bluff scrub, and non - native grassland. The center of the site is characterized by non - native grassland, which comprises the majority of the site. Plant species associated with this community include black mustard, Russian thistle, and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). Several dirt trails and paved routes transect the parcel. A drainage runs north -to -south from the church parking lot parallel to Dover Drive. This drainage is dominated by native plant species that are characteristic of southern willow scrub communities including willows, mule fat, western sycamore, cattail, and Mexican elderberry. A second ephemeral drainage runs east -to -west from the hilltop near Dover Drive. This feature supports mainly upland and non- native vegetation including Brazilian pepper tree, Peruvian pepper tree, acacia, eucalyptus, myoporum, tree tobacco, and lemonadeberry. The eastern portion of the site located along the east - facing slopes that overlook the bay support southern coastal bluff scrub vegetation. Saltbush, tree lupine, prickly pear, coyote brush, California buckwheat, and coastal goldenbush, and California bush sunflower dominate the vegetative cover. The bluff area is fenced and protected from direct disturbance. Bluff habitat within this study area is continuous with the bluff habitat that stretches north to Polaris Drive. A Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration area is located within the northwest portion of the parcel, immediately east of the riparian area. Plant species associated with this area include California sagebrush, coyote brush, California buckwheat, black sage (Salvia mellifera), and coastal goldenbush. The Diegan coastal sage scrub restoration area is the first phase of Castaways Park Revegetation Project. The project will remove the non - native and ruderal vegetation and replace it with new native vegetation to create a view park for passive recreation and nature observation. Potential impacts to the natural habitats in this study area include increased human activity, ambient noise, invasive species, and uncontrolled public access. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -32 Study Area No.13: Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Kelp Beds The giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) bed within the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel is one of the only giant kelp bed habitats currently existing between Seal Beach and South Orange County. Giant kelp beds, once found abundantly along the coastline between Corona del Mar and Laguna Beach are now extremely sparse. Warming trends, El Nino storm events, ecological Giant kelp bed habitat at Newport Harbor Entrance imbalances due to over fishing, and extensive grading of lands around drainages adjacent to kelp beds that increase suspended sediment loads to the ocean are important contributors to the decline of kelp beds in southern California and have likely resulted in the decline of kelp beds within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area and the Irvine Coast Marine Conservation Area /Crystal Cove State Park. Giant kelp currently is rare within these refuges. Giant kelp reforestation is being attempted in Crystal Cove State Underwater Park. However, it is still too early to evaluate the success of this project. Occurring along nearly half of the length of the west jetty and extending from depths of 10 to 30 feet, the Newport Harbor Entrance giant kelp bed, while relatively small, has maintained itself over a period of several years while other kelp beds along the Newport Beach and Laguna Beach have declined. Two separate kelp beds are present. The largest bed is located along the outermost half of the west jetty, while a second and smaller bed is located along inner third of the west jetty. The total acreage of kelp is approximately 1.16 acres. It is a productive and viable resource and supports over 70 species of plants, invertebrates, and fishes. During subtidal reconnaissance dives of underwater habitats along the Newport coastline in 2002, the marine life associated with the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel jetty quarry rock and within the kelp bed was second only to the 200 Meter Reef, located in the Crystal Cove Underwater Park, in species richness. Dredging activity and jetty reconstruction projects have a potential to reduce the viability of the kelp beds located within the Harbor Entrance Channel. Future projects conducted within the Entrance Channel should include protection measures to avoid long -term impacts to kelp bed resources. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -33 TABLE 4.1 -1 Environmental Study Area Impacts and Miti ation Measures Study Area Name Water Qualify' Traffic Noise Public Access Development Encroachment Erosion, Sedimentation Dredging or Stormwater Invasive Feral Mitigations to Reduce the Potential Impacts of No. Filling Runoff Species Animals Identified Threats 1 Semeniuk x x x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (A) Slough POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N) 2 North Star x x x x x X x x x POLICY4.1.3 -1 (B) Beach POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N 3 West Bay x x x x x X x x x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N 4 UNBMP x x x x x X x x X POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) and De POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) Anza POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) Bayside POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) Marsh POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) Peninsula POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.13-1 (H) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (I) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N View of De AnzatBayside Marsh Peninsula from Castaways Park Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -34 TABLE 4.1 -1 Environmental Study Area Impacts and Miti ation Measures Study Area Name Water Traffic Noise Public Development Erosron' Sedimentation Dredging or Stormwater Invasive Feral Mitigations to Reduce the Potential Impacts of Quality Access Encroachment Filling Runoff Species Animals Identified Threats No. 5 San Diego x x x X x X x x X POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B) POLICY 4.1.3.1 (C) .Creek POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N 6 East Bluff x x x x x X x x X POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) Remnant POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3.1 N 7 Mouth of X x x x x X x x X POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B) Big POLICY 4.1.3.1 (C) Canyon POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3.1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N) 8 Newporter X x x x x X x x x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) North POLICY 4.1.3-1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 N 9 Buck Gully X x x x x X x X x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (N 10 Morning x x x x x X x x x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) Canyon POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY4.1.3 -1 N Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -35 TABLE 4.1 -1 Environmental Study Area Impacts and Mitigation Measures Study Area Name Water Traffic Noise Public Development Erosion, Sedimentation Dredging or Stormwater Invasive Feral Mitigations to Reduce the Potential Impacts of p No. Quality, Access Encroachment Fliling Runoff Species Animals Identified Threats 11 Newport x x X X x x x POLICY 4.1.3.1 (B) Beach POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (J) Marine POLICY 4.13-1 (K) Conservati POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (L) on Area POLICY 4.1.3.1 (M) POLICY 4.1.3.1 N 12 Castaways x x x x x X x x x POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (B) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (C) POLICY 4.1.3.1 (D) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (E) POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (F) POLICY 4.1.3.1 (G) POLICY 4.1.3.1 N 13 Newport x x x x x X POLICY 4.1.3.1 (N) Harbor POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (0) Entrance POLICY 4.1.3 -1 (P) Channel POLICY 4.1.3 -1 O water quality issues include one or more types a subcategories suspended sediments nutrient enrichment 60DICOD Metals and petroleum hydrocarbons conform bacteria, viruses, pathogens Upper Newport Bay Marine Park Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -36 Policies: 4.1.3 -1. Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from sources including, but not limited to, those identified in Table 4.1.1: A. Require removal of unauthorized bulkheads, docks and patios or other structures that impact wetlands or other sensitive habitat areas. B. Where pedestrian access is permitted, avoid adverse impacts to sensitive areas from pedestrian traffic through the use of well - defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, signage, and similar methods. C. Prohibit the planting of non - native plant species and require the removal of non - natives in conjunction with landscaping or revegetation projects in natural habitat areas. D. Strictly control encroachments into natural habitats to prevent impacts that would significantly degrade the habitat. E. Limit encroachments into wetlands to development that is consistent with Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and Policy 4.2.3 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan. F. Regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats. G. Require irrigation practices on blufftops that minimize erosion of bluffs. H. Participate in implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) — see Section 4.3 (Water Quality). I. Participate in programs to control sedimentation into and within Upper Newport Bay. J. Use docent programs to actively manage and enforce CDFG regulations in marine protected areas regarding the taking of intertidal and subtidal plants and animals and to minimize incidental trampling. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -37 K. Manage public access as required to minimize damage to tide pools. L. Control upstream pollution sources from Buck Gully, Morning Canyon and storm drain runoff from local streets to the maximum extent practical to reduce sediment, nutrient, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutant loads. M. Implement TMDLs into Newport Bay and local watersheds to minimize water quality problems along the coastline. N. Prohibit invasive species and require removal in . new development. O. Implement and enforce TMDLs in watershed and Upper Newport Bay to improve water quality in Newport Harbor. P. Require dredging and jetty reconstruction projects conducted within the Entrance Channel to include protection measures to avoid long -term impacts to kelp bed resources. Q. Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. 4.1.3 -2. Prohibit the planting of invasive species in non - urbanized areas. 4.1.3 -3. Prepare natural habitat protection overlays for Buck Gully ESA and Morning Canyon ESA for the purpose of providing standards to ensure both the protection and restoration of the natural habitats in these areas. Include in the overlays standards for the placement of structures, native vegetation /fuel modification buffers, and erosion and sedimentation control structures. 4.1.3 -4. Continue to work within the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee structure to address sedimentation, nutrient loading, and bacteria and toxins from runoff. The Committee includes representatives from the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin, in addition to the Irvine Ranch Water District, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Santa Ana Region), the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the County of Orange, and the Irvine Company. The Watershed Executive Committee, in implementing four separate "total maximum Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -38 daily loads" for Newport Bay, has developed and is implementing plans to control sediment, nutrients, bacteria, and toxic materials in the Bay's watershed. 4.1.3 -5. Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game and the County of Orange in developing a management plan for the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park and the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve. 4.1.3 -6. Maintain public use of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park to the extent such use is consistent with the preservation of sensitive resources. 4.1.3 -7. Coordinate with County and State resource agencies to monitor ecological conditions within the Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area and to implement management programs to protect this marine conservation area. Maintain public use of the refuges to the extent it is consistent with the preservation of intertidal and subtidal resources. 4.1.3 -8. Support the construction of tide pool exhibits at the Back Bay Science Center on Shellmaker Island to provide an educational alternative to the tide pools at Corona del Mar and Crystal Cove State Park beaches. 4.1.3 -9. Support giant kelp reforestation programs. 4.1.3 -10. Remove unauthorized structures that encroach into Semeniuk Slough, the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park, or other wetland areas. Prohibit future encroachment of structures into these areas unless structures are absolutely necessary for public well being. Minimize any necessary encroachment into wetland habitats to the extent feasible and permanent loss of wetlands habitat shall be mitigated. 4.1.3 -11. Routine maintenance of drainage courses and facilities, sedimentation basins, trails, access roads, public infrastructure, and other related facilities may be allowed if carried out in accordance with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -39 4.1.4 Eelgrass Meadows Eelgrass can be found worldwide in quiet, temperate -water mud or sand habitats. In Southern California, eelgrass can be found in coastal wetlands, bays, and harbors at depths between +1 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to about —25 feet MLLW and on nearshore coastal sand bottoms to depths of 50 to 80 feet MLLW. The conditions favorable for the growth of this plant are periods of low rainfall, runoff and sedimentation, good light penetration, optimum temperature range (50 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit), moderate dissolved oxygen concentration, limited algal growth and good water quality. Once established, eelgrass patches can expand through vegetative growth along extended rhizomes to form vast meadows. At present (2003), eelgrass is abundant in several sections of Newport Harbor and has been expanding its distribution in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay over the last several years due to favorable growing conditions, lack of heavy rainfall, minimal runoff, and more stringent water quality regulations. The lowest recorded eelgrass coverage occurred in 1993 with less than 3 acres. A 2002 survey found approximately 35 acres of eelgrass coverage. Its depth range in Newport Bay is from 0.0 ft Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) to —28 ft. On the average, however, most eelgrass in the Bay grows to a depth of about —8 to —10 ft MLLW. It grows deepest in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel. Eelgrass grows extensively within the Harbor Entrance Channel, where it covers approximately 20 acres of underwater sandy bottom habitat. Other sections of Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-40 Newport Bay that currently support extensive eelgrass beds include the eastern shoreline of the Bay between Carnation Cove to the Coast Guard Base, Balboa Island (and in the Grand Canal), along the eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula, around Harbor Island, within the Linda Isle Basin, and in the channels around its perimeter. Eelgrass is currently expanding its distribution. Locations where smaller beds have become established within the last few years include the southern edge of the Bayshores development, a shoal immediately south of the Coast Highway Bridge near the Swales Marina; Lido Isle, and on the north side of Lido Reach between the Bayshores community west to the Balboa Bay Club. July 2002 observations indicate eelgrass is recolonizing shallow subtidal habitat in Upper Newport Bay between the Coast Highway Bridge and Dover Shores along both sides of the Main Channel after a long -term absence. Some of the eelgrass currently growing in Newport Harbor is the result of previous eelgrass transplants conducted during dredging of the Entrance Channel in the early 1980s, and in the Grand Canal on Balboa Island in 1999. These transplant programs were conducted as mitigation for Newport Harbor projects that resulted in the loss of eelgrass habitat. A large -scale eelgrass restoration program is currently being planned for Newport Harbor by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the County of Orange, and the City of Newport Beach with the goal of enhancing between 5 and 10 acres of eelgrass to the Harbor within eight I pilot project restoration sites starting in May 2004. This will add a significant amount of biological value to the Harbor. Once established, these restoration sites will be enhanced by further plantings and serve as eelgrass mitigation sites for the loss of eelgrass habitat for small harbor dredging projects (500 to 1000 cubic yards). Dredging and dock and bulkhead construction projects have a potential to impact eelgrass bed resources within several areas of Newport Bay through direct habitat loss or secondary effects of turbidity or vessel anchor scarring. However, ongoing maintenance of harbor structures and periodic dredging is essential to protect the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource. A comprehensive and balanced management plan is necessary in order to maintain the recreational and commercial uses of the harbor while protecting its natural marine resources (see Section 4.2.5 — Eelgrass Protection and Restoration). Policies: 4.1.4 -1. Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem. 4.1.4 -2. Implement eelgrass restoration and enhancement programs in Newport Harbor. 4.1.4 -3. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -41 extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass. 4.1.4 -4. Provide for the protection of eelgrass meadows and mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in a comprehensive harbor area management plan for Newport Bay. 4.1.4 -5. Where applicable require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxifolia surveys to be conducted as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols. 4.1.5 Coastal Foredunes Dune habitats are identified by stands of dense to sparse annual 11i„ and perennial herbs, grasses, or 'r shrubs occurring on sand dunes along the coast. Dune habitat is considered a sensitive plant{ � community and is listed as rare or threatened or is otherwise protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, California Coastal } Commission, or local agencies. Loss of dune habitat as a result of tttt coastal development is considered Southern coastal foredune habitat on the Balboa Peninsula to be a significant environmental impact, and any potential impacts to this resource must be avoided, minimized, or compensated. In Newport Beach, southern coastal foredune habitat extends southwest along the ocean side of the Balboa Peninsula from 10th Street to the tip of the peninsula. The vegetation in this community is generally sparse with overall cover ranging from 20 to 70 percent in some areas, while other areas are completely devoid of vegetation. Areas of open sand fragment this habitat. Dominant plant species include non - native species such as purple sand - verbena (Abronia umbellata), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia), sea -fig (Carpobrotus chiliensis), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), beach morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), and beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis). Ornamental and non - native species, likely introduced from the adjacent residences, dominate much of the southern coastal foredune habitat. Numerous Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-42 residences use the beach area as an extension of their backyards. Some residents have planted and irrigated the ornamental species, which have replaced native species in these areas. Increased human activity and uncontrolled public access also adversely impact these dune habitats, as evidenced by the numerous trails bisecting the dunes. Many areas are almost completely covered by sea -fig and hottentot fig. If dune habitat losses cannot be avoided, then mitigation programs to restore dune habitat within Newport Beach should be implemented. Policies: 4.1.5 -1. Require the removal of exotic vegetation and the restoration of native vegetation in dune habitat. 4.1.5 -2. Direct public access away from dune habitat areas through the use of well - defined footpaths, boardwalks, protective fencing, signage, and similar methods. 4.1.5 -3. Design and site recreation areas to avoid impacts to dune habitat areas. 4.1.5 -4. Require a coastal development permit for earthmoving beach sand in dune habitat areas. 4.1.5 -5. Limit earthmoving of beach sand in dune habitat areas to projects necessary for the protection of coastal resources and existing development. Iceplant encroachment into southern coastal foredunes Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-43 4.2 Wetlands and Deepwater Areas The Coastal Act distinguishes wetlands from other types of water areas, such as estuaries and open coastal waters. Section 30121 of the Coastal Act defines "wetlands" as "lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens." Therefore, the interpretation of the term "shallow water" can be used to distinguish wetlands from other submerged areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines the boundary between wetland and deepwater habitat as the elevation of extreme low -water of spring tide for areas subject to tidal influence. Therefore, for purposes of the Coastal Act, wetlands can be interpreted as beginning at extreme low -water of spring tide and "estuary" or "open coastal water" is anything deeper. 4.2.1 Southern California Wetlands Wetlands are transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is often covered by shallow water during some parts of the year. Wetlands can be categorized according to specific habitat and type of vegetation. In Southern California, wetlands generally fall into four categories: estuarine wetlands, such as the Upper Newport Bay and Semeniuk Slough; freshwater marshes, which can be found in Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and San Diego Creek; riparian wetlands, which occur along creeks and streams or bodies of water; and vernal pools, which can be found on Banning Ranch. Southern California coastal wetlands and watersheds have been dramatically altered or destroyed by human activities over the past 150 years. Wetlands have been filled and rivers, streams, and creeks have been rerouted, dammed, channelized, and paved. Estimates of historic wetland acreages compiled from the literature and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey maps created between 1851 and 1893 indicate a loss of 70 percent reduction in coastal wetlands in Southern California. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-44 Wetlands are recognized as very important ecosystems with the following multiple values and functions: ■ Biological Diversity. Wetlands provide important habitat for diverse communities of plants and animals, including federally listed threatened or endangered species. ■ Waterfowl Habitat. Wetlands provide the principal habitat for migratory waterfowl. California provides critical wintering habitat for millions of waterfowl migrating along the Pacific Flyway, which extends from Canada to Mexico. ■ Fisheries. Wetlands provide direct spawning and rearing habitats and food supply that supports both freshwater and marine fisheries. ■ Flood Control. Wetlands detain flood flows, reducing the size and destructiveness of floods. Water Quality. Wetlands absorb and filter pollutants that could otherwise degrade ground water or the water quality of rivers, lakes, and estuaries. • Ground Water Recharge. Some wetlands recharge aquifers that provide urban and agricultural water supplies. ■ Recreation. Wetlands support a multi - million - dollar fishing, hunting, and outdoor recreation industry nationwide. The Coastal Act requires the projection of wetlands. Development or alteration of coastal wetlands is primarily regulated by Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, which provides that the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, or estuaries may only be permitted where there is no less environmentally damaging alternative and must be restricted to a narrow range of allowable uses. The Coastal Act also requires the protection of biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. Water quality issues are discussed in detail in Section 4.3 (Water Quality). Two federal statutes provide the primary regulatory authority over wetlands. The Clean Water Act (Section 404(b)) regulates disposal of dredge and fill materials into waters of the United States, including all streams to their headwaters, lakes over 10 acres, and contiguous wetlands, including those above the ordinary high water mark in non -tidal waters and mean high tide in tidal waters. The River and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10) regulates the diking, filling, and placement of structures in navigable waterways. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is primarily responsible for the implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations pertaining to both sections of these statutes. The Environmental Protection Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-45 Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) review applications for Section 404 permits and can provide the Corps with comments and recommendations reflecting agency concerns. Policies: 4.2.1 -1. Recognize and protect wetlands for their commercial, recreational, water quality, and habitat value. 4.2.1 -2. Protect, maintain and, where feasible, restore the biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes. 4.2.1 -3. Chan neIizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects, (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the floodplain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 4.2.2 Wetland Definition and Delineation Due to semi -arid Mediterranean climate of Southern California, some wetlands can remain dry for one or more seasons. This presents problems for the identification and delineation of wetlands. Section 30121 of the Coastal Act defines "wetlands" as 'lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens." However, a more specific definition is provided in Section 13577 (b -1) of the California Code of Regulations: "...land where the water table is at near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentration of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetland or deepwater habitats." The boundary line between the wetland and adjacent upland area is determined by the extent of one or more key wetland characteristics: hydrology (frequency, duration, and timing of inundation or saturation), hydric soils (soil with Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -46 characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation), and hydrophytic vegetation (plants adapted to life in water, or in periodically flooded and /or saturated anaerobic soils). Positive wetland indicators of all three characteristics are normally present in wetlands. However, the presence of only one of these characteristics (e.g., hydrology, hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation) is needed for an area to qualify as a wetland, pursuant to the California Code of Regulations. Hydrology is the key characteristic because it drives the formation of hydric soils and allows hydrophytic vegetation to establish dominance. However, hydrology is the most difficult of the three wetland characteristics to quantify. Many of the hydrology indicators are subjective and often it is difficult to determine the timing and duration o f hydrology without visual observation. Therefore, the Coastal Commission considers a predominance of hydrophytes or a predominance of hydric soils as evidence that the land was "wet enough long enough" to develop wetland characteristics. Policies: 4.2.2 -1. Define wetlands as areas where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to bring about the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes. Such wetlands can include areas where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentration of salts or other substances in the substrate. Wetlands do not include areas which in normal rainfall years are permanently submerged (streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments), nor marine or estuarine areas below extreme low water of spring tides. 4.2.2 -2. Require a survey and analysis with the delineation of all wetland areas when the initial site survey indicates the presence or potential for wetland species or indicators. Wetland delineations will be conducted in accordance with the definitions of wetland boundaries contained in section 13577(b) of the California Code of Regulations. 4.2.2 -3. Require buffer areas around wetlands of a sufficient size to ensure the biological integrity and preservation of the wetland that they are designed to protect. Wetlands shall have a minimum buffer width of 100 feet wherever possible. Smaller wetland buffers may be allowed only where it can be demonstrated that 1) a 100 -foot wide buffer is not possible due to site - specific constraints, and 2) the proposed narrower buffer would be amply protective of the biological integrity of the wetland given the site - specific characteristics of the resource and of the type and intensity of disturbance. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 447 4.2.3 Dredging, Diking, and Filling Upper Newport Bay Newport Bay is an estuary, an embayment along the coast where inland fresh water mixes with salt water from the ocean. Newport Bay's main source of fresh water is San Diego Creek. Historically only about 15 square miles of land drained into the bay via San Diego Creek. However, San Diego Creek was channelized in 1968 so that peak floods and sediment could be efficiently routed to the bay. This increased the drainage area to about 118 square miles. In 1969, heavy storm runoff poured hundreds of thousands of tons of sediment into the bay. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-48 Subsequent storm season sedimentation events in 1978 and 1980 caused shallowing of the Upper Bay. Intertidal saltmarsh vegetation became established and expanded rapidly. This would have eventually filled the bay with sediment and turned it into a meadow. In 1985, 85 acres of the Upper Bay g were dredged out to create the Unit I Sediment Control Basin (depths —3 to —7 feet MSL). A second dredging San Diego Creek near Back Bay Drive project in 1988 created the 37 -acre Unit II Sediment Control Basin, just south of the Main Dike (depth —14 feet MSL). Both basins have worked well, collecting large volumes of coarser grained sediment from periodic flood runoff, principally down San Diego Creek. However, these require extensive on -going maintenance dredging. The last major dredging activity in the bay occurred in 1998 -99. This project cleared about 900,000 cubic yards of sediment from the bay. As the 1998 -99 project was completed, Newport Beach, Orange County, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, The Irvine Company, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the watershed cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Lake Forest, and Laguna Woods, began planning a larger, more significant project with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete the restoration of the Upper Newport Bay. The Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project was developed to restore and maintain tidal movement in the bay. The project would dredge more than 2.7 million cubic yards from the Upper Bay, restore deteriorated habitat, increase blue - water views, move the Least Tern islands, and open up several island channels in mid -Upper Bay. Upper Newport Bay } F z +/ 19 ,I 1 Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -49 Lower Newport Bay /Harbor There are approximately 1,200 harbor permits for both residential and commercial docks within Newport Harbor. It is general policy that the responsibility for dredging around and under private docks rests with the private property owner. In the past, the City has secured a Regional General Permit in order to expedite property owners' permit processing with the Corps and the California Coastal Commission. The Regional General Permits' term is typically 5 to 10 years. Policies: 4.2.3 -1. Permit the diking, filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes in accordance with other applicable provisions of the LCP, where there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects and limited to the following: A. Construction or expansion of port/marine facilities. B. Construction or expansion of coastal- dependent industrial facilities, including commercial fishing facilities, and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -50 commercial ferry facilities. C. In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including estuaries and streams, new or expanded boating facilities, including slips, access ramps, piers, marinas, recreational boating, launching ramps, and pleasure ferries, and the placement of structural pilings for public recreational piers that provide public access and recreational opportunities. D. Maintenance of existing and restoration of previously dredged depths in navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing, anchorage, and mooring areas, and boat launching ramps. The most recently updated U.S. Army Corps of Engineers maps shall be used to establish existing Newport Bay depths. E. Incidental public service purposes which temporarily impact the resources of the area, such as burying cables and pipes, inspection of piers, and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. F. Sand extraction for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. G. Restoration purposes. H. Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource- dependent activities. In the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park, permit dredging, diking, or filling only for the purposes of wetland restoration, nature study, or to enhance the habitat values of environmentally sensitive areas. 4.2.3 -2. Continue to permit recreational docks and piers as an allowable use within intertidal areas in Newport Harbor. 4.2.3 -3. Continue support of the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project to restore the Upper Newport Bay to its optimal ecosystem. 4.2.3 -4. Require dredging and dredged material disposal to be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -51 4.2.3 -5. Secure federal funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. 4.2.3 -6. Secure permanent use designation for the IA -3 sediment disposal site for future dredging projects. 4.2.3 -7. Require the following mitigation measures for dredging projects in the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park: A. Dredging and spoils disposal must be planned and carried out to limit turbidity and to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. B. Maintenance dredging shall be encouraged where the dredging enhances commercial or recreational use of the Bay. When dredged material is of an appropriate grain size and grain percentage, this material may be used to restore or replace natural sandy sloping beaches in order to retain the current profiles of Newport Bay. Maintenance dredging activity shall have the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and shall meet applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards. C. Dredged material not suitable for beach nourishment or other permitted beneficial reuse shall be disposed of offshore at a designated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disposal site or at an appropriate upland location. D. Temporary dewatering of dredged spoils may be authorized within the Bay's drainage if adequate erosion controls are provided and the spoils are removed. A bond or a contractual arrangement shall be a precondition to dredging of the material, and final disposal of the dewatered material on the approved dump site shall be accomplished within the time period specified in the permit. E. Dredged spoils shall not be used to fill riparian areas, wetlands, or natural canyons. F. Other mitigation measures may include opening areas to tidal action, removing dikes, improving tidal flushing, restoring salt marsh or eelgrass vegetation, or other restoration measures. G. Dredge spoils suitable for beach nourishment should be Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -52 transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems provided that the placement is permitted by a Section 404 permit. 4.2.3 -8. Continue to cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in their maintenance and delineation of federal navigational channels at Newport Harbor in the interest in providing navigation and safety. 4.2.3 -9. Continue to secure Regional General Permits through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission to expedite permit processing for residential and commercial dock owners in the Bay. 4.2.3 -10. Seek permits authorizing maintenance dredging under and around residential piers and floats subject to compliance with all conditions to the current Regional General Permit, including grain size requirements, availability of suitable dredge disposal site, and periodic bioassays. 4.2.3 -11. Require the following minimum mitigation measures if a project involves diking or filling of a wetland: A. If an appropriate mitigation site is available, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan which includes provisions for (1) acquiring title to the mitigation site; (2) "in- kind" wetland restoration or creation where possible; (3) where `but -of- kind" mitigation is necessary, restoration or creation of wetlands that are of equal or greater biological productivity to the wetland that was filled or dredged; and (4) dedication of the restored or created wetland and buffer to a public agency, or permanent restriction of their use to open space purposes. Adverse impacts shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1 for impacts to seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh and riparian areas, and at a ratio of 4:1 for impacts to vernal pools and saltmarsh (the ratio representing the acreage of the area to be restored /created to the acreage of the area diked or filled), unless the applicant provides evidence establishing, and the approving authority finds, that restoration or creation of a lesser area of wetlands will fully mitigate the adverse impacts of the dike or fill project. However, in no event shall the mitigation ratio be less than 2:1 unless, prior to the development impacts, the mitigation is completed and is empirically demonstrated to meet performance criteria that establish that the created or restored wetlands are functionally Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -53 equivalent or superior to the impacted wetlands. The mitigation shall occur on -site wherever possible. Where not possible, mitigation should occur in the same watershed. The mitigation site shall be purchased and legally restricted and/or dedicated before the dike or fill development may proceed. B. The applicant may, in some cases, be permitted to open equivalent areas to tidal action or provide other sources of surface water in place of creating or restoring wetlands pursuant to paragraph A. This method of mitigation would be appropriate if the applicant already owns, or can acquire, filled or diked areas which themselves are not environmentally sensitive habitat areas but which would become so if such areas were opened to tidal action or provided with other sources of surface water. C. However, if no appropriate sites under options (A) and (B) are available, the applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee of sufficient value to an appropriate public agency for the purchase and restoration of an area of equivalent productive value, or equivalent surface area. This third option would be allowed only if the applicant is unable to find a willing seller of a potential restoration site. The public agency may also face difficulties in acquiring appropriate sites even though it has the ability to condemn property. Thus, the in -lieu fee shall reflect the additional costs of acquisition, including litigation, as well as the cost of restoration. If the public agency's restoration project is not already approved by the City, the public agency may need to be a co- applicant for a permit to provide adequate assurance that conditions can be imposed to assure that the purchase of the mitigation site shall occur prior to issuance of the permit. In addition, such restoration must occur in the same general region (e.g., within the same estuary) where the fill occurred. 4.2.3 -12. All preferred restoration programs would remove fill from a formerly productive wetland or estuary that is now biologically unproductive dry land and would establish a tidal prism necessary to assure adequate flushing. Since restoration projects necessarily involve many uncertainties, restoration should precede the diking or filling project. At a minimum, permits will be conditioned to assure that restoration will occur simultaneously with project construction. Restoration and management plans shall be submitted with the permit application. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -54 4.2.3 -13. Where impacts to wetlands are allowed, require monitoring of mitigation measures for a period of sufficient time to determine if mitigation objectives and performance standards are being met. Mid- course corrections shall be implemented if necessary to meet the objectives or performance standards. Require the submittal of monitoring reports during the monitoring period that document the success or failure of the mitigation. To help insure that the mitigation project is self - sustaining, final monitoring for all mitigation projects shall take place after at least three years with no remediation or maintenance activities other than weeding. If performance standards are not met by the end of the prescribed monitoring period, the monitoring period shall be extended or the applicant shall submit an amendment application proposing alternative mitigation measures and implement the approved changes. Unless it is determined by the City that a differing mitigation monitoring schedule is appropriate, it is generally anticipated that monitoring shall occur for a period of not less than five years. 4.2.3 -14. Require that any project that includes diking, filling or dredging of a wetland or estuary, as permitted pursuant to Policy 4.2.3 -1, maintain the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Functional capacity means the ability of the wetland or estuary to be self- sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity. In order to establish that the functional capacity is being maintained, the applicant must demonstrate all of the following: A. That the project does not alter presently occurring plant and animal populations in the ecosystem in a manner that would impair the long -term stability of the ecosystem; i.e., natural species diversity, abundance, and composition are essentially unchanged as a result of the project. B. That the project does not harm or destroy a species or habitat that is rare or endangered. C. That the project does not harm a species or habitat that is essential to the natural biological functioning of the wetland or estuary. D. That the project does not significantly reduce consumptive (e.g., fishing, aquaculture and hunting) or non - consumptive (e.g., water quality and research opportunity) values of the wetland or estuarine ecosystem. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -55 4.2.3 -15. Require new development on the waterfront to design and site docking facilities in relationship to the water's depth and accessibility. 4.2.3 -16. Design and site all structures permitted to encroach into open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries to harmonize with the natural appearance of the surrounding area. 4.2.3 -17. Continue to limit residential and commercial structures permitted to encroach beyond the bulkhead line to piers and docks used exclusively for berthing of vessels. However, this policy shall not be construed to allow development that requires the filling of open coastal waters, wetlands or estuaries that would require mitigation for the loss of valuable habitat in order to place structures closer to the bulkhead line or create usable land areas. 4.2.3 -18. Require restoration plans to be reviewed and approved by a qualified professional prior to accepting sites for mitigation. Balboa Island Channel Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -56 4.2.4 Dredge Spoils Disposal Section 30233(b) of the Coastal Act requires that dredge spoils be disposed of in a manner that avoids disruption to habitats. The selection of a disposal site for dredged sediments is dependent upon the physical and chemical characteristics of the material. Material free of chemical contamination and consisting primarily of sand of an acceptable grain size (usually approximately 80 percent sand) is generally suitable for beach nourishment and placed on appropriate beaches or within suitable longshore currents. Material of appropriate grain Dredging project in Balboa Island Channel size and with minimal contamination may be disposed of at unconfined, openwater disposal sites authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Dredged material that is physically suitable, but is chemically unsuitable for aquatic disposal due to of elevated levels of certain contaminants, may be used as fill, or in certain wetland construction and habitat improvement projects, provided the contaminated materials are confined (e.g., parking lots, container piers, etc.). Periodic maintenance dredging and habitat restoration projects in Newport Bay require an environmentally acceptable disposal site. However, due to grain size incompatibility, most of this material will not be suitable for beach nourishment. Upland disposal is generally cost - prohibitive and harbor landfill and habitat improvement projects occur too infrequently to be a reliable disposal option. Therefore, the most practical solution is a nearby offshore disposal site. The LA -3 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site (ODMDS) is located approximately 4 miles Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -57 Disposal of dredge material off of West Newport off the coast of Newport Beach. The LA -3 site has been historically used for the disposal of dredged material from Newport Bay and for material not suitable for beach nourishment at Newport Beach due to grain size incompatibility. The LA -3 ODMDS was designated as an interim site for the disposal of dredged material by the EPA. Securing LA -3 ODMS as a permanently designated disposal site is therefore essential to the projection of Newport Bay as a commercial, recreational and ecological resource. Erosion control and flood control facilities constructed on water courses can impede the movement of sediment and nutrients which would otherwise be carried by storm runoff into coastal waters. To facilitate the continued delivery of these sediments to the littoral zone, whenever feasible, the material removed from these facilities may be placed at appropriate points on the shoreline where feasible mitigation measures have been provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Aspects that shall be considered before issuing a coastal development permit for such purposes are the method of placement, time of year of placement, and sensitivity of the placement area. Monitoring dredging projects within the region can provide opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. By placing the sediment on the beach, offshore disposal costs are eliminated and the nourishment project provides a tangible benefit from the dredging operation. In 1992, a nourishment project was devised to reduce disposal costs and to take advantage of the large quantities of beach -grade sand from the Lower Santa Ana River Flood Control Channel Expansion Project. Nearly 1.3 million cubic yards of dredged material were deposited offshore of Newport Beach, which migrated to West Newport beaches under the influence of waves and currents. Policies: 4.2.4 -1. Cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to secure LA -3 ODMDS as a permanently designated disposal site. 4.2.4 -2. Monitor dredging projects within the region to identify opportunities to reduce disposal costs and utilize dredge spoils for beach nourishment. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -58 4.2.4 -3. Dredged materials suitable for beneficial reuse shall be transported for such purposes to appropriate areas and placed in a manner that minimizes adverse effects on the environment. 4.2.4 -4. Participate in regional sediment management by maintaining records of the number of channelized streams, miles of channelization in streams, volumes of sediment extracted from stream channels and debris basins, and the grain size distribution of the extracted sediments. 4.2.4 -5. Material removed from erosion control and flood control facilities suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable long shore current systems. 4.2.5 Eelgrass Protection and Restoration Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an important underwater plant that is indicative of and supports a healthy and diverse marine environment (see Section 4.1.4 — Eelgrass Meadows). Dredging projects in the Lower Bay have the potential to impact eelgrass bed resources. The loss of eelgrass as a result of coastal development is considered to be a significant environmental impact, and any potential impacts to this resource must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Eelgrass in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Currently, mitigation requires an expensive and time - consuming procedure that requires the eelgrass to be replanted, monitored, and maintained per the Southem Califomia Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. This policy was developed in 1991 by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game in order to standardize and maintain a consistent policy regarding mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass resources. The policy typically requires that for every square foot of eelgrass removed, 1.2 square feet must be planted and maintained. Eelgrass mitigation monitoring is required for a period of 5 years for most projects. The City, the County of Orange, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have worked with various resource agencies (including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -59 Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game) to develop a plan whereby the City and the County of Orange would establish, monitor, and maintain eelgrass beds. The eelgrass restoration program is intended to enhance between 5 and 10 acres of eelgrass to the Harbor within eight pilot restoration sites. Once deemed successful, these eight sites will serve as eelgrass mitigation sites for City projects and as a mitigation bank from which eelgrass mitigation credits will be issued to private property owners for eelgrass removal resulting from dock and channel dredging projects. The Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy provides detailed procedures for mitigating adverse impacts to eelgrass resources. However, the policy contains no provision for post- recovery conditions. The policy was drafted at a time when eelgrass coverage was near a low point in Newport Harbor. At present (2003), eelgrass is abundant in several sections of Newport Harbor and has been expanding its distribution in both Lower and Upper Newport Bay. The policy requires all eelgrass patches to be protected or replaced, regardless of its size, location, or habitat value or the extent of eelgrass coverage within the harbor. Eelgrass protection, mitigation, and monitoring complicate and substantially increase the cost of dredging maintenance projects, which are essential to protecting the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource. The City is developing a conceptual eelgrass mitigation program that will address the establishment of eelgrass acreage baselines for Newport Harbor. The baseline would be the minimum acreage, based on the distribution, density, and productivity, necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function. Once the baseline is determined, projects may be granted exemptions to the Southern Eelgrass restoration California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy mitigation requirements, provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained. The National Marine Fisheries Service, as the lead agency, would need to incorporate such a provision into Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to incorporate the provision into the City's Regional General Permit and into any individual property owner's dredging or dock construction permit that qualifies under future applications. The establishment of a baseline for eelgrass meadows will serve to protect their important ecological function while allowing the periodic Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -60 dredging that is essential to protect the Newport Harbor's value as a commercial and recreational resource. The eelgrass mitigation program is conceptual in nature and will need further review and agency approval. Policies: 4.2.5 -1. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible. 4.2.5 -2. Continue to cooperate with the County of Orange, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and resource agencies to establish eelgrass restoration sites. 4.2.5 -3. Conduct studies to establish an eelgrass acreage baseline for Newport Harbor based on the distribution, density, and productivity, necessary for eelgrass meadows to fulfill their ecological function. 4.2.5 -4. Cooperate with the National Marine Fisheries Service to incorporate a provision into the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy that would allow exemptions to mitigation requirements for harbor maintenance projects for provided the eelgrass acreage baseline is maintained. 4.2.5 -5. Cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Commission, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to incorporate the eelgrass acreage baseline exemption provision into the City's Regional General Permit and into any individual property owner's dredging or dock construction permit that qualifies under future applications. 4.2.5 -6. Perform periodic surveys of the distribution of eelgrass in Newport Bay in cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Services to insure that the eelgrass baseline is maintained. 4.2.5 -7. Cooperate with resource agencies to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of biological, recreational, commercial and aquatic resources of Newport Harbor and to develop a Harbor Area Management Plan (HAMP) that will maintain all of the intended beneficial uses of the harbor. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -61 4.3 Water Quality Coastal Act policies related to water quality that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. 30232. Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur Newport Beach's greatest resources are its coastline and bay. They have drawn people here since prehistoric times, were the preeminent factor in the community's founding and development, and continue to provide the community with employment, recreation, natural habitat, and a beautiful physical setting. With these great gifts come great responsibilities for the protection and enhancement of these resources. Newport Beach has traditionally cared greatly about the quality of the water in Newport Bay and along the ocean shoreline and has embarked on a number of quality. Shoreline near Balboa Pier 4.3.1 TMDLs programs to improve the water Newport Bay receives urban runoff from the Newport Bay watershed, an area that includes unincorporated County territory and areas within the cities of Costa Mesa, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Irvine, Newport Beach, Orange, Santa Ana, and Tustin. The primary tributaries to Newport Bay are the Santa Ana /Delhi Channel (draining the cities of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana), San Diego Creek (draining the cities of Irvine, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, portions of Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin), and Big Canyon Creek (draining Newport Beach). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-62 Newport Bay is designated as "water quality- limited" for four impairments under the Federal Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List, meaning that it is "not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards" due to these impairments without additional regulation. As a water quality - limited body, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( "Regional Board ") and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( "U.S. EPA ") have developed total maximum daily loads ( "TMDLs ") for the following substances: sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants. The Board included these TMDLs in the Regional Board's Basin Plan for the region. Sediment. Adopted on October 9, 1998, the Sediment TMDL requires local partners (stakeholders in the watershed) to survey the Bay regularly and to reduce annual sediment coming into the Bay from 250,000 cubic yards to 125,000 cubic yards (a 50% reduction) by 2008. The TMDL's goal is to reduce dredging frequency in Upper Newport Bay to once every 20 years. Part of the TMDL includes a proposed Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -led ecosystem restoration project that attempts to restore the Upper Bay to its optimal habitat. Nutrients. Approved by U.S. EPA on April 16, 1999, the Nutrient TMDL limits nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the Bay. The Nutrient TMDL attempts to reduce the annual loading of nitrogen by 50% -- from 1,400 pounds per day today to approximately 850 to 802 pounds per day at San Diego Creek — by 2012. Phosphorus loading must fall from 86,912 pounds per year in 2002 to 62,080 pounds by 2007. Fecal Coliform. Approved in December 1999, the Fecal Coliform TMDL attempts to reduce the amount of fecal coliform inputs to the Bay enough to make the Bay meet water contact recreation (REC1) standards (swimming, wading, surfing) by 2014 and shellfish harvesting (SHEL) standards (where waters support shellfish acceptable for human consumption) by 2020. Toxic Pollutants. Adopted by U.S. EPA on June 14, 2002, the Toxic Pollutants TMDL addresses Bay inputs like heavy metals (chromium, copper, lead, cadmium, zinc) and priority organics like (endosulfan, DDT, Chlordane, PCBs, Toxaphene, diazinon, chlorpyriphos, more). It may lead to the reduction or elimination of pesticide use by residents, businesses, and municipal services in the watershed. Some controls will be placed on heavy metals. The Toxic Pollutants TMDL also addresses existing toxic deposits in sediments in Rhine Channel and other areas in the Lower Bay. To implement the obligations of the TMDLs and to partner on related water quality issues, Newport Beach, the Regional Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, the County of Orange, and the other cities in the Newport Bay watershed Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -63 have established the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee as advised by the Watershed Management Committee (WEC and WMC). The WMC typically meets quarterly to comply with the TMDLs established by the Regional Board. Generally, all the TMDLs established by the Regional Board require that watershed- based solutions be developed by the watershed stakeholders, and then the stakeholders jointly fund and implement these projects throughout the watershed. Policies: 4.3.1 -1. Continue to develop and implement the TMDLs established by the Regional Board and guided by the Newport Bay Watershed Executive Committee (WEC). 4.3.1 -2. Secure funding for the Upper Newport Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project. 4.3.1 -3. Establish and protect a long -term funding source for the regular dredging of Upper Newport Bay and dredging of the Lower Newport Bay so that the City and its watershed partners achieve the goals and directives of the Sediment and Nutrient TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. 4.3.1 -4. Preserve, or where feasible, restore natural hydrologic conditions such that downstream erosion, natural sedimentation rates, surface flow, and groundwater recharge function near natural equilibrium states. 4.3.1 -5. Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. 4.3.1 -6. Require grading /erosion control plans to include soil stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. 4.3.1 -7. Require measures be taken during construction to limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, limiting cut -and- fill to reduce erosion and sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other physical or biological features important for preventing erosion or sedimentation. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -64 4.3.1 -8. Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Effective containment and cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur. 4.3.2 NPDES The City of Newport Beach operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The City's MS4 is permitted by the Regional Board under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES). The City's MS4 permit is extensive in its obligation to keep waterways clean by reducing or eliminating contaminants from stormwater and dry- weather runoff. MS4 permits require an aggressive Water Quality Ordinance (Ord. 97 -26), specific Catch basin screens and filters municipal practices to maintain city facilities like the MS4, and the use of "best management practices" (BMPs) in many residential, commercial, and development- related activities to further cut runoff. MS4 permits also require local agencies to cooperatively develop a public education campaign to let more people know about what they can do at home and at work to protect water quality. Policies: 4.3.2 -1. Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into coastal waters, as well as the generation and impacts of dry weather and polluted runoff. 4.3.2 -2. Require that development not result in the degradation of coastal waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes) caused by changes to the hydrologic landscape. 4.3.2 -3. Support and participate in watershed -based runoff reduction and other planning efforts with the Regional Board, the County of Orange, and upstream cities. 4.3.2 -4. Continue to update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance consistent with the MS4 Permit. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -65 4.3.2 -6. Develop and maintain a water quality checklist to be used in the permit review process to assess potential water quality impacts. 4.3.2 -6. Implement and improve upon best management practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, new development and significant redevelopment, and City operations. 4.3.2 -7. Incorporate BMPs into the project design in the following progression: • Site Design BMPs. ■ Source Control BMPs. ■ Treatment Control BMPs. Include site design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the LCP or Coastal Act, structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. 4.3.2 -8. To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be retained on private property to prevent the transport of bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, and other pollutants into recreational waters. 4.3.2 -9. To the maximum extent practicable, limit the use of curb drains to avoid conveying runoff directly to the City's street drainage system without the benefit of absorption by permeable surfaces and natural treatments such as landscaped areas and planters. 4.3.2 -10. Provide storm drain stenciling and signage for new storm drain construction in order to discourage dumping into drains. 4.3.2 -11. Require new development 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. 4.3.2 -12. Require development to protect the absorption, purification, and retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist on the site, to the maximum extent practicable. Where feasible, design drainage Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -66 and project plans to complement and utilize existing drainage patterns and systems, conveying drainage from the developed area of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or degraded natural drainage systems should be restored, where feasible. 4.3.2 -13. Site development on the most suitable portion of the site and design to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources by providing for the following: A. Protecting areas that provide important water quality benefits, areas necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota and /or that are susceptible to erosion and sediment loss; B. Analyzing the natural resources and hazardous constraints of planning areas and individual development sites to determine locations most suitable for development; C. Preserving and protecting riparian corridors, wetlands, and bufferzones; D. Minimizing disturbance of natural areas, including vegetation, significant trees, native vegetation, and root structures; E. Ensuring adequate setbacks from creeks, wetlands, and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas; F. Promoting clustering of development on the most suitable portions of a site by taking into account geologic constraints, sensitive resources, and natural drainage features G. Utilizing design features that meet water quality goals established in site design policies. 4.3.2 -14. Whenever possible, divert runoff through planted areas or sumps that recharge the groundwater dry wells and use the natural filtration properties of the earth to prevent the transport of harmful materials directly into receiving waters. 4.3.2 -15. Where infiltration of runoff would exacerbate geologic hazards, include equivalent BMPs that do not require infiltration. 4.3.2 -16. Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and repaired as necessary to ensure proper functioning for the life of the development. Condition coastal development permits to require Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -67 ongoing application and maintenance as is necessary for effective operation of all BMPs (including site design, source control, and treatment control). 4.3.2 -17. Utilize permeable surfaces that permit the percolation of urban runoff in non - sidewalk areas within the City's parkway areas, to the maximum extent practicable. 4.3.2 -18. Condition coastal development permits to require the City, property owners, or homeowners associations, as applicable, to sweep permitted parking lots and public and private streets frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. 4.3.2 -19. Require parking lots and vehicle traffic areas to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oils and grease, car battery acid, coolant, gasoline, sediments, trash, and other pollutants to receiving waters. 4.3.2 -20. Require commercial development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize the runoff of pollutants from structures, landscaping, parking areas, loading and unloading dock areas, repair and maintenance bays, and vehicle /equipment wash areas. 4.3.2 -21. Require service stations, car washes and vehicle repair facilities to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize runoff of oil and grease, solvents, car battery acid, coolant, gasoline, and other pollutants to stormwater system from areas including fueling areas, repair and maintenance bays, vehicle /equipment wash areas, and loading /unloading dock areas. 4.3.2 -22. Require beachfront and waterfront development to incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. 4.3.2 -23. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP's purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less than 3/4" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post- construction from the property. 4.3.2 -24. To further reduce runoff, direct and encourage water conservation via the use of weather- and moisture -based irrigation controls, tiered water consumption rates, and native or drought - tolerant plantings in Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-68 residential, commercial, and municipal properties to the maximum extent practicable. 4.3.2 -25. Effectively communicate water quality education to residents and businesses, including the development of a water quality testing lab and educational exhibits at the Back Bay Science Center on Shellmaker Island. 4.3.3 Sanitary Sewer Overflows The City of Newport Beach owns and operates a wastewater collection system that collects residential and commercial wastewater and transports it, using a system of 20 pump stations, for treatment by the Orange County Sanitation District. Residences and businesses -- when permitted by the City -- hook up private lateral lines to the City's collection lines. Private and public lines and the City's pump stations have the potential to cause sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Main Channel SSOs lead to several beach closures in and around Newport Beach each year. State law (AB 411, Wayne) requires local health officials to close receiving waters to recreational uses when health officials know of or suspect that an SSO could reach recreational waters. As such, SSOs in Newport Beach and in inland cities can cause closures to Newport Beach's waters. Most SSOs in the area are caused by line blockages. The primary causes of line blockages are grease and root clogs. Newport Beach has adopted regulations for the disposal of grease and other insoluble waste discharges from commercial food preparation facilities to prevent blockages of the sewer system and is investigating alternative grease control methods. As a part of the City's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), the City's Utilities Department follows a defined Sewer Master Plan to replace or reline older wastewater lines. Newport Beach also uses remote cameras in sewer lines to look for pipe cracks, root intrusion, and grease buildup to assist in prioritizing the line replacement program. Maintenance failures of plumbing associated with pump stations are another leading cause of SSOs. Newport Beach's Sewer Master Plan includes upgrades Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -69 of its pump stations, including replacing pump stations with gravity systems where possible. Upgraded pump stations also include spill - warning systems with multiple communication methods (radio, telephone, pager, and direct line to the City's Utilities yard) to inform Utilities staff of any malfunction. Public education plays an important role in preventing and controlling SSOs. Through water billing and other means, the City reminds the public -- and especially restaurants -- to clean sewer laterals often, maintain private grease control systems, keep roots under control, and to immediately report SSOs. Policies: 4.3.3 -1. Develop and implement sewer system management plans to replace or reline older wastewater lines and upgrade pump stations. 4.3.3 -2. Conduct additional public education reminding property owners and food preparation facilities to clean sewer laterals often, maintain private grease control systems, keep roots under control, and to immediately report SSOs. 4.3.3 -3. Require waste discharge permits with all food preparation facilities that produce grease and require such permits to include: • Agreements to follow appropriate BMPs; ■ Maximum grease intrusion levels; • Maintenance /posting of appropriate educational material; • Maintenance log for laterals (at least quarterly); • Maintenance of a log for any grease control device or vat; • Funding for regular compliance inspections; • Acknowledgement of City's ability to fine for non - compliance. 4.3.3 -4. Monitor food preparation facilities via waste discharge permits and monitor spill reduction progress. 4.3.3 -3. Participate with other sewer collection and treatment agencies to investigate altematives to grease interceptors. 4.3.3 -6. Continue to renovate all older sewer pump stations and install new plumbing according to most recent standards. 4.3.3 -7. Comply with the Regional Board's Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) associated with the operation and maintenance of a sewage collection system. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -70 4.4 Scenic and Visual Resources Coastal Act policies related to scenic and visual resources that are relevant to Newport Beach include the following: 30251. The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 4.4.1 Coastal Views Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. The City has historically been sensitive to the need to protect and provide access to these scenic and visual resources and has developed a system of public parks, piers, trails, and viewing areas. Coastal views are also provided from a number of streets and highways and, due to the grid street pattern in West Newport, Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Corona del Mar, many north -south tending streets provide view corridors to the ocean and bay. 'x Little Corona f. •.. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -71 Policies: 4.4.1 -1. Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. 4.4.1 -2. Design and site new development, including landscaping, so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.1 -3. Design and site new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Oceanhunt Boardwalk at 2e Street Beach 4.4.1 -4. Where appropriate, require new development to provide view easements or corridors designed to protect public coastal views or to restore public coastal views in developed areas. 4.4.1 -5. Where feasible, require new development to restore and enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas. 4.4.1 -6. Protect public coastal views from the following roadway segments: • Backbay Drive. • Balboa Island Bridge. • Bayside Drive from Coast Highway to Linda Island Drive. • Bayside Drive at Promontory Bay. • Coast Highway /Santa Ana River Bridge. • Coast Highway /Newport Boulevard Bridge and Interchange. • Coast Highway from Newport Boulevard to Marino Drive. • Coast Highway /Newport Bay Bridge. • Coast Highway from Jamboree Road to Bayside Drive. • Eastbluff Drive from Jamboree Road to Backbay Drive. • Irvine Avenue from Santiago Drive to University Drive. • Jamboree Road from Eastbluff Drive /University Drive to State Route 73. • Jamboree Road in the vicinity of the Big Canyon Park. • Jamboree Road from Coast Highway to Bayside Drive. • Lido Island Bridge. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -72 • Newport Boulevard from Hospital Road/Westwinster Avenue to Via Lido Drive. • Newport Center Drive from Newport Center Drive ENV to Farallon Drive /Granville Drive. • Ocean Boulevard. • State Route 73 from Bayview Way to University Drive. • Superior Avenue from Hospital Road to Coast Highway. • University Drive from Irvine Avenue to the Santa Ana — Delhi Channel, 4.4.1 -7. Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public coastal view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame and accent public coastal views. 4.4.1 -8. Require that buildings be located and sites designed to provide clear views of and access to the Harbor and Bay from the Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard rights -of -way in accordance with the following principles, as appropriate: • Clustering of buildings to provide open view and access corridors to the Harbor. • Modulation of building volume and masses. • Variation of building heights. • Inclusion of porticoes, arcades, windows, and other "see- through" elements in addition to the defined open corridor. • Minimization of landscape, fencing, parked cars, and other nonstructural elements that block views and access to the Harbor. • Prevention of the appearance of the public right -of -way being walled off from the Harbor. • Inclusion of setbacks that in combination with setbacks on adjoining parcels cumulatively form functional view corridors. • Encouragement of adjoining properties to combine their view corridors that achieve a larger cumulative corridor than would have been achieved independently. • A site - specific analysis shall be conducted for new development to determine the appropriate size, configuration, and design of the view and access corridor that meets these objectives, which shall be subject to approval in the coastal development plan review process. 4.4.1 -9. Design and maintain parkway and median landscape improvements in public rights -of -way so as not to block public coastal views at maturity. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -73 4.4.1 -10. Where feasible, provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing areas adjacent to public coastal view corridors. 4.4.1 -11. Restrict development on sandy beach areas to those structures directly supportive of visitor - serving and recreational uses, such as lifeguard towers, recreational equipment, restrooms, and showers. Design and site such structures to minimize impacts to public coastal views. 4.4.2 Bulk and Height Limitation Concern over the intensity of development around Lower Newport Bay led to the adoption of a series of ordinances in the early 1970s that established more restrictive height and bulk development standards around the bay. The intent was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As a result, new development within the Shoreline Height Limitation Homes on the Balboa Peninsula Zone is limited to a height of 35 feet. Residential development is limited to a height of 24 to 28 feet and non - residential development is limited to a height of 26 to 35 feet. Outside of the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, heights up to 50 feet are permitted within the planned community districts. There are also two properties in the coastal zone that are within the High Rise Height Limitation Zone, which are permitted heights up to 375 feet. The first is the site of Newport Beach Marriott Hotel in Newport Center; the other is an undeveloped office site northeast of the Jamboree Road /State Route 73 interchange. Floor areas are strictly limited citywide. In the coastal zone, residential development is limited to floor areas ranging from 1.5 to 2.0 times the buildable area of the parcel (the land minus required setback yards), which typically translates to actual floor area ratios of 0.95 to 1.35. Nonresidential development floor area ratios range from 0.30 to 1.25. Policies: Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -74 4.4.2 -1. Maintain the 35 -foot height limitation in the Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, as graphically depicted on Map 4 -3. 4.4.2 -2. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. 4.4.2 -3. Implement the regulation of the building envelope to preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities. 4.4.2 -4. Prohibit projections associated with new development to exceed the top of curb on the bluff side of Ocean Boulevard. Exceptions for minor projections may be granted for chimneys and vents provided the height of such projections is limited to the minimum height necessary to comply with the Uniform Building Code. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -75 4.4.3 Natural Landform Protection Newport Beach coastal zone contains a number of distinctive topographic features. The central and northwestern portions of the City are situated on a broad mesa that extends southeastward to join the San Joaquin Hills, commonly known as Newport Mesa. This upland has been deeply dissected by stream erosion, resulting in moderate to steep bluffs along the Upper Newport Bay estuary, one of the most striking and biologically diverse natural features in Orange County. The nearly flat - topped mesa rises from about 50 to 75 feet above mean sea level at the northern end of the estuary in the Santa Ana Heights area, to about 100 feet above sea level in the Newport Heights, Westcliff, and Eastbluff areas. Along the southwestern margin of the City, sediments flowing from the Santa Ana River and San Diego Creek, the two major drainage courses that transect the mesa, have formed the beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These lowland areas were significantly modified during the last century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of extensive low sand dunes. In the southern part of the City, the San Joaquin Hills rise abruptly from the sea, separated from the present shoreline by a relatively flat, narrow shelf. Originally formed by wave abrasion, this platform (also called a terrace) is now elevated well above the water and is bounded by steep bluffs along the Geomorphic map of Newport Beach shoreline. The coastal platform occupied by Corona Del Mar ranges from about 95 to 100 feet above sea level. The bluffs, cliffs, hillsides, canyons, and other significant natural landforms are an important part of the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone and are to be protected as a resource of public importance. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -76 Coastal Bluffs Coastal bluffs are formed by a rapid uplift of the shore relative to sea level. Coastal bluffs are dynamic, evolving landforms. Coastal bluffs can be impacted by processes at both the bottom and top of the cliffs. Pounding by waves during high tide and storm surges can undercut the base and lead to eventual collapse of the bluff. Bluffs are also shaped by wind, surface runoff, and ground water erosion (see Sections 2.8.3, 2.8.5, and 2.8.6). Coastal bluffs are a prominent Upper Newport Bay coastal bluffs landform in Newport Beach. There are ocean facing coastal bluffs along the shoreline of Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores. There are also coastal bluffs facing the wetlands of Upper Newport Bay, Semeniuk Slough, and the degraded wetlands of the Banning Ranch property. Finally, there are coastal bluffs surrounding Lower Newport Bay. These can be seen along Coast Highway from the Semeniuk Slough to Dover Drive and in Corona del Mar above the Harbor Entrance. These bluffs faced the open ocean before the Balboa Peninsula formed and are now generally separated from the shoreline. Coastal bluffs are considered significant scenic and environmental resources and are to be protected. Most of the coastal bluff top lands have been subdivided and developed over the years. However, many have been preserved as parkland and other open space. Also, most of the faces of the coastal bluff surrounding the Upper Newport Bay have been protected by dedication to the Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve or dedicated as open space as part of the Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport, Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing planned residential developments. In other areas, including Dover Shores, Corona del Mar, Shorecliffs, and Cameo Shores, the coastal bluffs fall within conventional residential subdivisions. Development on these lots occurs mainly on a lot -by -lot basis. As a result, some coastal bluffs remain pristine and others are physically or visually obliterated by structures, landform alteration or landscaping. Development restrictions, including setbacks, must be established to ensure geologic stability while addressing current patterns of development. Where the bluff is subject to marine erosion, development on bluff top lots must be set back Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -77 at least 25 feet from the bluff edge. On bluff top lots where the bluff is not subject to marine erosion, the setback from the bluff edge should be based on the predominant line of existing development along the bluff edge in each neighborhood. These bluff edge setbacks may be increased to maintain sufficient distance to ensure stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Development on the bluff face is generally prohibited, with exceptions for certain public improvements or private improvements determined to be consistent with the predominant line of development. Corona del Mar is one of the few areas in the coastal zone where there is extensive development of the bluff face; specifically, residential development on Avocado Avenue, Pacific Drive, Carnation Avenue, and Ocean Boulevard. The initial subdivision and development of these areas occurred prior to the adoption of policies and regulations intended to protect coastal bluffs and other landforms. Development in these areas is allowed to continue on the bluff face to be consistent with the existing development pattern and to protect coastal views from the bluff top. However, development on the bluff face is controlled to minimize further alteration. The bluffs along Bayside Drive were at one time exposed to the Lower Newport Bay. However, these bluffs separated from the shoreline when abutting tidelands were filled and reclaimed in the 1920s and later developed into the communities of Promontory Bay, Beacon Bay, and Bayside. Later development of Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point cut and filled these bluffs. Development in these areas is subject to setbacks established for bluffs not subject to marine erosion. Little Corona sea cave and bluffs Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -78 Coastal Canyons There are three significant canyons in the coastal zone, Big Canyon, Buck Gully, and Morning Canyon. The steep slopes and vegetation of these canyons are distinctive features on the shoreline of the ocean and bay. Big Canyon is protected as a nature park. However, Buck Gully and Morning Canyon are under private ownership and there is extensive residential development on the slopes of both canyons. Therefore, any effort to protect and enhance the visual quality of these canyons will require the cooperation of the property owners. Other Landforms Some of the edges of Newport Mesa and the San Joaquin Hills are located a considerable distance Buck Gully development from the shoreline, but are still highly visible from public view points, roadways, or the water. These areas have moderate to steep slopes, accentuated in places by gullies, ravines, and rock outcroppings. In order to protect the overall visual quality of the coastal zone, new development in these areas need to be sited and designed to minimize the alteration of natural land forms and to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas. Policies: 4.4.3 -1. Require new planned communities to dedicate or preserve as open space the coastal bluff face and an area inland from the edge of the coastal bluff adequate to provide safe public access and to avoid or minimize visual impacts. 4.4.3 -2. Maintain approved bluff edge setbacks for the coastal bluffs within the planned communities of Castaways, Eastbluff, Park Newport, Newporter North (Harbor Cove), and Bayview Landing to ensure the preservation of scenic resources and geologic stability. 4.4.3 -3. Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -79 safety and stability of the development. 4.4.34. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. 4.4.3 -5. Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in the subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal structure and major accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. 4.4.3 -6. On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations, to be set back from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory development. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. 4.4.3 -7. Require all new development located on a bluff top to be setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, and to avoid the need for protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Such setbacks must take into consideration expected long- term bluff retreat over the next 75 years, as well as slope stability. To assure stability, the development must maintain a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against landsliding for the economic life of the structure. 4.4.3 -8. Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development or public improvements providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or providing for public safety. Permit such improvements only when no feasible alternative exists and when designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -80 bluff face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding area to the maximum extent feasible. 4.4.3 -9. Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect public coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements. The setback shall be increased where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the development. 4.4.3 -10. The coastal bluffs along Bayside Drive that have been cut and filled by the Irvine Terrace and Promontory Point developments are no longer subject to marine erosion. New development on these bluffs is subject to the setback restrictions established for bluff top development located on a bluff not subject to marine erosion. 4.4.3 -11. Require applications for new development to include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer. 4.4.3 -12. Employ site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum extent feasible, such as: A. Siting new development on the flattest area of the site, except when an alternative location is more protective of coastal resources. B. Utilizing existing driveways and building pads to the maximum extent feasible. C. Clustering building sites. D. Shared use of driveways. E. Designing buildings to conform to the natural contours of the site, and arranging driveways and patio areas to be compatible with the slopes and building design. F. Utilizing special foundations, such as stepped, split level, or cantilever designs. G. Detaching parts of the development, such as a garage from a Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -81 dwelling unit. H. Requiring any altered slopes to blend into the natural contours of the site. 4.4.3 -13. Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. 4.4.3 -14. Require swimming pools located on bluff properties to incorporate leak prevention and detection measures. 4.4.3 -15. Design and site new development to minimize the removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. 4.4.3 -16. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. 4.4.3 -17. Identify and remove all unauthorized structures, including protective devices, fences, and stairways, which encroach into coastal bluffs. 4.4.3 -18. Establish canyon development setbacks based on the predominant line of existing development for Buck Gully and Morning Canyon. Do not permit development to extend beyond the predominant line of existing development by establishing a development stringline where a line is drawn between nearest adjacent corners of existing structures on either side of the subject property. Establish development stringlines for principle structures and accessory improvements. Note: See Sections 2.8.6 and 2.87 for technical submittal requirements on beach, bluff and canyon properties. Corona del Mar coastal bluffs Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -82 4.4.4 Signs and Utilities The City has adopted special sign regulations for the Mariner's Mile commercial district and for the Balboa Peninsula. These sign regulations include limitations on freestanding and roof signs, which have the greatest potential to impact coastal scenic and visual resources. In some of the older neighborhoods, electrical, telephone, cable television, and other utility lines are still located above ground. The City requires overhead utilities were placed underground in Balboa Village utilities to be placed underground in all new developments and has ongoing programs to remove and underground overhead utilities through the establishment of underground utility districts. Policies: 4.4.4 -1. Design and site signs, utilities, and antennas to minimize visual impacts to coastal resources. 4.4.4 -2. Continue to implement the special sign regulations in Mariner's Mile and on the Balboa Peninsula. 4.4.4 -3. Update sign regulations for the West Newport, Marine Avenue, and Corona del Mar commercial areas. 4.4.4 -4. Implement programs to remove illegal signs and amortize legal nonconforming signs. 4.4.4 -5. Prohibit new billboards and roof top signs and regulate the bulk and height of other freestanding signs that affect public coastal views. Heritage signs are not subject to this restriction. 4.4.4 -6. Continue to require new development to underground utilities. 4.4.4 -7. Continue programs to remove and underground overhead utilities. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -83 4.5 Paleontological Cultural Resources Coastal Act pohcie§ relatedyto paleontologrcal, archaeological, and;hlstorrcal:Resources: chat are relevant to;Newport';Beach mclude the following . !30744 Where development would adversely impact archaeological or palegntologicaVresources a4:identi0ed by tfte state Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measuies shall ber8gwred._ 4.5.1 Paleontological and Archaeological Resources Orange County's geologic history began 175 - 145 million years ago, in the Middle to Late Jurassic Period. The oldest rocks in Orange County are located in the central Santa Ana Mountains and contain fossils such as radiolarians, ammonites and bivalves. These types of rocks and fossils indicate that this area was under the ocean. Therefore, for most of its geologic history, Orange County was underwater. During the Miocene Epoch (26 — 7 million years ago) tectonic forces produced mountain uplifts, initiated movement on the nascent San Andreas fault system, and formed numerous coastal marine basins, including the Los Angeles Basin, of which most of Orange County is a part. Orange County became a shallow bay as the sea retreated. Miocene fossils are from both marine and land organisms, as the area was a shallow sea surrounded by jungles and savannas. Tectonic forces began to uplift the land during the Pliocene (7 - 2.5 million years ago). The sea began to slowly recede from the coast. Each successive shoreline is represented today by a marine terrace and can be seen in Corona del Mar today. Three marine terraces can be seen north of Corona del Mar by driving toward the beach on MacArthur Boulevard. Sandstone deposited in the Newport Beach area in the late Pliocene contains a wealth of marine mammals, sea birds and a variety of seashells. The seas continued to regress during the cooler Pleistocene (2.5 million — 15,000 years ago), and tectonic forces continued to uplift the land. Although the Pleistocene Epoch is called the "Ice Age," glacial ice never reached Southern California. A heavily vegetated, marshy area extended inland beyond the shoreline, and a great variety of vertebrate Ice Age animals lived in the area. Fossils of Ice Age horses, elephants, bison, antelopes and Dire wolves have been found at sites near the Castaways. The first generally accepted period of human occupation of the Southern California began around the end of the Pleistocene, about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Some of the evidence of the earliest human occupation in Orange County was found at archaeological sites around the Upper Newport Bay. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -84 Tongva steatite bowl recovered from a development site Policies: These and other archaeological sites in Newport Beach present evidence that highly mobile and resourceful people lived here as far back as 9,500 years ago. A village site excavated in Newporter North was occupied at various times over 5,500 years. Archaeological excavations indicate that the earliest people followed the seasonal migration of animals and collected a wide variety of wild plant resources. Later inhabitants were more sedentary, hunting sea mammals, small and large terrestrial mammals, fish, bird, and shellfish. Require new development to protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources. If avoidance of the resource is not feasible, require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development. 4.5.1 -2. Require a qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological /archaeological resources, require the paleontologist/archeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance of the paleontological / archaeological resources. If resources are determined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recovery and/or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural resource areas in open space. 4.5.1 -3. Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and /or excavation of development sites. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -85 4.5.1 -4. Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible. 4.5.1 -5. Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an archeological /cultural resources monitoring plan that identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if additional or unexpected archeological /cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing, additional investigation and mitigation. 4.5.1 -6. Continue to protect Upper Newport Bay cliff faces to serve as a reference section for micropaleontological studies. 4.5.2 Historical Resources Newport Beach has a number of buildings and sites in the coastal zone that are representative of the history of the community and the region. Some of these historical resources have been recognized as being of statewide or national importance. There are four properties in Newport Beach that are listed as California Historical Landmarks: Early photograph of the Balboa Pavilion ■ Old Landing (No. 198). Established by Captain Dunnells in the 1870's, it was the site of the first shipping business in Newport Bay. ■ Site Of First Water -To -Water Flight (No. 775). Commemorates the May 10, 1912 flight of Glenn L. Martin from the waters of the Pacific Ocean at Balboa to Catalina Island, the first water -to -water flight. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -86 ■ McFadden Wharf (No. 794). The site of the original wharf built in 1888 by the McFadden brothers. ■ Balboa Pavilion (No. 959). Built in 1905, it is one of California's last surviving examples of the great waterfront recreational pavilions from the turn of the century. There are also three properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places: ■ Balboa Inn. Built in 1929, the Balboa Inn is representative of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and beachfront tourist development. ■ Balboa Pavilion. Built in 1905, the Balboa Pavilion is one of California's last surviving examples of the great waterfront recreational pavilions from the turn of the century. ■ Lovell Beach House. Built in 1926, the Lovell Beach House was designed by Rudolf Schindler and is considered the first pure International Style house built in America. Four additional properties are also listed as historic or potentially historic in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation: • B.K. Stone Building —one of the oldest commercial structures in Newport Beach. • Balboa Island Firehouse No. 4 —early police and fire station for the Balboa Peninsula. ■ Bank of Balboa/Bank of America —Bank of Balboa, Bank of America, provided services from 1928 to 1984 (now demolished). ■ Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church. The City of Newport Beach has also listed seven properties in the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property in recognition of their local historical or architectural significance. In addition to the Balboa Pavilion and the Balboa Inn, the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property includes: • Rendezvous Ballroom Site. Destroyed by fire in 1966, the Rendezvous Ballroom was a popular Balboa dance hall that featured numerous famous Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -87 Big Bands of the 1930's and 1940's. Wilma's Patio (formally Pepper's Restaurant). Located on Balboa Island, the exposed structural components of Pepper's Restaurant are timbers used in the original Balboa Island Bridge and McFadden Wharf. Balboa Theater. Built in 1928, the Balboa Theater is a former vaudeville theater that one time housed an infamous speakeasy during Prohibition. Balboa Saloon, The 1924 building is representative of Newport's nautical history and Main Street commercial masonry style. Dory Fishing Fleet The Dory Fishing Fleet is located adjacent to Newport Pier. The fleet and open -air fish market has operated there since its founding by a Portuguese fisherman in 1891. The last remaining fleet of its type, it is a historical landmark designated by the Newport Beach Historical Society. It is a general policy of the City that an area immediately west of the Newport Pier be reserved for the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet. Policies: 4.5.2 -1. Maintain and periodically update the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property for buildings, objects, structures, and monuments having importance to the history or architecture of Newport Beach and require photo documentation of inventoried historic structures prior to demolition. 4.5.2 -2. Provide incentives, such as granting reductions or waivers of Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Lt i] applications fees, permit fees, and/or any liens placed by the City to properties listed in the National or State Register or the Newport Beach Register of Historical Property in exchange for preservation easements. 4.5.2 -3. Continue to allow the Dory Fishing Fleet to be launched and stored and to sell fish on the public beach adjacent to Newport Pier within reasonable limits to protect the historical character of the fleet, the coastal access and resources, and the safety of beach users in the vicinity. 4.6 Environmental Review The protection of coastal resources and protection from coastal hazards requires that applications for new development undergo appropriate environmental review. In most cases, the City conducts this review through implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the state to review the environmental impacts of projects that require state or local government Coastal bluff revegetation at Inspiration Point approval. CEQA requires appropriate mitigation of projects that contain significant environmental impacts. Specifically, CEQA states that agencies must identify potential environmental impacts, alter projects to avoid such impacts where feasible, seek alternatives that will minimize unavoidable impacts, and require mitigation for any unavoidable impacts that are necessary. CEQA mandates that the responsible agencies consider a reasonable range of project alternatives that offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal. CEQA adds that the agency responsible for the project's approval must deny approval if there would be "significant adverse effects" when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures could substantially lessen such effects. To ensure consistency with the resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan, applications for new development subject to coastal development permit requirements will be reviewed by qualified City staff, contracted employee /consultant and /or advisory committee in accordance with the CEQA requirements, as well as those contained in the Local Coastal Program. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -89 Policies: 4.6 -1. Review all new development subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and coastal development permit requirements in accordance with the principles, objectives, and criteria contained in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, the Local Coastal Program, and any environmental review guidelines adopted by the City. 4.6 -2. Integrate CEQA procedures into the review procedures for new development within the coastal zone. 4.6 -3. Require a qualified City staff member, advisory committee designated by the City, or consultant approved by and under the supervision of the City, to review all environmental review documents submitted as part of an application for new development and provide recommendations to the appropriate decision - making official or body. 4.6-4. Require the City staff member(s) and/or contracted employee(s) responsible for reviewing site specific surveys and analyses to have technical expertise in biological resources, as appropriate for the resource issues of concern (e.g. marine /coastal, wetland /riparian protection and restoration, upland habitats and connectivity) and be knowledgeable about the City of Newport Beach, 4.6 -5. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to consider the individual and cumulative impacts of the development, define the least environmentally damaging alternative, and recommend modifications or mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts. The City may impose a fee on applicants to recover the cost of review of a proposed project when required by this policy. 4.6 -6. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to include the following in any recommendations of approval: an identification of the preferred project alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The decision making body (Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall make findings relative to the project's conformance to the recommendations of the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s). 4.6 -7. Require City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to make a Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -90 recommendation to the decision making body as to whether an area constitutes an ESHA, and if recommended as an ESHA, then establish the boundaries thereof and appropriate buffers. 4.6 -8. Coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and other resource management agencies, as applicable, in the review of development applications in order to ensure that impacts to ESHA and marine resources, including rare, threatened, or endangered species, are avoided or minimized such that ESHA is not significantly degraded, habitat values are not significantly disrupted, and the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters is preserved. 4.6 -9. Require applications for new development, where applicable, to include a geologic /soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains statements that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall include slope stability analyses and estimates of the long -term average bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the development. Reports are to be signed by an appropriately licensed professional and subject to review and approval by qualified city staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4 -91 City of Newport Beach, California Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 4-92 A INORTH Omd- July/2009 Environmental Study Areas (ESAs) Map 4-1 LEGEND ESA Location Key Semeniuk Slough North Star Beach West Bay UNBMPIDe Anna Bayside Marsh Peninsula San Diego creek East Bluff Remnant Mouth of Big Canyon Newporter North Buck Gully Morning Canyon Newport Beach Marine Conservation Area Castaways di Newport Harbor Entrance Channel Kelp Bed Coastal Zone Boundary City Boundary A INORTH Omd- July/2009 i /•' Coastal Views Map 4 -3 i tM1faP1 .1 3) ' LEGEND r �\ ]•\ ♦ Public View Point ti Coastal View Road / j ='•.: Coastal Zone Boundary City Boundary Shoreline Height �'� • I \` j Limitation Zone I " —. i -i. � ;. -:: Proposed Park /•'`� — " —i --- I— _ —_ —_ /` //1� K Public Beach or Park j Ali k&p' > / 1 man �.d City of Newport Beach, California (West Newport Area) - Local Coastal Program NOW -. -Ar- Coastal Land Use Plan 4 yn =M. December /2005 MgP4]LCPOSCOnaIaNbWNN .mW v,., I �ded do goeag ollgnd Ted pesododd 4? auoZ uopellwll lg61OH aullaJOgg h, /uepunog h80 -.,, Aiepunog auoZ lelseoo "h,; PEON ma!A lelseoo ti iulod maiA ollgnd y 4N3031 (e 1. z dew) £-b deW SMOIA le;seo'O �., k ; 12 1 :! 1 j 1 I .. 199aJ oadro mv; � oxw a n�miaweo�sodo� sooznsn ny 66-a ueld ash pun mseoo McJ6oJd le ;seOg leoo-j (Feg UodmGN iaddn) eiwojlieo 'goeag uodenaN Jo AIn vS Awn .I '••..T+e� %� ••' a City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area) Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan / UWOX6 LC OsCoesraMewNaO.. 4 -96 n rr �v P ,4 i` ♦e 6 Coastal Views Map 4 -3 (M.P 3.1 . +) LEGEND Public View Point ti Coastal View Road •",.. Coastal Zone Boundary .. City Boundary 1%, shoreline Height Limitation Zone Proposed Park K Public Beach or Park OMi4s ynq • Lf si. HARBOR t r00 � /SCAN '- �JINCUCA c LIDG RA ISLE (STAND NEWPORT . PIER City of Newport Beach, California (Harbor Area) i ", Local Coastal Program s Coastal Land Use Plan Au zV1W5 LLPoSHUot Slec Mvbrru0 JUS to ` %4 RAIROA ISLAND 'i �1�k5�Y9Yii PIFR PIER )� ) C E A N 4 -97 Historical Resources Map 4-4 , 75� n t �® WEOGL � yIC CORONA NORTH / OYw. LEGEND 'Balboa Inn ® Balboa Pavilion / (� Balboa Saloon Balboa Theater Q Dory Fishing Fleet Lovell Beach House McFadden Wharf Old Landing 1 0 Peppers Restaurant Ballroom Site /Rendezvous Water -to -Water Flight Monument • Coastal Zone Boundary , 75� n t �® WEOGL � yIC CORONA NORTH / OYw. 5.0 Glossary Accrete: To add new material gradually to pre- existing material; opposite of erode. Accretion: Enlargement of a beach area caused by either natural or artificial means. Natural accretion on a beach is the build -up or deposition of sand or sediments by water or wind. Artificial accretion is a similar build -up due to human activity, such as the accretion due to the construction of a groin or breakwater, or beach fill deposited by mechanical means. Anaerobic Soil: Soil that is devoid of interstitial oxygen. In wetlands this condition most normally occurs because of the sustained presence of water, which limits contact with the atmosphere. Anchorage Area: A water area outside of navigation channels designated for the temporary anchorage of vessels, using their own anchoring tackle. Appealable Area: That portion of the coastal zone within an appealable area boundary adopted pursuant to Section 30603 of the Coastal Act and approved by the Coastal Commission and depicted on the Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. Appealable Development: After certification of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program, an action taken by the City of Newport Beach on a coastal development permit application may be appealed to the Coastal Commission for only the following types of developments: Developments approved by the City between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. 2. Developments approved by the City not included within paragraph (1) that are located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff. Developments approved by the City not included within paragraph (1) or (2) that are located in a sensitive coastal resource area. 4. Any development approved by a coastal county that is not designated as the principal permitted use under the zoning ordinance or zoning district Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -1 map approved pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500 of the Coastal Act). 5. Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility. Aquacuture: A form of agriculture as defined in Section 17 of the Fish and Game Code. Aquaculture products are agricultural products, and aquaculture facilities and land uses shall be treated as agricultural facilities and land uses in all planning and permit- issuing decisions governed by this division. A uifer: An underground layer of porous rock, sand, or other earth material containing water, into which wells may be sunk. Armor: To fortify a topographical feature to protect it from erosion (e.g., constructing a wall to armor the base of a sea cliff). Armor Rock (armor stone): Natural or man -made rock or rock -like structures that are used for shoreline protection. Commonly, armor rock is used as the outermost layer of a groin or revetment. Many forms of these rocks are utilized; their overall stability depends largely on the type of mechanical interlock between the units, and in -place fitting. Artificial Hard Structure: Docks, floats, boat bottoms, bulkheads, seawalls, and other hard surfaces that provide attachment surfaces for marine organisms. ASBS: Area of Special Biological Significance designation by the California Water Resources Control Board for a coastal habitat that is susceptible to the effects of waste discharge. Backbeach (Dry Beach): The sand area inundated only by storm tides or extreme high tides. These areas supply sands to the dune system. Bathvmetrv: Related to submarine contours or topography; also refers to depth measurements. Beach: The expanse of sand, gravel, cobble or other loose material that extends landward from the low water line to the place where there is distinguishable change in physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. The seaward limit of a beach (unless specked otherwise) is the mean low water line. Beach Nourishment Program: Plan for conducting a series of beach nourishment projects at a specific location, typically over a period of 50 years. The program would be based on establishing the technical and financial feasibility of beach nourishment Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -2 for the site and would include plans for obtaining funding and sources of sand for its duration. Beach Nourishment Project: Placement of sand on a beach to form a designed structure in which an appropriate level of protection from storms is provided and an additional amount of sand (advanced fill) is installed to provide for erosion of the shore prior to the anticipated initiation of a subsequent project. The project may include dunes and /or hard structures as part of the design. Bedrock: Solid rock underlying soil and younger rock layers; generally the oldest exposed geological unit. Berm: A nearly horizontal portion of the beach or backshore formed by the deposit of material by wave action. Some beaches have no berms and others may have one or several. Berth: A generic term defining any location, such as a floating dock, slip, mooring and the related water area (berthing area) adjacent to or around it, intended for the storage of a vessel in water. Biodiversity: A term used to quantitatively or qualitatively describe the species richness and abundance of plants and animals within an ecosystem. Biological Community: A naturally occurring group of different plant and animals species that live in a particular environment. Bluff: A high bank or bold headland with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a plain or body of water. A bluff may consist of a steep cliff face below and a more sloping upper bluff above. Bluff. Coastal: A bluff overlooking a beach or shoreline or that is subject to marine erosion. Many coastal bluffs consist of a gently sloping upper bluff and a steeper lower bluff or sea cliff. The term "coastal bluff' refers to the entire slope between a marine terrace or upland area and the sea. The term "sea cliff' refers to the lower, near vertical portion of a coastal bluff. For purposes of establishing jurisdictional and permit boundaries coastal bluffs include, (1) those bluffs, the toe of which is now or was historically (generally within the last 200 years) subject to marine erosion; and (2) those bluffs, the toe of which is not now or was not historically subject to marine erosion, but the toe of which lies within an area otherwise identified as an Appealable Area. Bluff Edge: The upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff: In cases where the top edge of the bluff is rounded away from the face of the bluff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep bluff face, the bluff line or edge shall Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -3 be defined as that point nearest the bluff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the bluff In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the bluff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff edges typically retreat landward due to coastal erosion, landslides, development of gullies, or by grading (cut). In areas where the bluff top or bluff face has been cut or notched by grading, the bluff edge shall be the landwardmost position of either the current of historic bluff edge. In areas where fill has been placed near or over the historic bluff edge, the original natural bluff edge, even if buried beneath fill, shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Bluff Face: The portion of a bluff between the bluff edge and the toe of the bluff. Bluff Top Retreat (or cliff top retreat): The landward migration of the bluff or cliff edge, caused by marine erosion of the bluff or cliff toe and subaerial erosion of the bluff or cliff face. BMPs (Best Management Practices): Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, operation and maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the conveyance of pollution in stormwater and urban runoff, as well as, treatment requirements and structural treatment devices designed to do the same. Buffer: A buffer is a development setback that provides essential open space between development and protected habitat. Buffers keep disturbance at a distance, accommodate errors in the estimation of habitat boundaries, and provide important auxiliary habitat that may be used, for example, for foraging, maintenance of pollinators, or refuge from high tides. Buffers should be measured from the delineated boundary of an ESHA or wetland or, for streams, from the top of bank or the landward edge of riparian vegetation, which ever provides the larger buffer. Breach: A breakthrough of part, or all, of a protective wall, beach sand barrier, beach berm, or the like by ocean waves, river or stream flow, mechanical equipment, or a combination of these forces. Breaching is sometimes purposefully done to protect a region from river overflow. Breakwater: A structure or barrier protecting a shore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from waves, usually constructed as a concrete or riprap (rock wall) structure. Bulkhead: Vertical walls built into and along the Harbor shoreline preventing the erosion of land into the water and to protect the land from wave, tide and current action by the water, similar to a `retaining wall' on land. Bulkheads may be directly bordered by water, or may have sloped stones (riprap) or sand beach between the bulkhead and the water and land areas. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5-4 Bulkhead Line: Harbor land /water perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the federal government, which define the permitted limit of filling or solid structures that may be constructed in the Harbor. California Least Tern: An endangered bird species that nests on beaches and in salt marshes along California; smallest of the terns. Canyon Edge: The upper termination of a canyon: In cases where the top edge of the canyon is rounded away from the face of the canyon as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the canyon face, the canyon edge shall be defined as that point nearest the canyon beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the canyon. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the canyon face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the canyon edge. Caulerpa algae: An invasive Mediterranean seaweed introduced to southern California in 2000 that has a potential to cause severe ecological damage to coastal and nearshore waters. CDFG: California Department of Fish and Game (also known as DFG). CNDDB: California Natural Diversity Database. Channel: A water area in Newport Harbor designated for vessel navigation, with necessary width and depth requirements, and which may be marked or otherwise designated on federal navigation charts, as well as in other sources. Charter Vessel: A vessel used principally for charter purposes, a 'charter" being a rental agreement, generally for a period of one day or more. Clast: An individual constituent, grain, or fragment of a sediment or rock, produced by the mechanical weathering (disintegration) of a larger rock mass. Cliff: A high, very steep to perpendicular or overhanging face of rock. Coastal Access: The ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. Coastal- dependent Development or Use: Any development or use which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. Coastal Development Permit (CDP): A permit for any development within the coastal zone that is required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30600. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -5 Coastal Commission: The California Coastal Commission, the state agency established by state law responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Coastal Act and for review of coastal permits on appeal from local agencies. Coastal Plan: The California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan prepared and adopted by the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature on December 1, 1975, pursuant to the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (commencing with Section 27000). Coastal- related Development: Any use that is dependent on a coastal- dependent development or use. Coastal Zone: That land and water area of the State of California from the Oregon border to the border of the Republic of Mexico, specked on the maps identified and set forth in Section 17 of that chapter of the Statutes of the 1975 -76 Regular Session enacting this division, extending seaward to the state's outer limit of jurisdiction, including all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards from the mean high tide line of the sea. In significant coastal estuarine, habitat, and recreational areas it extends inland to the first major ridgeline paralleling the sea or five miles from the mean high tide line of the sea, whichever is less, and in developed urban areas the zone generally extends inland less than 1,000 yards. The coastal zone does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, nor any area contiguous thereto, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing into such area. Contour: A line on a topographic map or bathymetric (depth) chart representing points of equal elevation with relation to a datum (point or set of points). Contour lines are usually spaced into intervals for easier comprehension and utilization. Cretaceous: A period of geologic time spanning 136 -64 million years ago. _Cumulative Effect (Cumulative Impacts): The incremental effects of an individual project shall be reviewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. Current: A flow of water in a particular direction. Such flows can be driven by wind, temperature or density differences, tidal forces, and wave energy. Currents are often classified by location, such as longshore current, surface current, or deep ocean currents. Different currents can occur in the same general area, resulting in different water flows, for example, a rip current can flow perpendicular to the shore through Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5-6 the surf zone, a long shore current may flow southerly, parallel to the coast and a seasonal deep water current may flow to the north. Demolition: The deliberate removal or destruction of the frame or foundation of any portion of a building or structure for the purpose of preparing the site for new construction or other use. Development: On land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Zberg- Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511). Disturbed: A term used to identify a biological habitat that has been altered by natural or man -made events. Dock: A structure generally linked to the shoreline, to which a vessel may be secured. A dock may be fixed to the shore, on pilings, or floating in the water. Dominant: The major plant or animal species in a community. Downcoast: In the United States usage, it is the coastal direction generally trending toward the south; also the way in which current flows. DPR: California State Department of Parks and Recreation. Dry Storage: Dry storage of vessels includes all on -land storage of vessels including vessels normally stored in open or enclosed rack structures, on trailers, on cradles, on boat stands, or by other means. Dune: Ridges or mounds of loose, wind -blown material usually sand. A dune structure often has a back and foredune area. Stable dunes are often colonized by vegetation. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5-7 DWR: California State Department of Water Resources Easement: A limited right to make use of a land owned by another, for example, a right of way across the property. Ebb Tide: The period of tide between high water and the succeeding low water; a falling tide (opposite = flood tide). Eel grass: A marine flowering plant (Zostera marina) that is found primarily in coastal bays and estuaries on soft substrate. El Nino: A term used to describe a cyclic weather pattern caused by changes in tropical ocean current patterns that result in worldwide changes in weather patterns. Energy Facility: Any public or private processing, producing, generating, storing, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy. Entertainment/Excursion Vessels: Commercial vessels engaged in the carrying of passengers for hire for hire for the purposes of fishing, whale watching, diving, educational activities, harbor and coastal tours, dining/drinking, business or social special events and entertainment. Eocene: A period of geologic time spanning 54 -38 million years ago. Ephemeral: Short-lived (e.g, an ephemeral stream only flows immediately after rainfall). Equilibrium Beach Width: The mean distance between the shoreline and backbeach line at which sand contributions and losses are balanced. Erode: The gradual wearing away and removal of land surface by various agents such as waves; opposite of accrete. Erosion: The wearing away of land by natural forces. On a beach, the carrying away of beach material by wave action, currents or the wind. ESA (Environmental Study Area): Relatively large, undeveloped areas containing natural habitats and may be capable of supporting sensitive biological resources. ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area): Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitat are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and development (PRC 30107.5). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -8 Estuarine System: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually semi - enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the ocean, with ocean water at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The upstream and landward limit is where ocean - derived salts measure less than 0.5 parts per thousand during the period of average annual low flow. Estuary: The region near a river mouth in which the fresh water of the river mixes with the salt water of the sea. Evaluation: Process by which a project's performance is determined relative to criteria developed for this purpose. Exclusion Area: That portion of the coastal zone within an exclusion area boundary adopted pursuant to the Coastal Act and approved by the Coastal Commission after the effective date of the delegation of development review authority and depicted on the certified Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. Development within this area is excluded from coastal development permit requirements if certain criteria identified in the adopted exclusion are met. Exclusion Areas Man: A map depicting those areas where specified development types are excluded from the coastal development permit requirements. Fault: A rock fracture accompanied by displacement. Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Federal Coastal Act: The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et seq.), as amended. Fen: A unique type of wetland characterized by a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which acidic conditions (pH < 7) prevail. Contrast with a bog, which has a saturated substrate dominated by organic material in which basic conditions (pH > 7) prevail. Fill: Earth or any other substance or material, including pilings placed for the purposes of erecting structures thereon, placed in a submerged area. First Public Road Paralleling the Sea: The road nearest the sea, as defined in this Section, and which meets all of the following criteria: 1. The road is lawfully open and suitable for uninterrupted use by the public; Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -9 2. The road is maintained by a public agency; 3. The road contains an improved all- weather surface open to motor vehicle traffic in at least one direction; 4. The road is not subject to any restrictions on use by the public except during an emergency or for military purposes; and 5. The road connects with other public roads providing a continuous access system and generally parallels and follows the shoreline of the sea so as to include all portions of the sea where the physical features such as bays, lagoons, estuaries and wetlands cause the waters of the sea to extend landward of the generally continuous coastline. Forebeach (Wet Beach): The sand area affected regularly by tides and wave action. Foreshore (or Beach Face): Region of the coast extending from the berm crest (or the highest point of wave wash at high tide) to the low -water mark that is measured at low tide. Formation: A unit of rock that is distinctive and persistent over a large area. Fossiliferous: Rock units containing fossils. Geohazard: A risk associated with geologic processes or events. Giant Kelp: A large brown seaweed (Macrocystis pyrifera) that grows primarily on rocky substrate and forms a underwater 'forest" in which a diverse group of algae, invertebrates, and fishes are found. GIS (Geographic Information System): A GIS is a computer system capable of assembling, storing, manipulating, and displaying geographically referenced information. A GIS allows analysis of spatial relationships between many different types of features based on their location in the landscape. Global Positioning System (GPS): A satellite -based navigational system. Gravity Walls: Massive, self - supporting walls which resist horizontal wave forces through their sheer mass. Grid: City of Newport 2000'X 3000' aerial reference grid Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -10 Groin: A shoreline protection structure built, usually perpendicular to the shoreline, to trap nearshore sediment or retard erosion of the shore. A series of groins acting together to protect a section of beach is known as a groin system or groin field. Groundwater: Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation usually found in porous rock strata and soils. Habitat: The locality, including the physical and biological environment, in which a plant or animal lives. Hardscaae Habitat: Hard surfaces of pilings, docks, floats, wharves, seawalls, bulkheads, jetties, and rock groins, and natural intertidal and subtidal reefs that are colonized by marine organisms Harbor Lines: All established Bulkhead, Pierhead, and Project Lines as defined within Newport Harbor by the federal, state, county and city governments. Harbor Maintenance Uses Equipment and Facilities: All uses, and their related equipment, vessels, docking and land storage facilities and access which provide: dredging and beach replenishment; demolition, repair and new construction of docks, piers, bulkheads and other in- and - over -water structures; mooring maintenance and repair; waterborne debris and pollution control, collection and removal. This category also includes environmental, survey or scientific vessels and related equipment based, or on assignment, in Newport Harbor: All vessels under this definition may also be referred to as "work boats." Harbor Permit Policies: City of Newport Beach City Council Policy Manual Section H -1, governing permits for structures bayward of the bulkhead line, and related parking, sanitary, utility and related support requirements Harbor Regulations: Title 17 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code governing structures, uses and activities within the Harbor. Headland (Head): A high, steep -faced projection extending into the sea, usually marking an area of fairly stable and rigid landform. Historic Building or Structure: See Historic Resource. Historic District: A geographic area which contains a concentration of historic buildings, structures, or sites united historically, culturally, or architecturally. Historic Resource: Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archeologically significant, or which is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agriculture, educational, social, Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -11 political, military, or cultural history of the City of Newport Beach and/or California and /or the United States. Holocene: In geologic time, less than 11,000 years ago; also called Recent. Hydric Soil: A type of soil with characteristics resulting from prolonged saturation and chemically reducing conditions such as occurs under anaerobic conditions. Hydrology: The dynamic processes of the water within an environment including the sources, timing, amount, and direction of water movement. Hvdrophytic Vegetation: Plants that have adapted to living in aquatic environments. These plants are also called hydrophytes. In wetlands, hydrophytc species occur where at least the root zone of the plant is seasonally or continually found in saturated or submerged soil. Implementing Actions: The ordinances, regulations, or programs which implement either the provisions of the certified local coastal program or the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act which are submitted pursuant to Section 30502. In Situ: A Latin phrase meaning "in place." Archaeologically it refers to an artifact or object being found in its original, undisturbed position. Intertidal: Located between the low and high tide tidal extremes. Invertebrates: Animals without backbones JJ : On open seacoasts, a structure extending away from the shore, which is designed to prevent shoaling of a channel and to direct and confine the stream or tidal flow. Jetties are built at the mouths of rivers, harbors, or tidal inlets to help deepen and stabilize the access channel. Lacustrine System: Wetlands and deepwater habitat depression or dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, emergent mosses, or lichens with greater than 30% s total area exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres); or area boundary is active wave - formed or bedrock or if wate the basin exceeds 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water. Ocea less than 0.5 parts per thousand. (1) situated in a topographic shrubs, persistent emergents, real coverage; and (3) whose less than 6 hectares if the depth in the deepest part of i- derived salinities are always Lagoon: A shallow body of water, such as a pond or lake, usually located near or connected to the sea. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -12 Land Use Plan: The relevant portions of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. Launching Facility: A generic term referring to any location, structures (ramps, docks) and equipment (cranes, lifts, hoists, etc.) where vessels may be placed into, and retrieved from the Harbor waters. LCP: See Local Coastal Program. Leeward: The direction toward which the wind is blowing Limited Use Overnight Visitor Accommodations — Any hotel, motel, or other similar facility that provides overnight visitor accommodations wherein some or all of the units, rooms, lots or parcels or other segment of the facility may be sold to a subsequent purchaser who receives the right in perpetuity, for life, or a term of years, to the recurrent, exclusive use or occupancy of a lot, parcel, unit, room(s), or segment of the facility, annually or on some other seasonal or periodic basis, for a period of time that has been or will be allotted from the use or occupancy periods into which the facility has been divided and shall include, but not be limited to timeshare, condominium - hotel, fractional ownership hotel, or uses of a similar nature, as those terms shall be defined in the implementing regulations for this land use plan (when such regulations are certified). Liquefaction: The process of becoming liquid, especially applied to sand that loses its bearing strength due to strong shaking. Littoral: Of or pertaining to a shore, especially of the sea. Littoral Cell: A region that encompasses most features affecting sediment transport. The boundaries of the cell are usually delineated by river drainage areas, promontory headlands, or submarine canyons on the periphery, the continental shelf - continental slope boundary on the seaward side and by inland ridges and river inlets on the landward side. Sediment within these cells generally travel seaward by river drainage, southward (downcoast) by longshore currents, and are eventually lost to the continental slope area or submarine canyon. Littoral Drift: The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone under the influence of waves and currents; consisting of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and other beach material. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -13 Littoral Transport: The movement of sediment in the littoral zone by waves, currents, and tides. This includes movement parallel (longshore transport) and perpendicular (on- offshore transport) to the shore. Littoral Zone: The region where waves, currents, and winds interact with the land and its sediments. This region comprises a backshore, foreshore, inshore, and offshore and is broken down into littoral cells. Live- aboard: Any person who uses a vessel as a domicile as that term is defined in Section 200 of the Elections Code of the State of California, including permanently or on a temporary basis for a period exceeding 3 days. Local Coastal Program: A local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, the Coastal Act at the local level. Local Government: Any chartered or general law city, chartered or general law county, or any city and county. Longshore: Parallel to and near the shoreline. Longshore Current: A flow of water in the breaker zone, moving essentially parallel to the shore, usually generated by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline. LUP (Land Use Plan): Land use plan means the relevant portion of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses, the applicable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions. Marina: A berthing facility (other than moorings or anchorage) in which five or more vessels are wet- stored (in water) and/ or dry- stored (on land /racks or on floating docks). Marine Conservation Area: A "state marine conservation area," is a non - terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following: 1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas; 2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -14 3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; 4. contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems; 5. preserve outstanding or unique geological features; or 6. provide for sustainable living marine resource harvest. Marine Park: A "state marine park," is a non - terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may provide opportunities for spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational opportunities, as well as one or more of the following: 1. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; 2. contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems; 3. preserve cultural objects of historical, archaeological and scientific interest in marine areas; or 4. preserve outstanding or unique geological features. Marine Reserve: A "state marine reserve," is a non - terrestrial marine or estuarine area that is designated so the managing agency may achieve one or more of the following: 1. protect or restore rare, threatened or endangered native plants, animals or habitats in marine areas; 2. protect or restore outstanding, representative or imperiled marine species, communities, habitats and ecosystems; 3. protect or restore diverse marine gene pools; or 4. contribute to the understanding and management of marine resources and ecosystems by providing the opportunity for scientific research in outstanding, representative or imperiled marine habitats or ecosystems. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -15 Marine System: Open ocean overlying the continental shelf and coastline exposed to waves and currents of the open ocean shoreward to (1) extreme high water of spring tides; (2) seaward limit of wetland emergents, trees, or shrubs; or (3) the seaward limit of the Estuarine System, other than vegetation. Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand. Marine Terrace: A flat or gentle seaward sloping wave -cut bench, which is a remnant of an old coastline. Marine terraces are conspicuous along most of the California coast where uplift has occurred. Market Value: For purposes of determining "substantial improvement", the replacement cost as determined by its replacement value according to the valuation figures established by the City of Newport Beach. Mean High Water: The 19 -year average of all high water heights (if the tide is either semidiurnal or mixed) or the higher high water heights if the tide is diurnal. For diurnal tides high water and higher high water are the same. Mean Higher High Water: The 19 -year average of only the higher high water heights. Mean Low Water: The 19 -year average of all low water heights (if the tide is either semidiumal or mixed) or the lower low water heights if the tide is diurnal. For diurnal tides low water and lower low water are the same. Mean Lower Low Water: The 19 -year average of only the lower low water heights. Mean Sea Level: The 19 -year average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide, usually determined from hourly height readings (see NGVD of 1929). Mesa: An isolated, relatively flat geographical feature, often demarcated by canyons (from Spanish mesa, table). Miocene: A period of geologic time spanning 27 -26 million years ago. Mitigation: As defined in Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, mitigation includes: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -16 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation Measures: Measures imposed on a project consistent with Section 15370 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act to avoid, minimize, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts to the environment. Monitoring: The systematic collection of physical, biological, or economic data or a combination of these data in order to make decisions regarding project operation or to evaluate project performance. Monitoring is typically required for beach nourishment projects and habitat restoration projects. Mooring: A device consisting of a floating ball, can or other object that is secured permanently to the Harbor bottom by an anchor system for purposes of securing a vessel. Mooring Area: An area designated for a group of moorings. MPA (Marine Protected Area): A named discrete geographic area that has been designated by law, administrative action, or voter initiative to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. MS4: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD): A fixed reference for elevations, equivalent to the 1929 Mean Sea Level Datum. The geodetic datum is fixed and does not take into account the changing stands of sea level. NGVD should not be confused with mean sea level (see Mean Sea Level). Nearshore Zone: An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline well beyond the breaker zone; it defines the area of nearshore currents. Newport Bay: The terms "Newport Bay" and "Newport Harbor" are often used interchangeably. However, Newport Bay is an estuary consisting of the Lower Newport Bay (south of Pacific Coast Highway) and the Upper Newport Bay (north of Pacific Coast Highway), Newport Harbor generally refers to all the water area within Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -17 Lower Newport Bay and within the Upper Newport Bay, exclusive of the Upper Newport Bay Marine Park. NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service. Non - conforming Structure: A structure that was lawfully erected, but which does not conform with the property development regulations prescribed in the regulations for the district in which the structure is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City. Non - conforming Use: A use of a structure or land that was lawfully established and maintained, but which does not conform with the use regulations or required conditions for the district in which it is located by reason of adoption or amendment of this code or by reason of annexation of territory to the City. Nourishment: The process of replenishing or enlarging a beach. It may be brought about naturally by longshore transport or artificially by the deposition of dredged materials. NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. NPS: National Park Service. Open Coastal Waters: The area composed of submerged lands at extreme low - water of spring tide extending seaward to the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (12 -200 miles). This includes navigation channels, turning basins, vessel berthing, anchorage, and mooring areas of Newport Bay. NPS: Nonpoint source pollution or polluted runoff. Offshore: Off or away from the shore. This area extends from beyond the breaker zone to the outer limit of the littoral zone and beyond. Onshore (Inshore): The region between the seaward edge of the foreshore and the seaward edge of the breakers or waves. OTD (Offer to Dedicate): An OTD is a document, recorded against the title to a property, which is an offer of dedication to the people of the State of California of an easement over the property or a portion of the property. Generally, an OTD allows for specific uses in of the area of the property involved (for example, allowing the public to walk across the area). The offer conveys an easement in perpetuity only upon its acceptance on behalf of the people by a public agency or by a nonprofit private entity approved by the executive director of the Coastal Commission. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -18 Palustrine System: All non -tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where ocean - derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand. This category also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation but with all of the following characteristics: (1) area less than 8 hectares (20 acres); (2) lacking an active wave - formed or bedrock boundary; (3) water depth in the deepest part of the basin less than 2 meters (6.6 ft) at low water; and (4) ocean- derived salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand. Permit: Any license, certificate, approval, or other entitlement for use granted or denied by any public agency. Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map: A map depicting those areas where the Coastal Commission retains permit and appeal jurisdiction. Person: Any individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, or other business association or corporation, including any utility, and any federal, state, local government, or special district or an agency thereof. Pile: A long, heavy timber or section of concrete or metal driven or drilled into the earth or seabed to serve as a support or protection. Pier: A fixed structure extending from the shore into a body of water. Pier. Private: A pier used for private recreational purposes by the owner(s) or occupant(s) of the abutting upland property without payment of a separate rental or lease fee, except for permit fees to City. Pier, Public: A pier used for public recreational purposes provided by a public agency. Pierhead Line: Harbor water area perimeter lines established in Newport Harbor by the federal government that define the permitted limit of fixed pier, floating dock and other in -water structures which may be constructed in the Harbor. Pleistocene: A period of geologic time spanning 2 million - 11,000 years ago. Pliocene: A period of geologic time spanning 7 -2 million years ago. Pocket Beach: A small beach formed between two points or headlands, often at the mouth of a coastal stream. Pocket beaches are common throughout the California coastline. Predominant Line of Development: The most common or representative distance from a specified group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -19 or geographic feature). For example, the predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified line). Project Lines: Harbor water area channel lines of the improvements constructed by the federal government in 1935 -1936, and as shown on navigation charts of Newport Harbor. Also referred to as the "Federal Channel." (see Newport Beach City Design Criteria and Standard Drawings for Harbor Construction). Public Trust Lands: Public Trust lands shall be defined as all lands subject to the Common Law Public Trust for commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and other public purposes. Public Trust Lands include tidelands, submerged lands, the beds of navigable lakes and rivers, and historic tidelands and submerged lands that are presently filled or reclaimed and which were subject to the Public Trust at any time (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see tidelands and submerged lands). Public works: 1. All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, except for energy facilities. 2. All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, airports, railroads, and mass transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related facilities. For purposes of this division, neither the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, nor San Diego Unified Port District nor any of the developments within these ports shall be considered public works. 3. All publicly financed recreational facilities, all projects of the State Coastal Conservancy, and any development by a special district. 4. All community college facilities. Quaternary: A period of geologic time comprising the past 2 million years; includes the Pleistocene and Holocene ages. Qualified Biologist: A person who has earned a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in biology or a related field from an accredited college or university and has demonstrated field experience evaluating land use impacts on marine or wildlife species and their habitats. Biologists who conduct wetland delineations shall have Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -20 completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' "Reg IV" wetland delineation training, or the equivalent, and shall have the demonstrated ability to independently conduct wetland delineations. Riparian: Consists of trees, shrubs, or herbs that occur along watercourses or water bodies. The vegetation is adapted to flooding and soil saturation during at least a portion of its growing season. Reflection: Redirection of a wave when it impinges on a steep beach, cliff or other barrier; Retaining Wall: A wall used to support or retain an earth embankment or area of fill. Revetment: A sloped retaining wall; a facing of stone, concrete, blocks, rip -rap, etc. built to protect an embankment, bluff, or development against erosion by wave action and currents. Rill: The channel of a small stream or gully Rip Current: A strong surface current flowing seaward from the shore. It usually appears as a visible band of agitated water and is the return movement of water piled up on the shore by incoming waves and wind. With the seaward movement concentrated in a limited band its velocity is accentuated. Rip currents can pull inexperienced swimmers and waders into deeper water away from the shore. Since a rip current is usually quite narrow, the most effective way to get out of it is to swim perpendicular to the. direction of the flow (in most cases, parallel to the beach). Rip currents can often develop adjacent to a jetty or groin. Riprap: A protective layer or facing of rock, concrete blocks or quarrystone, placed to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment or bluff. Riverine System: All wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel except those wetlands (1) dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) which have habitats with ocean- derived salinities in excess of 0.5 parts per thousand. RWQCB: State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Sand Source: Resource of sand that can be economically used for beach nourishment. The sand must meet the requirements for size distribution and cleanliness and its removal and transfer must not create unacceptable environmental effects. The source may be on land, offshore, in a nearby inlet, or in a navigational channel, a shoal, or other area in which sand accumulates. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -21 Sandstone: A rock composed predominantly of sand grains that have undergone cementation. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Scarp (Beach Scarp): An almost vertical slope along the beach caused by wave erosion. It may vary in height from a few inches to several feet or more, depending on wave action and the nature and composition of the beach. Sea: The Pacific Ocean and all harbors, bays, channels, estuaries, salt marshes, sloughs, and other areas subject to tidal action through any connection with the Pacific Ocean, excluding nonestuarine rivers, streams, tributaries, creeks, and flood control and drainage channels. Sea does not include the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, established pursuant to Title 7.2 (commencing with Section 66600) of the Government Code, including any river, stream, tributary, creek, or flood control or drainage channel flowing directly or indirectly into such area. Sea Cliff: A vertical or very steep cliff or slope produced by wave erosion, situated at the seaward edge of the coast or the landward side of the wave -cut platform, and marking the inner limit of beach erosion. Sea Level: The height of the ocean relative to land; tides, wind, atmospheric pressure changes, heating, cooling, and other factors cause sea -level changes. Seas (Waves): Waves caused by wind at the place and time of observation. (see swell). Seawall: A structure separating land and water areas, primarily designed to prevent erosion and other damage due to wave action. It is usually a vertical wood or concrete wall as opposed to a sloped revetment. Second Units: Auxiliary residential units on a lot with an existing primary residential unit. Second units may lack full facilities, such as kitchens. Sediment: Grains of soil, sand, or rock that have been transported from one location and deposited at another. Sediment Budget: An account of the sand and sediment along a particular stretch of coast; the sources, sinks, rates of movement, or the supply and loss of sediment. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -22 Seiche: A standing wave oscillation in an enclosed waterbody that continues (in a pendulum fashion) after the cessation of the originating force. Seiches can be caused by tidal action or an offshore seismic event. Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas: Those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. Sensitive coastal resource areas include the following: 1. Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan. 2. Areas possessing significant recreational value. 3. Highly scenic areas. 4. Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer. 5. Special communities or neighborhoods that are significant visitor destination areas. 6. Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for low- and moderate - income persons. 7. Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access. Sensitive Species: Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical, vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring. Shore: Narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea, including the zone between high and low water. A shore of unconsolidated material is usually called a beach. Shore Mooring: A mooring for small boats that is located in the nearshore perimeter of the Harbor and its islands, perpendicular to the shoreline. One end of the mooring line is attached to a point on or adjacent to the perimeter bulkhead, and the other end is attached to a mooring buoy located in the water, inside the pierhead line. Shore Protection: Structures or sand placed at or on the shore to reduce or eliminate upland damage from wave action or flooding during storms. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -23 Shoreline: Intersection of the ocean or sea with land; the line delineating the shoreline on National Ocean Service nautical charts and surveys approximates the mean low water line from the time the chart was prepared. Shoreline Armoring: Protective structures such as vertical seawalls, revetments, riprap, revetments, and bulkheads built parallel to the shoreline for the purposes of protecting a structure or other upland property. SLC: State Lands Commission Slough: To erode the uppermost layer of soil, or to crumble and fall away from the face of a cliff. Special District: Any public agency, other than a local government, formed pursuant to general law or special act for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. Special district includes, but is not limited to, a county service area, a maintenance district or area, an improvement district or improvement zone, or any other zone or area, formed for the purpose of designating an area within which a property tax rate will be levied to pay for a service or improvement benefiting that area. Spit: A small, naturally formed point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body of water from the shore. Storm Surge: A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface. Storm surge resulting from a hurricane also includes the rise in level due to atmospheric pressure reduction as well as that due to wind stress. Stream: A topographic feature that at least periodically conveys water through a bed or channel having banks. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. Structure: Includes, but is not limited to, any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line. Submarine Canyon: A steep -sided underwater valley commonly crossing the continental shelf and slope. Submerged Lands: Submerged lands shall be defined as lands which lie below the line of mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see Public Trust Lands). Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -24 Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to the condition existing before damage would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value before the damage occurred. Substantial Repair: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before such repair, reconstruction, or improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred "substantial damage" regardless of the actual repair work performed. For purposes of coastal development permitting, a substantial improvement to a structure qualifies the proposed development as new development. Subtidal: Marine habitat that is permanently below the extreme low tide line Summer Season: Begins the day before the Memorial Day weekend and ends the day after the Labor Day weekend; alternatively, June 15th to September 15th. Surfgrass: A type of marine flowering plant that forms meadows on rocky shorelines and shallow rocky subtidal reefs. Surf Zone: Area between the outermost breaking waves and the limit of wave uprush. SWRCB: State Water Resources Control Board. Talus: A pile of rock debris at the base of a cliff. Tectonic: Related to the earth's surface. Temporary Event: An activity or use that constitutes development as defined in this LCP but which is an activity or function which is or will be of limited duration and involves the placement of non - permanent structures; and /or involves the use of sandy beach, parkland, filled tidelands, water, streets, or parking areas which are otherwise open and available for general public use. Terrace: A gently sloping platform cut by wave action. Terrestrial: Land - related. Tidal Epoch (National Tidal Datum Epoch): The specific 19 -year period adopted by the National Ocean Service as the official time segment over which tide observations are taken and averaged to form tidal datums, such as Mean Lower Low Water. The 19 -year period includes an 18.6 year astronomical cycle that accounts for all significant variations in the moon and sun that cause slowly varying changes in the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -25 range of tides. A calendar day is 24 hours and a "tidal day" is approximately 24.84 hours. Due to the variation between calendar day and tidal day, it takes 19 years for these two time cycles to establish a repeatable pattern. Thus, if the moon is full today, then the moon will be full again on this day of the year 19 years from today. The present tidal epoch used is 1983 - 2001. Tidal Prism: The total amount of water that flows into a harbor or estuary or out again with movement of the tide, excluding any freshwater flow. Tidal Range: Difference between consecutive high and low (of higher high and lower low) waters. (see Tides). Tidal Wave: Wave movement of the tides. Often improperly used for tsunamis (see Tsunami). Tide: The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from gravitational attraction of the moon and sun, and other astronomical bodies, acting upon the rotating earth. The California coast has a mixed tidal occurrence, with two daily high tides of different elevations and two daily low tides, also of different elevations. Other tidal regimes are diurnal tides, with only one high and one low tide daily, and semidiurnal, with two high and two low tides daily, with comparatively little daily inequality between each high or each low tide level Tidelands: Tidelands shall be defined as lands that are located between the lines of mean high tide and mean low tide (from California Code of Regulations, Section 13577; see Public Trust Lands). TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load): The maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body from all sources (point and non - point) and still maintain water quality standards. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d), TMDLs must be developed for all water bodies that do not meet water quality standards after application of technology -based controls. TMDL also refers to the written, quantitative analysis and plan for attaining and maintaining water quality standards in all seasons for a specific waterbody and pollutant. Treatment Works: Has the same meaning as set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) and any other federal act that amends or supplements the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Tsunami: A long period wave, or seismic sea wave, caused by an underwater disturbance such as a volcanic eruption or earthquake. Commonly misnamed a Tidal Wave. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -26 Turbidity: A measure of the extent to which water is stirred up or disturbed, as by sediment; opaqueness due to suspended sediment. Turning Basin: An area, often designated on nautical charts, connected to a channel that is large enough to allow vessels to maneuver or turn around. Undertow: A seaward current near the bottom on a sloping inshore zone, caused by the return, under the action of gravity, of the water carried up on the shore by waves. Commonly misnamed a Rip Current. Upcoast: In the United States usage, the coastal direction, generally trending toward the north, from which a current comes. Sediment will often deposit on the upcoast side of a jetty, groin, or headland, reducing the amount of sediment that is available for transport further downcoast. Updrift: The direction opposite that of the predominant movement of littoral materials. USACOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC: United States Code. USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (also known as FWS) Vernal Pools: Vernal pools are low depressions that typically are flooded and saturated above a hardpan or claypan for several weeks to a few months in the winter and spring. Vessel: Watercraft, such as boats, ships, small craft, barges, etc. whether motorized, sail - powered or hand - powered, which are used or capable of being used as a means of transportation, recreation, safety /rescue, service or commerce on water. This includes all vessels of any size (other than models) homeported, launched /retrieved, or visiting in Newport Harbor, arriving by water or land, and registered or unregistered under state or federal requirements. Watershed: The geographical area drained by a river and its connecting tributaries into a common source. A watershed may, and often does, cover a very large geographical region. Wave: A ridge, deformation, or undulation of the surface of a liquid. On the ocean, most waves are generated by wind and are often referred to as wind waves. Wave Climate: The range if wave parameters (Height, period and direction) characteristic of a coastal location. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -27 Wave Height: The vertical distance from a wave trough to crest Wave Length (Wavelength): The horizontal distance between successive crests or between successive troughs of waves. Wave Period: The time for a wave crest to traverse a distance equal to one wavelength, which is the time for two successive wave crests to pass a fixed point. Wave Run -up: The distance or extent that water from a breaking wave will extend up a beach or structure. Wave -cut Platform: The near - horizontal plane cut by wave action into a bedrock formation at the shoreline. Wetland: Land which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and includes saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, mudfiats, and fens. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1. At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; or 2. The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; or 3. The substrate is non -soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Wildlife Corridor: The concept of habitat corridors addresses the linkage between large blocks of habitat that allow the safe movement of medium to large mammals from one habitat area to another. The definition of a corridor is varied but corridors may include such areas as greenbelts, refuge systems, underpasses, and biogeographic landbridges, for example. Windward: The direction from which the wind is blowing. Zoning Code: Title 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, as amended Zostera marina: See eelgrass. Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan 5 -28 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 as amended by the California Coastal Commission. The amendment affects all properties within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the amendment is to update the narratives, policies, and maps of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan to reflect the location, type, densities, and intensities of land uses established by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan and to incorporate other new polices of General Plan, which was adopted on November 7, 2006. The initial draft was adopted by the City Council on November 13, 2007. Subsequent to the City's approval of the amendment, it was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as required by the Coastal Act. On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission adopted the proposed amendment while requiring 50 modifications to the Coastal Land Use Plan. Those modifications are not effective unless the City accepts them. Those modifications included rejecting the proposed land use categories for 12 areas, modification of policies regarding mixed -use development in the Mariners' Mile area, new policies regarding timeshare developments and mitigation of the potential loss of lower -cost visitor accommodations. New policies regarding alternative transportation were included and several minor technical fixes to the text and maps were included. The amendment and Coastal Commission modifications can be found at httpi//www.city.newi)ort-boach.ca.us/PLN/LCP/LCP,htm NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 14. 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call James Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644 -3210 or e-mail to JCam be c it .new ort- beach.ca.us. A t. Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007 -001 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 as amended by the California Coastal Commission. The amendment affects all properties within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the amendment is to update the narratives, policies, and maps of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan to reflect the location, type, densities, and intensities of land uses established by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan and to incorporate other new polices of General Plan, which was adopted on November 7, 2006. The initial draft was adopted by the City Council on November 13, 2007. Subsequent to the City's approval of the amendment, it was submitted to the California Coastal Commission for approval as required by the Coastal Act. On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Commission adopted the proposed amendment while requiring 50 modifications to the Coastal Land Use Plan. Those modifications are not effective unless the City accepts them. Those modifications included rejecting the proposed land use categories for 12 areas, modification of policies regarding mixed -use development in the Mariners' Mile area, new policies regarding timeshare developments and mitigation of the potential loss of lower -cost visitor accommodations. New policies regarding alternative transportation were included and several minor technical fixes to the text and maps were included. The amendment and Coastal Commission modifications can be found at htti)://www.city.newi)ort-boach.ca.us/PLN/LCP/LCP.h tm NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 14. 2009, at the hour of 7:00 P.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call James Campbell, Senior Planner at (949) 644 -3210 or e-mail to JCampbell@city.newport-beach ca.us. 04�� - kql�i, Leilani I, Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on: Adoption of an Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, adding Chapter 75 to Title 15 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code pertaining to Adoption of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said public hearing will.be held on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to rising only those issued you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3311. Leilani I. Brow City Clerk Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214 September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1%3. RECEIVED PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) )SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: June 27, 2009 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 29, 2009 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature JUL -2 N la. 25 O l OF THE CITY CLERK CF "n'nCRT LECiI CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Mae of Pilhli<Heal Lend coastal Plwpml Coastal Land Use Plan 77=:d c i41 :l NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the application of the City of Newport Beach for Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 2007 -001 as amended by the Cali forma Coastal Commis- sion. The amendment of facts all properties within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach. The purpose of the amendment is to update the narratives, policies, and maps of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Coastal Land Use Plan to reflect the location, type, densities, and intensities of land uses established by the updated Land Use Element of the General Plan and to incorporate other new polices of Gen- eral Plan. which was adopted on November 7, 2006. The initial draft was adopted by the Gay Coun- cif on November 13, 2707. Subsequent to the City's approval of the amendment, it was sub milled to the California Coastal Commission for approval as required by the Coastal Act. On February 5, 2009, the California Coastal Com mission adopted the pro posed amendment while requiring 50 modifica bons to the Coastal Land Use Plan. Those modifications are not ef- fective unless the City accepts them. Those modifications included rejecting the proposed land use categories for %l 12 areas, modification of policies regarding msxed -use development in the Mariners Mlle area, new policies re- g;rding timeshare devel- opments and mitigation of the potential loss of lower -cost visitor ac- commodations. New policies regarding alter native transportation were included and sev eraf minor technical fixes to the text and maps were included. The amendment and Coastal Commission modihca- tions can be found at http: / /www.city. nawpotl -lini ca.at/ PLN/LCP /LCP.htm NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- THER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on July 14, 2009, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boule- vard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. It you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing de- scribed in this notice or in written corre- spondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you have any ques- tions, please call James Campbell. Senior Plan net at (949) 644 -3210 or email to J Ca an pb a ll @city. asimpart-bea i.m.us. Leilam I Brown City Clerk Published Newport Beach/ Costa Mesa Daily Pilot i June 27, 2009 Sl Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2007021054 AERIE (PA 2005 -196) City Of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 March 2009 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2007021054 AERIE (PA2005 -196) Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92680 Contact: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal (714) 665 -8509 ffjjT,T:7r 4v.fTj Mj- Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table of Contents Page 1 -1 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project .......................................................... ............................1 -1 1.2 Alternatives ................................................................................................. ............................1 -3 1.3 Areas of Controversy ................................................................................. ............................1 -4 1.4 Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................ ............................1 -4 1.5 Impact Summary Table .............................................................................. ............................1 -5 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR ........................................................... ............................................. 2 -1 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................... ............................2 -5 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR .............................................................................. ............................2 -7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.1 Project Location .......................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................ ............................3 -1 3.3 History and Evolution of the Existing Development .................................. ...........................3 -11 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project ......................................................... ...........................3 -12 3.5 Project Phasing ......................................................................................... ...........................3 -27 3.6 Project Objectives ..................................................................................... ...........................3 -28 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements ............. ...........................3 -29 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................. ............................4 -1 4.1 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................. ..........................4.1 -1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.1 -1 4.1.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.1 -6 4.1.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.1 -7 4.1.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.1 -7 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.1 -45 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.1 -45 4.2 Traffic and Circulation ............................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.2.4 Potential impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ..........................4.2 -8 4.2.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................... ..........................4.2 -8 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table of Contents Paqe 4.3 Air Quality ....................................................... ..................................................................... 4.3 -1 4.3.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.3 -1 4.3.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.3 -9 4.3.3 Standard Conditions ................................................................... .........................4.3 -11 4.3.4 Potential Impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.3 -11 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................. .......................................... 4.3 -18 4.3.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.3 -18 4.4 Noise ......................................................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4.2 Significance Criteria ..... .......................................................................................... 4.4 -6 4.4.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.4 -6 4.4.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.4 -6 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures ................... --.. .................................................................. 4.4 -28 4.4.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.4 -29 4.5 Aesthetics .................................................................................................. ..........................4.5 -1 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.5 -2 4.5.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4 -5 -3 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.5 -30 4.5.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.5 -30 4.6 Drainage and Hydrology ........................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.6 -1 4.6.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.6 -3 4.6.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.6 -4 4.6.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.6 -5 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.6 -11 4.6.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.6 -12 4.7 Biological Resources ................................................................................. ..........................4.7 -1 4.7.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.7 -1 4.7.2 Significance Criteria .................................................................... .........................4.7 -10 4.7.3 Standard Conditions ................................................................... .........................4.7 -11 4.7.4 Potential impacts ........................................................................ .........................4.7 -11 4.7.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.7 -19 4.7.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation .......................................... .........................4.7 -19 4.8 Public Health and Safety ........................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8.2 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... ..........................4.8 -4 4.8.3 Standard Conditions .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -5 4.8.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.8 -5 4.8.5 Mitigation Measures .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -7 4.8.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ........................................... ..........................4.8 -7 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table of Contents Page Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 M 4.9 Soils and Geology ................................................................................ ............................... 4.9 -1 4.9.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... ..........................4.9 -1 4.9.2 Significance Criteria . ........ ..................................................................................... 4.9 -3 4.9.3 Standard Conditions .... .......................................................................................... 4.9 -3 4.9.4 Potential Impacts ......................................................................... ..........................4.9 -4 4.9.5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................... .........................4.9 -13 4.9.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................................... .........................4.9 -13 4.10 Cultural /Scientific Resources .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.1 Existing Conditions ...................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.2 Significance Criteria .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 4.10.3 Standard Conditions .................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -2 4.10.4 Potential Impacts ......................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -2 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures ................................... ............................... ..........................4.10-4 4.10.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation ......................... ......................................... 4.10 -4 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ..................................................... ............................5 -1 5.1 Agriculture .................................................................................................. ............................5 -1 5.2 Population and Housing .......................................................................... ............................... 5 -1 5.3 Recreation .................................................................................................. ............................5 -2 5.4 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................... ............................5 -2 5.5 Public Services ....................................................................................... ............................... 5-2 5.6 Utilities ........................................................................................................ ............................5 -3 6.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..... ............................6 -1 7.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ......................................... ............................7 -1 8.0 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ........................................................................... ............................8 -1 8.1 Definition of Growth- Inducing Impacts ...................................................... ............................8 -1 8.2 Analysis of Growth- Inducing Impacts ........................................................ ............................8 -1 8.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................. ............................... 8 -2 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................................ ............................9 -1 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ ............................... 9-1 9.2 Cumulative Projects ................................................................................ ............................... 9 -1 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis ................................................................... ............................... 9-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 M Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.0 ALTERNATIVES ................. Table of Contents Pa e ................................. .............................10 -1 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ ...........................10 -1 10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration ....................... ............... ...................... ..10 -3 10.3 Analysis of Alternatives ............................................................................. ...........................10 -4 10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmental Superior Alternative ........ . .......................... 10 -26 11.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED ...................................... ...........................11 -1 12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... ...........................12 -1 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS....... APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation /NOP Comment Letters B. Construction Management Plan C. Traffic Access Assessment D. Air Quality Analysis E Dock Vibration Analysis F. NoiseNibration Impact Analysis G. Understanding Perspective H. Biological Resources Assessment I. Eelgrass Survey J. Wetlands Determination 13 -1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 iv Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA LIST OF EXHIBITS Table of Contents Page 3 -1 Regional Map ....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -3 3 -2 Vicinity Map .......................................................................................................... ............................... 3-4 3 -3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -5 3-4 Existing General Plan .............................................................................................. ............................3 -8 3 -5 Existing Zoning ................. ................................................................................................................... 3 -9 3-6 Site Plan .............................................................................................................. ............................... 3-13 3 -7 Sub - Basement Plan ............................................................................................... ...........................3 -14 3-8 Basement Plan ....................................................................................................... ...........................3 -15 3-9 First Floor Plan ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -16 3 -10 Second Floor Plan ............................................................. ................................................................ 3 -17 3 -11 Third Floor Plan .................................................................................................. ............................... 3 -17 3-12 Fourth Floor Plan ................................................................................................ ............................... 3 -19 3 -13 Cross Sections A -A ............................................................................................ ............................... 3 -20 3 -14 Cross Sections B -B ............................................................................................ ............................... 3-21 3 -15 South and West Elevations .................................................................................... ...........................3 -22 3 -16 North and East Elevations .................................................................................. ............................... 3 -23 3 -17 Proposed Dock Plan ........................................................................................... ............................... 3 -25 4.4 -1 Demolition Noise Contours .................................................................................... .........................4.4 -10 4.4 -2 Caisson Drilling Noise contours ............................................................................ .........................4.4 -12 4.4 -3 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 50 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -13 4.4-4 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 40 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -14 4.4 -5 Noise Contours from Excavation to an Elevation of 28 Feet NAVD 88 ............... .........................4.4 -15 4.4-6 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours ........................................................................ .........................4.4 -17 4.4 -7 First Floor Metal Stud Framing and Second Floor Concrete Formwork .............. .........................4.4 -18 4.4 -8 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing and Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork .................. ...................... 4.4 -19 4.4 -9 Construction Noise Levels occurring Over the Construction Period .................... .........................4.4 -21 4.5 -1 Expanded View Corridor from Ocean Avenue ....................................................... ..........................4.5 -5 4.5 -2 Visual Simulation Key Map .... .................................................................................................... ....... 4.5-6 4.5 -3 Visual Simulation V01 — Bayside Drive Beach ...................................................... ..........................4.5 -7 4.5-4 Visual Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach ..................................................... ..........................4.5 -9 4.5 -5 Visual Simulation V03 — Camation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard ............................. .........................4.5 -10 4.5-6 Visual Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor .................................... .........................4.5 -11 4.5 -7 Visual Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue .......................................................... .........................4.5 -13 4.5 -8 Visual Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard ........................................................... .........................4.5 -14 4.5-9 Visual Simulation V05 — Begonia Park/Lower Bench ........................................... .........................4.5 -15 4.5 -10 Visual Simulation V06 — Begonia Park/Upper Bench ........................................... .........................4.5 -16 4.5 -11 Visual Simulation V07 — Begonia Park/Comer Begonia Avenue and First Avenue .....................4.5 -18 4.5 -12 Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive ....................................... .........................4.5 -19 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -20 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -21 4.5 -15 Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -23 4.5 -16 Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4 .......................................................................... .........................4.5 -24 4.5 -17 Visual Simulation V13— Channel 1 ....................................................................... .........................4.5 -26 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental List of Exhibits (Continued) 4.5-18 Visual Simulation V14 —Channel 2 .. ............................... 4.5-19 Visual Simulation V15 —Channel 3 .. ............................... Table of Contents Paae ........ 4.5 -27 .............. 4.5 -28 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology .................................................................................................. ..........................4.6 -2 4.6 -2 Post - Development Hydrology... ....................................................................................................... 4.6-7 4.9 -1 Flood -Tide and Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns ............................................................... .........................4.9 -12 9 -1 Cumulative Visual Impact— Begonia Park/Upper Bench ...................................... ...........................9 -11 9 -2 Cumulative Visual Impact — BegoniaPark/Lower Bench ...................................... ...........................9 -12 9 -3 Cumulative Visual Impact — Begonia Park ................................ ........................................................ 9 -13 10 -1 Reduced Density — 3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units ............................ ...........................10 -7 10-2 Existing Zoning Alternative 3A — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10 -15 10 -3 Existing Zoning Alternative — First Floor Plan ....................................................... ..........................10 -16 10-4 Existing Zoning Alternative — Second Floor Plan .................................................. ..........................10 -17 10 -5 Existing Zoning Alternative — Third Floor Plan ...................................................... ..........................10 -18 10-6 Existing Zoning Alternative — Fourth Floor Plan ................................................... ..........................10 -19 10 -7 Existing Zoning Alternative 3B — Basement Plan ................................................. ..........................10 -21 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental AERIE PA2005 -196 NEWPORT BEACH, CA LIST OF TABLES Table of Contents Paqe 1 -1 Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance After Mitigation ......................1 -6 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies ................................................................... ............................2 -3 3 -1 Project Statistical Analysis ...................................................................................... ...........................3 -12 3 -2 Proposed Construction Phasing ............................................................................. ...........................3 -27 4.1 -1 General Plan Policy Analysis .................................................................................. ..........................4.1 -8 4.1 -2 Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) Policy Analysis ................................................... .........................4.1 -19 4.1 -3 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis .......... .........................4.1 -41 4.2 -1 Potential Construction - Related Trip Generation .................................................... ..........................4.2 -2 4.2 -2 Net Change in Traffic Generation ......................................................................... ..........................4.2 -5 4.2 -3 Proposed Off - Street Parking Requirements .......................................................... ..........................4.2 -7 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants .......................... ..........................4.3 -4 4.3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ............... ..........................4.3 -5 4.3 -3 Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa/Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations .. ..........................4.3 -7 4.3-4 Daily Operational Emissions ................................................................................ .........................4.3 -14 4.4 -1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise ....................................... ..........................4.4 -1 4.4 -2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards .............................................................. ..........................4.4 -3 4.4 -3 Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................ ..........................4.4 -4 4.4-4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) ........... ..........................4.4 -5 4.4 -5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Structural Damage) ........... ..........................4.4 -5 4.4-6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................................... ..........................4.4 -8 4.4 -7 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) .................................. .........................4.4 -20 4.4 -8 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences ........... .........................4.4 -23 4.4 -9 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure ............... .........................4.4 -24 4.4 -10 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels ........ ..........................4.4 -5 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology ................................................................................................. ..........................4.6 -1 4.6 -2 Water Quality Regulatory Agencies ..................................................................... ..........................4.6 -3 4.6-3 Post - Development Hydrology ............................................................................... ..........................4.6 -8 4.7 -1 Special Status Plants ............................................................................................. ..........................4.7 -2 4.7 -2 Special Status Marine Species ............................................................................. ..........................4.7 -9 4.8 -1 Standard Environmental Records Sources .......................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.8 -2 Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Summary ................................................ ..........................4.8 -2 4.8-3 Lead Based Paint (LBP) Summary ....................................................................... ..........................4.8 -3 4.8-4 Results of Database Review ................................................................................. ..........................4.8 -4 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 vii Aerie PA200 5-196 Draft Environmental List of Table (Continued) Table of Contents Page 4.9 -1 Regional Active Fault Parameters ........................................................................ ..........................4.9 -5 4.9 -2 Results of the Stability Analysis ........................................................................... ..........................4.9 -7 4.9 -3 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions ....................................... ..........................4.9 -9 4.9-4 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme WNW -NNW and SSE -S Winds ............................................................................ ..........................4.9 -9 4.9 -5 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting From Typical and Extreme SSE and SSW Swell Conditions Offshore ......................................................... .........................4.9 -10 9 -1 Related Projects List ............................................................................................... ............................9 -2 10 -1 Summary of Project .............................................................................................. ..........................10 -27 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 viii Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental CHAPTER 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Description of the Proposed Project 1.1.1 Project Location 1.0 — Executive The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County. Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southern boundary of the City. The properties are located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. The subject property currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet), encompassing a total area of 1.4 acres, which is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. 1.1.2 Project Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures (i.e., 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence) that currently occupy the site. The total gross floor area will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living floor area (29,426 square feet), common recreational areas (2,987 square feet), storage areas (5,943 square feet), parking (13,234 square feet), and circulation and mechanical areas (10,119 square feet). In addition, the existing docks will be replaced with an eight (8) slip dock and one (1) guest side tie dock. The new docks will consist of timber construction and 19 new concrete guide piles, and the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The new dock layout is located between the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture design criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements (e.g., natural ventilation system, gray water retention for property irrigation, solar domestic hot water and pool hearing, solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity, etc.) that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. In addition, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -067) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 1.1.3 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the entire project in four construction phases over a period of 32 months. 1.1.4 Project Objectives Implementation of the proposed project will achieve the following intended specific objectives, which have been identified by the project applicant. To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. 4. To provide amenities deemed important by the developer to potential purchasers of condominium units, including a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.0 — Executive To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 1.2 Alternatives 1.2.1 Summary of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Chapter 10 sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them as required by CEQA. Several alternative development scenarios have been identified as a means of reducing potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. These alternatives include: No Project/No Development Alternative Site Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading 1.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative Chapter 10 describes the criteria that were used to select those alternatives for detailed analysis and to screen others from further detailed consideration. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative among all of the alternatives considered, including the proposed project. The No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially significant project - related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The remaining alternatives would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which were determined to be less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of construction noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 1.0 — Executive would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit alternatives, the construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other alternatives would not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized, including state -of- the-art energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities. Based on the potential environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior" alternative of the alternatives considered as a result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental conditions (e.g., provision of adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the unsightly overhead utility poles, etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some degree, the duration of construction noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable as with all of the alternatives and project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as compared to Alternative A. Furthermore, none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives. 1.3 Areas of Controversy The areas of controversy identified during the scoping process and at public hearings conducted prior to the preparation of the EIR, are addressed in the EIR and include: • Predominant Line of Existing Development • Neighborhood Compatibility • Site Geology Docks Pubic Views • Access to Parking • Bluff Vegetation • Noise • Traffic 1.4 Issues to be Resolved The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 4.0 and Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR indicate that several potential impacts were identified; however, in those instances, specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potential significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. All of the potentially significant impacts except for noise will be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Chapter 4.0 of this document. In addition, several recommendations have also been included in this document to address other impacts resulting from project implementation, which have been determined to be less than significant, to eliminate or further reduce those adverse effects. Because construction noise impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, the Newport Beach City Council must adopt a statement of overriding considerations prior to taking final action to approve the proposed Aerie project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 1.5 Impact Summary Table 1.0 — Executive Table 1 -1 summarizes the significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. The table also provides a summary of the potential impacts found to be less than significant, and which do not require mitigation. Each environmental resource area covered in the main text is summarized. Also, impacts found to be significant are listed along with the proposed mitigation measures. The residual impact after application of mitigation measures is also indicated for each significant impact. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 1 -5 r d 4 H m 0 N a e N U @ Q E O E E 7 U C � @ o m C Fn O y j Q J rycry U C O m N N J c C O to N N J °c crS cc�`m °, ra m C m T �R v .0 m ,a@i .3 n E @ E a nJ m a E d d> Ao E m°- 0 a 'Om 'v p� m J m o- @ o. w 'w m c Z s c:a ° Q my �m�C Uc axm mES m $ mo 0, 0 m N VN N @> .L.. N u@ m C m U m m do $c@ J U N m T @ h' a _ 9 8 Si @ E @ > ml U 'p c V @ E S m e `o O N€ p N m c m 0 m a N a m m c 2 O 0 y J y w = 0 U (9 JL-r d 0 t @L N nm ._� a Lm.. °5 mM ''m @v cv mm p 9 N NJja� p @ d(J E N J r J L @ p� cO O Z � Nd r C N m E y, C N m N o m d r �u C N @E pO d tnU 0 5 >�n>c� n w 8 0 J Gc O F M N N NUm C� v v v -0 m@ OF OF z° E y w y mEm 4.9 m` E "@' N L2 Ip0 �.p O_ O 6 c c L c�N '� m 0 Ti i230== 2,9 13 ° D) a r C J N m 8� N U C r� 2 N m (l o Hp s@ n .0 Is 3 o LiJ' a 0 3 -0 0 s a- Z° E m c p_p yY U U ryry �yn t E O Ol D. c V U a U N ti° °o.3 H"' m m LdaoNo J c E c NN!s CpY'yy�� a CNV?IO@ m an @ 'O m ma LUU '@ o O d L R O h m m o. O L m Ur'OO O)� E = E J N a� p o -i2U�c -m� 0 m NN �m�cdm O> d L ° c ME_ a ac�.Lm.Uc °m E :E:E' EmL c 8.. msL G §.c E 0 C S b m m C c M E m m@ > m 0o= E oy AO m0 F UO EWME 8 o2 & a 0 p N N cd'od>;E c m E c t 0 c U c N _m na p c F N 0 m p C O e 0- U',mO -dO-LM m $ U F E T w m h O O � m« 12 C 6$ 0 Jq �BUU�°E c @ 3 mmm3 c E 0 u o`o c MO 8 O E. a @ 8 C O y m C pm ny .Es $ p J c O m L m m mry p N d 0 00 a.- p C' 9 E U C Mm 8 n0P C ° m V > m 84- ow m L mm Bow= U= m' a nw N E c E .92 ° -E O m m °0 0 000 � o m o o m p 'V C C J C y L Qa — 03 8 m m 0 c m O @ V L N 6 J W d m N 8 mu °U v� @ C O L y C 0 m r O a €on�om d C N N U a'- N m � m � 0 m E E D °m 00c U L m 0 c c m @ c r L m E> N m c M d 6 d � 2 C C d O C m J 6 m 0 E��Ucc O N U 0 N L C m c c C cp_£E``om 8 O N N J c 0- m c n o° U J o c UEp�map ¢8z0. -0 U Z @ m m � O E3o c � t C � R i Qo 111 N �a 0 C A a m O 4 'm Q u c c � o =m c N � O y d J c K c a � d L_ N N d J .1O Ed d N yy C O M j d yA $ — C C = C d fi O N UKm �L �E; ;= o,E d o-0 d o � aa M d rn L EE d O >a d d o .o 0 a E c monv n l a� d (=o , .°~ a wN m y - ? z N do D?,a .9� c Q> n d O O. N 0d d o N j � - ' L ' o n O o c o a r> m �om° o ° � NUC jOCN c Lrmo� . n °iE L2 �O 'Y Owoc gE u Q- `2C yt�rnd c�n mc i9 - o t �d (n �` 8 moct� o c aC u°o a2 M4- d d a cE o o D L d � a$ o rn t m c E ` C oo d U C d > c o mc 0 n O a � E t >> d U d m `o d r o c � mdOm ° o°c On n d °�o°� 0 .Xa C a_C m c pm d_ E d C LIco .0 , O O L C d L p (�0 m d T J N N r a C O U 3 v N N N N L 0,6 .MW . y wus>c,o 'E m L h E A d r y d Mam am 3 2L = cc mr3 `d j Na y c na 2 8 0 cE ySc pN a oC 3V wO $U �a E 0 '-C O >' 0 Od W 3 m— T C 0 > no d C O) d d'- o I ad C On = d o o �.y v c d u 3 o N o c m u d d c o m w do Ycd a.- i wAc i M L° mm acu doi o E= U = ° u d �.d 0m nm' � ac td g7 m d d 00Nda - c ` rn=do Q d o cN dc u -c c oc og d0 N o FmB -3 a d = `O c 3 -8 d J c d d N y N o Ot 8� d a MT « Mo. d J d da �M n To o d a L 'fir N 00 U y d E d U d — X d 6 E 3 d — m N00 N O O ° 16 3 5 3 � L 3 0 d c 3 CL N d 0 m -> `o L A ma_ 5 m= $ a �yo m a d .6 E TL a �amrn c d Mn U C d - d O A U o m Km mr S30 ._dZN CAL C � Q N �a O e d I- O! W m a 0 0 N a m m Q u c c U o E a C O1 Otr N ^� O y ;a m J OD�OW C�O 0 -6 Eo --a N 6 c mo o C ¢m D g2 o co o � yy _ a d a o 0 = £ o Eoo0O'B `.a i ma 00 Oc o os ym a x o ty _n Ma c " rn y o y 12 T o m 10 m Lp O = c m m c E Y m n w Y d o a E° E =w E 0a 3a — dE "`o C R oo c o � y 3$ y � 0 E o$ y ` « > FY :E >nONO N M=. O Mm5 ss 0�aa.m. U d CN dy O i ` n w «n `w N o n ' 1Ec m o d O ` { do oa y j d3 CN 0-6 M p p w y 00 pp nOj9 C y - -0 c UNCdi yOU N C d^ c L- m a A t r a m Eaao?c 2 Q 2 c0 o$M° U o Um � � a ' r w£ c>o`M o o oo 2-9 dW +c 0 ' m y c g m o ° > o a e c d oa � yrno � o _` C oN ` co� N tU acc m!R 2; -io a s y5 y o1 / J c E C N y 0. =O 0 U ' y C y O O t a 0 c 1yi� y > � y U o = " 9 0F 2`¢ i N y O O D : a OccOCd W 0=. O S O a o LU 'n J LO dEo com� ynmy Y.S . o aL ?ym aKd- d o ° m = c 8 3.. NYN n E ON�6[�h c ' p ¢nma�yC� �y e U) U 6 E m c v 0 a ro y n T a U o � m m mr n$a tO Z N C � t �a o� m Q M a Q N O N a c Q U C p U.- A C d O � m J W N N N m J trio c c o�°icE mao' a m' w° Um Nc 0n -@ E ° mOO om y S 'a E Q� E N Ca p wo ' E N n m a CN y E" at� yy m E O E L c 2• w '% F am t W m E° N 3 L V O O F c N m J O �C_ d a m m O N ' O N U m � Z Oa D T N Z § m i C .m ?• y E m ° a > >i� nm Ecmp �0. @ ��NL°c 1 .2 m. a E Mma n- " :mU ?m o i 0 d a r? `maNN aO00 o r.. pE 2 L0 c rno t �c4 Tn K m a N m m m . i .0 amCp 3y m t N i O N m O 3 Q O d m d m m m m a m m o A m m m a my > ` udo E3N r m O m m m m c y U n ryry (E/l m m (J L 6 a m 02 rL�'a� O 4.2 mca « m $y a cyi0t>1c cO > U tumao sm c .—N m 0 `oya am � yVo Em m yo2 na oE.g„M m ma 'E c v > r QEami .c°3 am Qo Q`o =>�$ Q�3mm''$m o m E _ aNamiH m a5m 'Sy ma s'�a�?a dva as o.« d =� tom c`�a5 >�n`m8x N y co y V y y E y 3 H U 2 x'�mao p 3 a m n E m m aCn m —.c nEi ¢ N a ti v d E a w N ai y E Im . '62 T N N C '.0 S-0 c E 0 m m a� d x m'm m C N m CN 6 C J L E ° n N is N c a � o c m o m E c m m ai$ a c m O A'C C m _ m H c .00 -E2 C Edo o m m C t Z aR1 m� E3o m � Qh l� N �a o� m a a a us O N a e Q U C C O 4 j0 y � O d > Q J � C C O co oocmmoomc8 ?�cc= Tg.T cm Ed mEcEtrmaoa 0 LO o2o 'ay ct °-c om me E'a mac Z h E m EaW c '.�- E a�o L° w mc�mm Ea E a 2 o o W° c a do 4'w oCOWE ° c�c°im N TE 5 "oa c'0 E m L W c v .°"� W 20 WE d ° `00 $ �rvW w-ac >002° sN- Z'O C o a 0 E C y >2 0 w ' > o9 om . c oEm ° m t N m N N O E 6 C 'L - E a N W wa L C c U WW a ` U) 0 C' C .s O-S N O N N O i 0 t5 N> W O L 16 75 O _ o .° aO a N L C= C a S E$ m m ` 2 C v � W C D g Ec w EccmW o2 cm- -' E2 o" aono WPrm c m9 w 0— m0 E 80,6 ma mma a0 E E c c c c c° o 3 °cE° Z °O C — . omc O a 2 F c O C2= c ' ~ N C N L E p � U U L V ° O C d N - O > N E j O - - L O O > > O a C p T C E N N i w N fn So .2 0 w 0 Q c adn ELo H`O 4 v 4 v v a i mc8� O aN aQad� N 6 W U a N W _ 0 N 'y W d TD N H E E - o W a a a N N O U u o E a m m v E o y d o q m Q�Q y ?L 3 C... NOL y 0 a.2 L Orn ° t o 3 a o ui REP S ? ry N N W W W U W a C N N W m m o m a E am Hw0-Ern OZ o c ZO a`o 'w U o � m m U t W O n am N Z N d � U C � W eon +C d O� W W W a rn 0 N a e Q U C C U A FOE O y > J c N � N N m J N C N C C 'S ° m U3 > Sm O yy O O E 0- C d d E A " ? o O c 3 c m ° A p L E N 0 0 x m - y e o � ca n Vo o°ivt p OmocU � o •a c .= o m ° E o � m 0 w n° a w n awc� y ` < Ed 0.- 4 d N E n oai E drnw@ E> w'>n$a0 - m > p t °M-0 Q o= a c m° E N y y? L E a c n c O n y N m a m c m d !9 y O 0 0 y c -FO; .? m° c o nn > C V =-- m- `m E0o . Eo -$ O aPi E N �U3 _ yNY ° n 8t m m N U YUCj` 0 a�{Em O°aO9 c C $L° 'Ow « O C O�O a OUEV O 6 2 c d v c 2 NNm 01 m ° - c m c U dLd co WE >E "'amm�pc�mN�o�O'�w «m -2°U t80 -m wsti° $ o m ZnS - Cr y O p Oam O « 2ow- > E d ° N ° m m LC O N 0 N — N o O O OO m N V N O d _ y m N ` m m rad a c $ c ° ` a Q d E = ° c � m = ao m o M c .c v ,,.o m. mUcp .� py2d ac v m j d 'a d a U . .. d> C m Q ZE Y vNE ` .c.d.y m m m H m`d,N , c e ' m o ad rnc'2 cmmmaC U'tc- �coB gE cK' Na ° dQ m �'O O ai � E > t t 8:5 8 ¢ 3 o m c' v E d8 o> E E c� m m d C v y m > - - m E'r� m ETi o+g ryc T = y m p.4 'o wm c L° O v m m a d >L«.�d 8 y`o EE jOL a E 'a m C d N a d d O$ a C p E w °Yn 2Q w > m 2M-2c E, 0 4 Q c c E E E ° c c y U O m $ o a m p E c N N Ea MN «c �0 ON ONry L LU C O N o nC L d m m 2 a `o O V O a U O d O U m O U U C t 0 m m � 0 E3o Z N � I Crnm W �`+ �a m � m Q a a m U O t4 I O �O G rn m o� N awG ¢O U C C U o A C rn O N � O y > Q J C M C tT (n C m N d J ryC 0 C O N C m $ N d J 0 m C y m 0« O j N d T N3 d u >$ a N O Go C O > m` p y 0 00 y .L.. NyO > O E U 3 N N m 7- O 9 U m c d m d o _ L O C c 3 m m o N o E l m ado a- 0 w c 000 Ea-Q aci -0 N-aOw Ox o u ' T o dE mU odyN'a >�a'anw f` o E a E a£ o a s -5 E N m a« - =c° `c° m y y m m i 6 0 t J N N y -6 �L o t o N°` c E m E > y O O O ° m L2o' ° N a 3 Q Oc.>° o « 3 t �` mEo a z m c a N m •a - 0 N$E-N m o as "Um m o t E a Q3oo c o ° ra o '- o m a m v am m�il � o a dm p ° arnm vN a ? C ° m y 0 o Q N, m- $ C Qa« vd !m 9 - E m a o> > L m m m E d ° BE m xmN a d` m m m E d � N - 0 N Z $ E LLam mdN m oC $ ° �ti "a9'i n d15 E co 0c0n f rr m n� T a m o ° oo E 'am apo1a � m � om Q 8 m 2 E mig t o°N Y aN com - oO iF . d :$°NacOv irc o c E _£U Sa a A m UoO'l -6 c°N 'cai o � o N A U (C LOm 0m — O7 m .2- m m j �tyU N ig 2 N .iCc N ° j S� °M a% nrnc m Q`-a o N aaa Q$O Q aU 0m Q$Nm eb m d� om'> Aa' e 'a '�* v a v v � y w (n � M2 X 0 00 N N N m o a C N m N a E O N E �m V £ 8 c3 amor 64- ! 4:2 - ° Eoa _ c m E E m c m L a!3 N m m $4� N m $ J E ... N Q r N L S �j y 5 mN a C a C m L s q aa0 E 0p6J3 CO CO V d o O G Co °N 3 0 ' Eo « a aci ai m?a aci 0 0 Ei2am` amC a a 3 N -�.-A E m'm E wo d $'G w y �yO-dd ma dao�v a e 5 a 3 rn:s U 'C = r m iz m m E3o Z N_ G � Ern m >o W t`+ �a O c m a U a r° m O N a c u c c u o w � c m o 0 iQ m J h m n c m 5 J U L a y c m � J E a Z o > D o N `L, fL, m 5 O N C N C O O .0. m° ma(7Hrn Eom xdz Em d FLT ° : m-M c._Ac m m or °�c E L �2°-' rn... ao. O1 ono °c >oEa cn 02 Ui es U a m E O fm a. ° a N C m OI o °- D WM o N lU t— y N> ._ N N C o_OU N° a? U< ° X:R S m E � 3 .9 am � c - Ma°c ym0ZO °ate mss °1w1pp °c 70 cmyey� O C— M m C 2 D N m m 0 D U N N CI O° E D y .8 y C ., p' N D U O O " c N_ o° 2 o m m 0 i L O) d (0'10 o 2 mdc ay Lm.� ap M N «j N 5 a _ d T U m O N C N o N C'6 0 1x� c N v 4021$ Nt� °° •m o m.0 m 0 m o a o. C.co o m N D m o m c c o o t m w •c = m m m,a W am am > Q N C C N U `.' N 7 Ti ("p •_ C E° M15 O d fC 2 o L ° a 1 ..� c ._ o0 ° E L T N D N N J N (0 �L 7 °Er yN N° 0. N [0 N N N aco T me E mw >Ny Z•vaNao o.ca a �aL°oa aiK oaA ago Ecmcm �'m ooy Dva v ° - NEN'a90 �EoKm -• =yy O U'O N° N d m U'C crucn > g N L O 'C of E ni V o�:: o >yD N m �:� d N adma.E m ¢Sy M E= rL-�z a o €?I�:c maU c2� O] d) f)l 6 O m m N v v v v m y N r' r V Q c a a o o� o m c m 00 Em? 3Emm �m -`mom rn� oyc EEp°im cF CD M > m o o E x E m_ 8 E o y vmo „FSp2o y E m 0moco Trym rn 0. -Cm3_ U'm0N0 ` o o m cm t o D NN �1 am -, N J � cy" C a o, -m s x _ N c a E ti o oO m E > n NE N S D 3 n3 m >w a° C flm��u T1�Cp5 o-ot0 °0Em `o 'c-Mo CT�� 3m •� O'w mE YNStEw D °mm 0M 0� o o $ .c2 a° N c0 a �mD>MEm O c 1p mC7D o LLmLy�° do 2Do` 'n2mO OD 6Cm'- 00 M Q�03 .y$mE au Oa °i°$EOm 02 OM 2 €D a "poly cmE'R LL9t.0QZE rn`'nm ELL mJ� °So a w d o L N y °N S mp� M a m m W= ai T!E 5 E a c c m'oi Q c�52 L m D 0 U D HrnmEm� o c Dc Z�mi a`o M. U o m co m Zoo o MZN c 2 us c ^� c00 UI "1 �a 0 Q Or a rn 0 N R d U C C u w m c m O IN/1 J O (n N J a ad d Om m0y OT NCL NJ a L V ON CLC 0O.O0 0_m m = N a a0m y OOI U m d>~ T 'C 0 " O d ,n0 L nT aOd �6 'N a N C N C d N 0 am d N N D m9 NO.a as Cm .CN d mC0 Udrd� -Nm° Od4> -i. Nmd NCa (LJw O N E N O 0 m N 0 O d N K C t m p �m d°x2uo E O yy Yai c � °2 mow~ oa _ —mc� m —Jw Nmam a a;` ° od 0av N °so '00 0 m o mNami�QEm Eoam�md ca m ?.�£m��ac?Q a02 nNa `ot `mm .dcaLL °omEs.v 08m QU03U y'C U' N�.�O Nch mt0 d 0 Nam..UU CO'J N�L.c O'm 0L '3U �LQ JO OIC ONC O)�VJm� N COrNN -M a0> CO 'Fam o m dm oa Um'2¢Nc�a$ ca�maaE tm�- m:o Nma 3:- dv 8 ca ma_2N JCm M 229 m 0)� d E$aU y>y °om—at 00 aciLL Nnm y�a�mm omm Nm0 Na3C CNj mE� Ol pCLpat y�'3wm dNN" 0 N� C OO A Z M m a a m C E C> m 10 m O a 8 N m d 0 0 N d mmy��a L 0 (J ac m2o0 , °'ai um Emd.m LO, o w c° M m mr2 .oaa ao'd a$L.° ,sueO cLL E' Ea N.o Mm L- d f-a;m m..oymcot v N a a �. C E m N army E 0 d E $�caa U'O O m k> m C m U V N N N N y N N= o, mm�o -o.ymy md�a m_o maT$'poomya 9 y o.TQ me Jm me >..o�E mom —ma 0. Q�'�o m.oa U mE m` Q 0 U > � � a 2 m m M N N m w_ N Gm o N Q IJ/1 w o c UUy y wg d d HaE d aJ00o2 md d« 12 — C J N N... > T L an d J" a E 0 0 l0 m a Y O > T O C L > m � m N dY Eami2m noao>'`m m N N cU� Q d m o O dN O d N U m m = m o- aoimdE m m 2'L' m �.i NyEaN aymm 0 aN�mC MM m d a m •.• °p t m m E .c ow, C o�nN ami 0 J U U .- m �l O d m d d N Qy 6'0 j O L m O a o r, m C` a C m N o J d > m o m m H C$ a m N > N N O.m=- a d m N m 0 c mc,oy mNn o E m m CZ c U- d 0 C N d 0 0 a£ m 0 coEompm -- ao;amy mm" NmOa O. mdlk �Lam�cc ¢�amE U O � m al U t: m O QQ01 ip Z N C � U d W N �a � c m r a a 0 a 0 0 N CL G d Q u c c U m C 01 01 :. N O y >a d J o '_� LL E C a C m O N O d s o - .0 d a a ff .. o Ez c cr a 2 m ° � _d E m`Um0� ' , $O U m d 2n N a00 3'c0 O OEOZ �D -(Lw 9 ��d ' W 'da$ 9> ° .a OM C o- . Oom°mcE L _ O tC c d- C EC m- W _ d m d M no— NTdQ ENOI1dOy2- Ow".6-mN O) «CLd �'O« >0 Od n O d+ N` N C $ d O pd LL E N N J O d E`o m `= d . Z n E `N d yU - °Na �EvE c r a 8°° E^ d =° T d .1dc `off d a E4x m u d r m d w ° V N - d d m c j m T N L d V d TUU>i�dd dm N AE o am ' w'� d d w m0130 ° Nw « E- m o. >o a C w '- o$m - N 2 6 od o _an¢ O CO O C'� � a d = o oNN � C O X M d > m EO N [ C d 'S N .O c N 0 a c O U C d 5 L d: d 0 25ca��« a m y-0 0 o U` n? d dd firc a am �c - E °�s c° m C O dm d d° d " m w U O d O N d « N Gd a J G s > E m 0 N O N w a N m c j O � O` " m7 dm� 'm E 0 [2 ;w uE wt mG dd �d °m VNC l d �d cf o N a c d O « o - ° A no L O °m d c N o d G p W d O W d E 62 o m E E m d U U d N d U E E m C d O M U N. �ro mC CL 'n C I t C ^ C WN �a m o� J b) a o� O N a C Q U C C U o A C O) 0) W Ul O y >a J C i K c W m m L_ N N N J ry N V N O o d a C 3 L N A Vm1 C L(a N c $ O C � C> N c = 3 ' O O GI C °a lY (0 d d 3 v 0 m o t m o d m 3 E C d pp O dC 0 m o 12 c o 2 NNN O " w C m V N G N $ O c— O "� $ c c O a vo$ coT 0 r T3 'O U a mm y�E $ c 6 0 3 N 2 m C O:S o$ N a _� N 9 O m $ 2 L m 3 o a Q '.v m j ,e `5 o 42 s5� n m A>0 ms ON 00 °nm -ffi O U°a _ —O o c O c E E N N v T C o 0 m � o ==� nl- c v Q O n mt 12 m E a -.€ BZ $ MM , a n m$mM v � m r L m O >.- m m° o E ° a Or L C a D 2 U0 >N12F N° � Cu o v Un O ry m 9vammg-6 rE a EL � 00 cc 006=3. d ma CN � a� �C 76 0a v p o °3 c ,p % H mo ° m � y o m $ E vv v oLsM °d ° $ 0 a N .'d n c m ` o y $€ o m o. m E Q m w 5 m Q y $ c c Ev c o m v F E d 9 n N N > > m N 0 N 3 v E ow t 8 C > N m N v E w O L N C r m N'o m r C O' E U m o. O m c $ v E _ a m - m `m `m E E I y " o v � v v m L cma c y C tC y fl mw m y d A.m m 76 N O m 2 m $ -y ° m $ c v y Q d a.:9O c �'y m C y m pC O m L O C S U d UN Km U C m 0 N Z N m � U o h W �`+ ro v N a a m us O N a d Q U C C u w � c a or r. N � O y > Q J c c of f7 m s«' h J y O T C C 2 L a z zL3 .°mam 05 cmEd U d�° c U d Od N "O > U EU O w N O N 0 3 N w V= Fn 0 J U C N O E o °a T = ' p« O N V N O C N Two N W N U o� , ao y C cry yLm 0 00° 3 Q N Tc°iL �N =a m t�+� V � > ma p °~ ° m E °- $> - s . - N y 8 o a m Nm d. L O O Z `Nm,m N a O« nm a.o -0 Ec nOEmor 2E L c C �jO A QN .3 mN mN�Om r dN> c EO- y mN ma� 8o oo -° 5 cm3� °s r o m No m- > N m o mc o ° aE y a d m 00 --E MZ - c m 8 a a8 « d 8 p N V 'N c D> m d -6-M C o m m m a ... maN�w N U w> m a-NEENw ° «� C N C m mm «c- N N C j N (i cWctc�u o� €o> mG w-o 00mmot 5 c9v Em >.° n'SN�'S9amm �9 «cn Nm c° c m m e crn m m L '� $ m a H€ a o- „o�a �n °gym �'oy EMm yLCym mN c =c'_N m Nno...= a cE2 �Sia m.m. °� �"mo« L co N'° N..' °c. oo a G>Ea F---oa amm::m ,aoic ooE oo.,,mo slow@€ry � c5�. o 0 3 m o0 2 � °m o.n� �« m mo 61CL as �0U 1-r oar O N— y n 2UUE vc N e m L N Nodw'h ° ° «3« O C o 0 m 0°m°v aom$ N HSa o o m d°n°a i0 t(S v v v U U U • N to fn N $ C L N rQ „o m 0 m Em E s� m 'c O u'�Ec�iE >myi�c E mU m m w T� w N mam.E N 0 ° .0 m 0 °o ° v a E > mm =at0 m O C Y O - ioam C 9 U O m T a y« o e m o E �o w Q L N t0 yy�oa� N >� Em N U L E 2._TC ^pL$Ec� OI m Of c N N :F J N L Q a> c c U m m m � A$N cit E�m 41 N �a � e m Q r 4 a a O c s E m N y c m � Lm rn� my.a_o �amia � m m U L N~ O= E 3n d m > > N N $ama 'q o m �c"ioc O 5 O o U 2 -9 a2 °v a c i4z� 3 m C m O a m u� 0 0 a m C m Q d °a K U m D V m d c m O ME w O m N j $ Ea o`oc c az V N&o cz O m X02 t��£cN d 3 .9$ on =E�ocm m 0 o y O y m E N EO.. Q O O O 0 Q$ m o E ac = o o a_ L m�� c c c Q� cQ a, r mg ti o{p E a Z Q a m H c= V1 =0m m CmN m 00 E mu cU° `aR c aai m =� d m'o o a y c M �wc�EE`�i J T O L Oj r a t O L m -mcmw Ea cc '3 —mm._m 0`o¢ ami m$rnmc d c ao cO1 a Z'S a — a a — o gE$8a of m r H oa ma .c m LD ao�o_cx�?... N£Em c— A m c c m c m c 'a Q' N �' U OI •- c o i r m a c o i a n o.. >H Tt mt v_a mNN C'o o m e ' "O N a Q °> E o m m N c c $mac m y M�TO0N aN._NpU Mo. dmo >pmc,�ac Nm .O m mO L, 8 :E 'S o E m o S 2 o.Q CLp$cac�o °ao Qh2 oA C + ti Ecgmm o�41 co° O cm c N M!2 as8E0000.30omU�' N 0 U C A .0 OI y c m N N m J as — m '§m E 0 � c h m c " m c m 0 d m U 0 E m c so o� 8 c c c � a m m Z m J L L .L' " N d o m c 3 0 N y �aa 'o N � N U t O V M CI mr E3o MZN Q Cq m Q6 WN 4M am � e m a 0 N a c Q ryC C Y k N C W'« U) od ry - c O� N z m - C D! N z m N L. p❑ t O m m 2 Cc N V L C y T C d >� E E a.�U�ao J o a_ 0 0 - c �0= J m z K y c a a m m mE? .pwQCmc E E £.5ma3 Z'§ o c° °c 0 m? v d a N C2-8m cm O m - C d a°i m ` J23 °- �N = a16 OE m-o2 E`,z MmLOQN nm O V V IE o n Wm N m O0 N« O L� U O mi N c m m v j.�,� 0 a. E C N ,2 � N 20 E mN cm � m- m n B c c�a p d m2a ° aoW o ay mm GI U aZamd PD m UN a C J O N N N E pp a E Z m Z `m y Z o o m v m m cm 5m<m< M = a C ma °mOa "uO mJ 0 'w fF 0C2 °WN N �O �> E .. E E 12 jc 00 a m cO m N E m M o .?° 'cy E 0493 L C '° O ai �+ zm ° '(0 N Camm..ON°N 1= +E O m5J 6w 1pd .rJ C(ANCmS 'o ma Eyrn gym,9 '3a NmK 27o rnmsm,�cmi c.o ��mU. -gym "'6E 0 C L°-mN z �-ma cdJ- m% n m= a-o m � L' m 0 °m'C9 m o o 2 m 2 0 5 o c n - me N2 >Q =0 _ O e 3a mMa!�m m c rNgpv mm 3t�m a « o. Tn_rnc "°!ec 3oxi= = E3yyEc ocrn�u >E L $ Ecq C 0 2 0 3 . O CO -M N C i WT -M C N _ ._ m N m C C T 6 > o o E ` rn a E ( N myc 0 o m m O , N w aU — Nm o m� c a `mL s r„ R Z- c x R o E o m �mm 3° n . C�5 QCm y g ° §Q E C U�L N 0.5 w T O ' M �yc N ? ' � V i` d d Y nE viym� ° ° E 20 'm 0 ° �a >NLLyo t5 o-E°xScNmim ca m._nY m??m a mmm(5 �9 m C� 2 y O EA, --EEO E O N N L 0 m c m wo. O m Y N 0 m ctc d mmEn >a�imt °m9 o0 mo35aEa -Ei EiE�i �i0 E m m a o.v o. 2 S. m 3 m: HHZ °C mz9 U et Z m Z � m E 3° o Z N c�c CO�Di N Egg d m m m a a 0 N c U C C O C [A A o y j Q m J E c m fn c m w N J c m y c m N J m aN 00C ° Na U� «$ai9 C 'L'ICD NECLpp"C Ud aN 0 -'Cp rj 6p. N T LD my. LL M W.p AN � -- m 'n O'w C7 ° - m E =0 3 0 °€ � O z P o E S °r c o F M a10i E 26 m m t~ c a o E N E a m N 0°i 0° L`-' ooa m o c O d o m "0 w 3 N U m � pO Ea 2°' 2L 2 o2 �N Un �, �'- N m _o mma>oi�`"m MOD 'E Em"m EE�2�a`� mCmNO £m lO GU Lag W .o a02 �« mEc m .wH2m .i 50 aam- E'�Ea�c`4 °�� « —'w "a N2i gym" ono 3 m g 2c v D 9 a a 2 € 5 a a umirn c E 0- a s 0 0 no m c c ma o.ac r 2. $ a m y ° 'cs d rn =a amt mc`o o.m .E mmo E hTn�m`'°� v NCpOai� �c 2 c oTa� ,cn �c Eo 12 C�� «Am2 mm�0 a>EE JNN Oar> d a0 d'a -L O�U'WON�O72 «�� 0 -M m m> =F-N a0.L �m Las L C p m C' O 6- 6- w 0� C Z o is �� `$ rn w c C N m N O 3 0° `o� �maa a2E d 3o 2m �2om0�.Op_F3 �mw m ° °9 m� a0ai5 ' pdmdNy- dO Cy OdO>. =0 Na O. NOj mO9 C m C N a'J CCNJJ 0I N $ E L« L� L a m 2 3 m m 2 F 2« 2« m m 0 L> m V a N —co o J m a a U m c 2 m= m 0 2 a N M m w �pp p cp m N. Q O O d ErnOm m m'wma C m m =� N mm° L °I N v ° y 0 0 L U L j 9 a O« m 0 m L m N m a U.S ° 0 'rp C 0 $ C C p gm NO2�ONV d m ` mc'm 2a 0._�,UO N A m D o m O as o s s mo w N E m v r o« s mQ a E m c E a M m 0 N r m a L a 0 m 2m$2R�o UEa= ° cmwE'b p1m oa y° ° Sw z B a NEm E' 0=--U o. °OCi0 $oO ._.e��2 o 2 2yomEg' WE � g 3 u N n9motEcN g§ `a'� '6 d L O N E $ 3 3 o l W S'm ". t N a L'O a p O L2 0 N r m U � m m nya W Z N L Emm W 0`+ �am O r a rn 0 N a m Q em M O y J V= C N N m J K C A N m w C A fmq m J !F C m N m J qqJ T my (a N Ol J J y0(laaL' O o J �y N N E E ? EvS Z'o E c O `min amia� °O m '� c m Y a m a O1 t c°i N y U nm m `E m 0 3cm ,°t m o a 0 0 0 m o m m m °m °m m o �N mo aio m m Ema; �n rn - m° c o E m 5 a °m m °cc0 m c E0 o m m E �°� m a a Z mi N oa`-°a n m m ym0�$N �° m o a - m 3 m 0 w 'E ' m :s m a° a o o o y 0 C c a y =mmo J d mNa °` o E�a E o Z m Z Z -.E 0-6 a a Naym N a -2 a i N C m a U y E$ m u E E m U t n c c E m" ❑a' -� to � s m o c 0 1a0 m o o o m a vma D• 5 E 0 a o c .� `.NcaF mon .N � c ag EaEoE nm rn Q y ° Z Z om> X o C w m m E Z m C N m U N O i m P m o m C m C m ' m 2_ N O V m m 5 m cm O o<- = c a E w oaE oN� i E u`{o Jo t °> SW0- N ma!a c 3 C- 9 Q N- m a a o J o ,0 C O cj N d N ° m C C o Q3Ea4my E - a C m n= No °'3.,°'mm `ca E ma °E� ac E'm n'_n = $QE n mg' -t Eco °t ma a�i a E cJ d y ZmE y m o °o m ZzL ° °am r a o o °O m a , y O _5 E'> 0 2Z 55 a im N coUp 9 m c a d v d d a N a o y` E N o o ai m m ° aam E � u 3w' ra 0.l mc 42 nn c O CL m m L ' 00- m > a y m 8C o N 'n C c 12 °O �d a `m m ( O . O . .0 ! C a U N n ° - n J O _ " no EEamDm"dm > c E >a0 N E• o mm N N a E o o o c 0Ea3`0 m m zmomn,co3L LN S y`Lyy'�io =C Zm'm o 5 x E vm•.�E_ Um f:m -- C E ' 0c 1S �n Oc E - mmndCcCo0y d N '02 omm. E J°' m ° t o "m'^ c c mi °a mt a a tH - cEc m 9 !m Bc N m - a E m m 0 a m > ZE d n U C = m co CL oY E3o Z N I t� N e ,n ER W N Ea m n a rn 0 a G m Q U C C U N C OI Ol `. N � O `y W Q d J �y d R f 0 O) _rNd = L L N 3 Y O Q u Q O > . c � o 2 m 0 U � O Q?6,m O O = C N y O C W C 10 N C dp U C n X N C d M OR d 0 0 c� a E o a g Tn PNc m.xoo�am m E m m °Eo�m O 0 8 C N d N > ='x° o0 E m3m'- ° m d = c m5 mi'c3� =`o N c m0 m n 7 N A E0Soco d O X N O N y _ m m M O 9 h y L L d C m U o e m m �m U � E3o T,o2N � � U d C Obi N i Qa WN �a 0 c d Q N d R a Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background CHAPTER 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose of the Draft EIR 2.1.1 Authority This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 at seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 at seq.). This EIR assesses the potential impacts associated with the proposed Aerie project. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed project and the discretionary actions listed below. An EIR is an informational document prepared pursuant to CEQA. It provides decision- makers, public agencies, and the public in general with detailed information about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. It also lists the ways in which the significant effects of a project might be minimized and identifies several alternatives to the project for consideration. CEQA requires that an EIR contain at a minimum, certain specific information, including but not limited to a clear, concise project description; environmental settings; discussion of environmental impacts; effects found not to be significant, and cumulative impacts. This information is required pursuant to Sections 15120 through 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2.1.2 Incorporation by Reference As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports. Information from the documents that has been incorporated by reference has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s) that follow and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the Draft EIR has been described. The documents and other sources, which have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR, are identified in Chapter 12.0 (Bibliography). In accordance with Section 15150(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the location where the public may obtain and review these referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR is also identified in Chapter 12.0. Several Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan have been used extensively in the preparation of the Draft EIR. Where appropriate and necessary, one or more of those elements have been incorporated by reference as permitted by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, environmental analysis contained in the Final EIR prepared for the General Plan Update has also been incorporated into this Draft EIR. The information and analysis incorporated by reference have been summarized in the appropriate sections of this document. 2.1.3 Intended Uses of the Draft EIR Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the Draft EIR is intended to provide information regarding the environmental consequences of, mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the proposed Aerie project. It is also meant to facilitate discussions with other agencies regarding implementation of mitigation measures. CEQA is speck about providing disclosure where "[t]he EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action ... " [Guidelines Section 15300 (d)]. CEQA also requires consideration of the whole or entirety of an action. With these guiding principles in mind, the intended uses of this EIR are to: Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background • Inform the decision - makers, public, and agencies about the project; • Analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Aerie project; • Provide notice to Responsible(Trustee Agencies regarding the Aerie project; • Incorporate analysis related to the requirements of CEQA to allow responsible agencies to make findings pursuant to this EIR. Although this Draft EIR will also be necessarily specific in the depth of analysis (i.e., project -level analysis), this document, along with the supporting existing setting and General Plan and related long - range planning documents, provides environmental documentation for the implementation of each of the elements proposed by the project applicant for use of the existing and proposed development. It provides project level environmental documentation for individual project elements that are consistent with the goals, concepts, and strategies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. A discretionary approval is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. For this project, the government agency is the Newport Beach City Council. To approve and implement the proposed Aerie project, the following specific discretionary approvals by the Newport Beach City Council are needed: • Certification of the EIR (DEIR and FEIR together) /Approval of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Approval of a General Plan Amendment • Approval of a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment • Approval of a Zone Change • Approval of a Tentative Tract Map • Approval of a Modification Permit • Approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit In accordance with Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this document is intended to serve as a "project' EIR that examines the environmental impacts of the specific development project. In this case, several discretionary actions are requested to implement the proposed Aerie project. The analysis contained in this document will focus on the changes in the environment that will result from the development of the proposed improvements identified by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 2.1.4 Related Approvals This EIR may be used by the following public agencies in the adoption of the proposed Aerie project, related improvements, and approval of implementation activities there under (refer to Table 2 -1); City Council of the City of Newport Beach; Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach; Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background 3. Departments of the City of Newport Beach that must approve implementation activities undertaken in accordance with the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Coastal Residential Development Permit, and related discretionary actions; 4. California Coastal Commission; 5. California Regional Water Quality Control Board; 6. All other public agencies that may approve implementation activities or permits undertaken in accordance with the discretionary approvals listed above. 2.1.5 Agencies Having Jurisdiction The principal agency having jurisdiction over the proposed project is the City of Newport Beach because the project site is located in the City. Nonetheless, the proposed project includes a series of possible actions over which a number of agencies may have authority. Table 2 -1 lists potential state, regional, and local approvals that may occur during the course of implementation of the proposed project and identifies the agencies with potential jurisdiction over these permits and /or approvals. Table 2 -1 List of Potential Responsible Agencies /Project Approvals Agency Permit /Approval Local Agencies City of Newport Beach General Plan Amendment Zone Change Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Residential Development Permit Tentative Tract Map Modification Permit Building, Grading and Ancillary Permits Water Supply and Distribution Sewer Facilities Drainage/Flood Control Facilities Regional A encies Orange County Sanitation District Sewage Collection and Treatment Connection Permit Orange County Health Care Agency Asbestos and Lead Based Paint Remediation Soils and Vapor Remediation South Coast AQMD Asbestos Abatement State encies Coastal Commission Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment Coastal Development Permit State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Permit for Construction Activities Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background Federal Section 10 Permit 2.1.6 Notice of Preparation /Scoping Meeting The City of Newport Beach has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR. The City of Newport Beach determined that the Aerie project required the preparation of the EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study was not prepared. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Aerie project on September 23, 2008 for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, Orange County Clerk/Recorder, and homeowners' associations in the project area. Copies of the NOP and the distribution list are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. The City also conducted a community scoping meeting on October 29, 2008 pursuant to Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix B contains a copy of the NOP comment letters that were received during each NOP comment period. 2.1.7 Availability of the Draft EIR The Draft EIR has been distributed directly to numerous public agencies and to interested organizations for review and comment. The Draft EIR and all related technical studies are also available for review and copying at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. These documents and materials are also available for inspection at the Newport Beach Public Library located at 1000 Avocado in the City of Newport Beach. In addition, copies of the Draft EIR are also available for review at the two branch libraries listed below. Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agencies, organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the information presented in the Draft EIR during the public review period, which will begin on and will end on . Specifically, comments are requested on the scope and adequacy of the environmental analysis. Respondents are also asked to provide or identify additional environmental information that is germane but which they feel may not have been used in the analysis. Following the public review period, a response to all substantive public review comments will be prepared and compiled into a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered by the Newport Beach City Council for certification. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background In addition to the locations identified above, copies of the Draft EIR for the Aerie project are also available for review at: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210 2.1.8 Opportunities for Public Input and the EIR Process If comments on the Draft EIR are submitted, they will be addressed in the Responses to Comments Report. The Responses to Comment Report will be part of the Final EIR and will be presented to the Newport Beach City Council for their consideration of the EIR and the proposed Aerie project. The Response to Comments Appendix will be available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard. 2.1.9 Certification of the EIR After the circulation of the Draft EIR, the City of Newport Beach will prepare responses to all written comments received on the environmental analysis presented in that document and will prepare the Final EIR. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, revised as appropriate based on comments received during the public comment period, the EIR Appendices and the Responses to Comments Appendix. The Newport Beach City Council will review the Final EIR and will consider the information and analysis contained in that document prior to its certification, should the City Council find the environmental analysis to be adequate. The City Council will be required to certify the EIR as being adequate under CEQA prior to approving the discretionary actions that constitute project approval. 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Existing Conditions This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they existed at the time the NOP was published. 2.2.2 Significance Criteria Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR "identify and focus on the significant environmental effects" of a proposed project. "Effects" and "impacts" mean the same under CEQA and are used interchangeably within this Draft EIR. A "significant effect" or "significant impact" on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project" (Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines). In determining whether an impact is "significant" within CEQA's definition, emphasis has been given to the basic policies of CEQA with respect to a particular subject matter, as well as to specific criteria for significance found in the CEQA Guidelines (refer to Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines). An effort has been made to avoid overly subjective significance criteria that are not based in specific CEQA policies and /or generally accepted thresholds upon which significance can be determined. For each subject area Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background addressed within this Draft EIR, significance criteria are identified that have been applied in analyzing the potential effects of the Proposed Project. 2.2.3 Standard Conditions The Proposed Project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions and uniform codes as required by the City and /or other responsible agencies. For analytical purposes, compliance with these regulatory requirements is not considered mitigation. Where an otherwise significant impact is avoided, in whole or in part, due to the application of standard regulatory requirements or project features, the text will note that an issue of environmental concern exists and that it is addressed by a standard regulatory requirement. The requirement has been identified and the manner in which it addresses the environmental issue is also identified. This precludes the use of mitigation measures that are mere repetitions of common practice, City planning /approval procedures, or laws that are applicable to the Proposed Project. 2.2.4 Impact Analysis The impact analysis presented in the Draft EIR identifies specific project - related impacts. As described above, the significance criteria provide the basis for distinguishing between impacts that are determined to be significant (i.e., impact exceeds the threshold of significance) and those that are less than significant. The existing environmental setting (i.e., existing conditions) is the baseline for documenting the nature and extent of impacts anticipated to result from project implementation. Potential impacts presented in the Draft EIR will be based on a "worst case analysis," which assumes future development within the subject property based on a maximum buildout of the site proposed by the project applicant. In assessing the impacts of the Proposed Project and the various CEQA alternatives, the City of Newport Beach has conducted the following analysis: "Potential effects" of the project have been identified. Initially, these potential effects are identified on a cursory level. No determination is made that they truly are "significant," "adverse," or "substantial." This process merely identifies issues and impacts, which, on a cursory level, may seem possible. "Potential effects" include issues identified in the environmental analysis as well as those raised by the public, the City, and other public agencies. With respect to each potential effect, an analysis has been conducted to determine if, in fact: The project produces the identified "effect "; and The effect produces a substantial, or potentially substantial, change in the physical conditions within the area affected by the project (i.e., "significant"); and The changed conditions are "adverse" Where the investigation of a potential effect concludes the effect is too speculative for evaluation, that conclusion is noted and the discussion of that effect is ended. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur, but is beneficial, that conclusion is noted. Where the investigation demonstrates a potential effect is not significant or not adverse, that conclusion is noted. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0— Introduction and Background 2.2.5 Mitigation Measures Where the analysis described in Section 2.2.4 above demonstrates that a potential effect does or may (without undue speculation) occur and is found to have a substantial or potentially substantial and adverse impact on physical conditions within the area affected by the project, that conclusion is noted and: Mitigation measures are provided which will minimize or avoid the significant effects and, in most cases, reduce them to less than significant levels; and /or Where feasible mitigation measures are not identified which can reduce or avoid the significant effect(s) to less than significant levels, the significant effect will be identified as one that will result in "significant unavoidable adverse impacts ". 2.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation This section of the Draft EIR will identify the level of impact that would remain after implementation of the mitigation measures, including significant unavoidable adverse impacts (i.e., those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation) or if the mitigation measures prescribed cannot reduce the significant impacts to a less than significant level (or the mitigation measures are infeasible, or their implementation cannot be guaranteed because they are the responsibility of another public agency). 2.3 Format of the Draft EIR As noted above, this EIR focuses on the analysis of those environmental parameters that may experience significant adverse impacts as a result of the proposed Aerie project. This analysis is documented in this Draft EIR as follows: Section 1.0 — Executive Summary. This section includes the executive summary, which summarizes the proposed project and the project alternatives. In addition, a table is included in this section that summarizes the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures and level of significance after mitigation. Section 2.0 — Introduction and Background. This section provides relevant, information, context and background on the CEQA process and the proposed project. Section 3.0 — Project Description. This section includes a brief description of the environmental setting, provides a detailed project description, enumerates the project objectives, and identifies implementation /phasing associated with the proposed project. Section 4.0 — Environmental Analysis. This section describes the existing conditions, the thresholds of significance, the analytical methodology, the impacts of the proposed project, mitigation to reduce or avoid any significant adverse impacts, and the level of significance of the impacts after mitigation. Section 5.0 — Imoacts Determined Not to be Significant. This section summarizes the environmental impacts determined not to be significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 2.0 — Introduction and Background Section 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts. This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project, after mitigation, based on the analysis documented in Section 4.0. Section 7.0 — Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. This section addresses the potential for irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources associated with the proposed project. Section 8.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts. This section addresses the potential for growth- inducing impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts. This section addresses the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 10.0 — Proiect Alternatives. This section provides a qualitative analysis of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternatives to the Project, including the No Project Alternative. Section 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted. This section lists the City of Newport Beach staff and /or departments consulted during the preparation of the Draft EIR as well as consultant personnel who were consulted during or responsible for the preparation of this Draft EIR. Section 12.0 — References. This section lists the references used in the preparation of this Draft EIR. Section 13.0 — Glossary of Acronyms. This section provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and acronyms used in the EIR. Appendices. The Appendices to this EIR include the NOP, the responses to the NOP and technical reports prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project alternatives. Technical studies prepared for the proposed project, which include: (1) circulation queuing analysis; (2) air quality analysis; (3) noise analysis; (4) terrestrial and marine biology assessment; (5) hydrology analysis; (6) geotechnical analysis; (7) coastal engineering assessment; (8) Phase I environmental site assessment and asbestos survey; (9) visual simulations; and (10) cultural and paleontological assessments. The several technical assessments prepared for the proposed project are either appended to the Draft EIR or are available at the Newport Beach Planning Department for review. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 2 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description CHAPTER 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location The City of Newport Beach is an urbanized coastal community located in western Orange County (refer to Exhibit 3 -1). Newport Beach is bordered by the Cities of Irvine on the north and northeast and by Costa Mesa on the north and northwest. Crystal Cove State Park, which is located in unincorporated Orange County, is located southeast of the City's corporate boundaries. On the west, the incorporated limits of the City extend to the Santa Ana River; the City of Huntington Beach is located west of the Santa Ana River. The Pacific Ocean comprises the southwestern boundary of the City. The relationship of the City of Newport Beach with the region is illustrated in Exhibit 3 -1 (Regional Location). The City of Newport Beach has developed as a grouping of small communities or "villages," primarily due to the natural geographic form of the Newport Bay. Many of the newer developments, located inland from the bay, have been based on a "Planned Community' concept, resulting in an extension of the village form, even where no major geographic division exists. The various villages provide for a wide variety of type and style of development, both residential and commercial. The City includes lower density, single - family residential areas, as well as more intensively developed residential beach areas. Commercial areas range from master planned employment centers to marine industrial, neighborhood shopping centers, a regional shopping center, and visitor commercial areas. The subject property currently consists of two parcels (APNs 052 - 013 -12 and 052 - 013013) and a small portion (584 square feet) of a third parcel (APN 052 - 013 -21), encompassing a total area of approximatelyl.4 acres. The site is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The properties are located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach (refer to Exhibit 3 -2, Vicinity Map). Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures that currently occupy the site. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three split levels that are visible above existing grade from the street; all four levels are visible from Newport Bay. 3.2 Environmental Setting 3.2.1 Existing Land Use The site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All four levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The lowest extent of a portion of the foundation of the existing apartment building down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet using the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) measurement standard.' The single - family home on the site and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. 'All references to an elevation In this EIR shall be to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description The site encompasses a portion of a steep coastal bluff located above the entrance to Newport Harbor. The west - facing portion of the site is subject to marine erosion with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff that forms a small cove. The sand within the cove is typically submerged at high tide. There is a public view through the property at the southern end of the site. This includes limited views of Newport Bay, the Balboa Peninsula, and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is visible from public vantage points on the Balboa Peninsula and the Newport Bay. The existing buildings, including impervious surfaces with the exception of the bluff staircase, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site. Coverage is approximately 41 percent of the area of the site above mean higher high tide line. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built in 1955. The apartment building contains open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the building facing Carnation Avenue. The age and architectural character of the existing residential structures contrast with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety, especially compared to the older and more mundane features of the existing buildings on subject property. The visual character of the area as viewed from Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula is presently affected not only by the existing development on the project site, but also the existing development on surrounding properties. In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project involves the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. The existing docks can moor four (4) boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one guest side tie dock are proposed. The structural elements of the existing landing and docks are in very poor condition. The City has required the landowner to take action to remediate the hazard posed by the existing pier, gangway and piles, which are in a state of disrepair. In addition, the existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 44 -foot gangway. The project site and surrounding development are illustrated on Exhibit 3 -3 (Aerial Photograph) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description Tra*Ave Taa,FAVe �'�% � n o OmOOna ootl WesI Bn ENd 1Ne51011091eB C°Iaw AWaaNa W 11e, 91 Mon Orange o u i WeYj`ni, ea iom Ab Caunry War $ Si RAih�iri On Beach Balsa W 1,,s, "-W 1n5, a and EieF ,. AVe 6dsa lM1<Gabes Santa Ana TU51 4Nipuel Mitlway City _ _ x M Rado Bdsa Dana P.m, CSan CI EdlnOet AVe io EEd,nea.A ¢ Smetza m GoulevaN Gardens — San. An, Laden,— _ Ve coB WedWed <ASo via N'a We _y .burp _ � Wame�AVe W,VUnu PVe t_ EWamu Ave O..ve [tleMa -1,aez G SoMM1 Sans p,a Fdr° et imce, ^� - - Fountain Valley v, " ffin WMadEhm 8%. 11 oype my m ® n'Sucnoner AVe � A Cwno Ellis Ave • -.. Sunfl°xea A'VE G,L Aar no - " Garfield AVe _ - - ned s. e e+ If, Try FkaGa: U 6NSa y O _ 3 C P.W.M. ep n St _ O n °a East lavi 9 . • s'•. ea e Irvine Huntington Beach >4 1 atnt +a'ayDi 133 -da F 0" a' =Costa Mesa w, Newport Beach - say shwea ' F�;ea�u�• ..e— e S , 11—pe, _l °• a iA,O Gtlo We £ry' 1A,00l. eAve Babes ProJea Site a Del Mai M �6km 3m1es yah Lac. SOURCE: City OF Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -3 Crystal LOVe O _a 133 re aakn ene altl Bay Rq OfR T& s Exhibit 3 -1 Regional Map Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 - Project Description Project Site ��SAY A' +EE _J L--- - -BALBOABLVOE, r cAN FRET AO�Y f a- /o p0 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach �Op C . -�vP? s�ONO ` OP qLF P p O o- ay m Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196- Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -4 F/q sr 4LF QP OQ S� ,O 41% OF OR - yf 9L P qL , R 09 r` e0P PF - P J� ` 5e o � aREgkERS O4 cF IVe c4 0 864ft Exhibit 3 -2 Vicinity Map Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -5 Exhibit 3 -3 Aerial Photograph Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Surrounding Land Uses The area in the vicinity where the Property is located is nearly completely developed with a single- and multiple family residences (refer to Exhibit 3 -3). A variety of architectural styles characterize the area. West of the site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the Site are single - family and multiple - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff that is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the Site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands; however, the lower portion of the bluff was altered for the construction of Bayside Place and several homes along Bayside Place, including 101 Bayside Place (the "Sprague Residence "). South and east of the Site are a mix of single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. 3.2.2 Existing General Plan The subject property is located within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses single - family and multiple - family residential development in Corona del Mar generally west of Hazel Drive, east of Avocado Avenue and south of Bayside Drive. As illustrated in Exhibit 3 -4, the largest portion of the subject property is designated RM (Multiple -Unit Residential — 20 du /ac) by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, a small portion of the site (528 square feet) located near the northwestern property boundary is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential). Based on the existing General Plan land use designations, 28 multiple - family residential dwelling units could be built on the site. 3.2.3 Coastal Land Use Plan The City's Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) was derived from the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and is intended to identify the distribution of land uses in the coastal zone. The majority of the subject property is currently designated RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per gross acre). In addition, a small portion of the site is designated RH -D (High Density Residential D — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per gross acres). As prescribed in the CLUP, development within the coastal zone shall not exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. 3.2.4 Existing Zoning The majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land (refer to Exhibit 3 -5). However, pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density within the MRF (2178) zoning district is calculated using the total lot area minus the slopes in excess of 50 percent and submerged lands. Total Site Area 61,284 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the area of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The project applicant is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the site (564 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and make the MFR zoning classification apply to the entire site. The MFR zoning classification permits higher density development than the R -2 zoning classification. 3.2.5 Physical Environment Climate and Air Quali The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), a 6,600 square mile area encompassing all of Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. A persistent high - pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean largely dominates regional meteorology. The distinctive climate of this area is determined primarily by its terrain and geographic location. Local climate is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Ozone and pollutant concentrations tend to be lower along the coast, where the constant onshore breeze disperses pollutants toward the inland valley of the SCAB and adjacent deserts. However, as a whole, the SCAB fails to meet national standards for several criteria pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide and PM10, and is classified as a "non - attainment' area for those pollutants. Geology and Seismicity The project site is located in the seismically active southern California region. There are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. In addition, the project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone as illustrated on the maps issued by the State Geologist for the area. Although there are no active faults or fault systems known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, it is subject to seismic shaking resulting from earthquakes occurring on one or more of the regional faults. The closest active faults within 50 miles of the project site are the Newport- Inglewood, Norwalk, and Raymond Faults. The Newport- Inglewood fault, which is the only active fault within or immediately adjacent to the City of Newport Beach, could generate a 7.0 magnitude or greater maximum credible earthquake. The topography of the subject site slopes toward Newport Bay. The existing buildings are located on the upper portions of the bluff and bluff face. Site elevation ranges from approximately 70 feet above sea level at the top of the bluff to sea level on the west side of the site. The geologic units underlying the subject property and environs include artificial fill, marine and non - marine terrace deposits, and bedrock units assigned to the upper - middle Miocene Monterey Formation. Drainage and Hydrology As previously indicated, the entire site is developed and is occupied by 15 dwelling units, including 14 multiple family dwelling units and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Impervious surfaces cover the vast majority of the site, which is adequately served by the City's storm drain system located in the roadways that surround the site. The subject property is not located within the 100- or 500 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. Further, neither the subject property nor the surrounding residential development is located in an area of the City that is subject to flooding resulting from the failure of a levee or dam. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Deschption SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element Exhibit 3-4 Existing General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -9 Exhibit 3 -5 Existing Zoning Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Hydraulic (i.e., ground water) flow is generally in a down- gradient direction, usually toward the nearest surface water body. Surface drainage in the project environs is anticipated to flow to the west, toward Newport Bay, which is adjacent on the west. Transportation and Circulation The subject property is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Regional access to the project area is available from West Coast Highway (California State Route 1) via the Corona del Mar Freeway (California State Route 73) MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road and also from the Costa Mesa Freeway (California State Route 55) and Newport Boulevard. The area in which the subject property is located is served by a "grid" of residential streets that extends to the north and south from West Coast Highway. The site is located on Carnation Avenue near the intersection of Ocean Boulevard. Vehicular access to the project area is available from West Coast Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Neither of these local streets is designated as an Arterial or a Commuter Roadway on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The area in which the subject property is located is primarily residential in nature. Public Services and Utilities Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). The NBFD operates and maintains eight fire stations to respond to emergency calls throughout the City. Fire Station No. 5 is located at 410 Marigold in Corona del Mar, less than one mile east of the site. This fire station is supported by one fire engine and one paramedic van. Fire Station No. 3 in Fashion Island is located less than two miles from the site. In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal mutual aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, less than two miles northwest of the subject property. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats" The City of Newport Beach owns and maintains several sewer and water mains in the vicinity of the subject property, including those in Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Sewer collection and wastewater treatment services are provided by the City of Newport Beach (local collection) and the Orange County Sanitation District (conveyance and treatment). In addition, all of the utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and telephone) are currently available and serve the existing development. The project site receives electrical and natural gas service from Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company, respectively. 3.2.6 Social Environment The City of Newport Beach is nearly fully developed with a diverse mixture of residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, and recreational and open space uses. The predominant land use in the City is residential, which is characterized by many distinct neighborhoods. Older communities were first developed along the coastline, including the Peninsula, West Newport, Balboa Island, and Lido Isle. The early housing is characterized by a diversity of multiple - family, single- family, and mixed -use housing located within proximity of commercial and visitor - serving uses. While single - family attached and detached residential development comprise the majority of housing in the City, many multiple - family dwelling units, including condominium, apartments, duplex, triplex, and fourplex units, exist in Newport Beach and, in particular, in the older neighborhoods including West Newport. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0— Project Description Between 1980 and 2005, 11,127 housing units were added to the City's inventory of housing stock. Although the rate of increase in housing within the City has slowed since 1990, the City averaged approximately 200 to 300 dwelling units per year between 2001 and 2005 (with the exception of 2003, which included the annexation of Newport Coast). The total number of housing units as of January 1, 2005 was estimated to be 42,143, including approximately 26,000 units (62 percent) that are single - family attached and detached homes. Thirteen percent of the units (5,475 homes) were duplex, triplex, and fourplex units. Other multiple - family dwelling units in the City in 2005 totaled 9,721 (23 percent). The remainder of the dwelling units in the City were mobile homes (863 or two percent). The overall vacancy rate of housing in the City of Newport Beach ranged from 10.1 and 11.3 percent between 1980 and 2000, respectively; however, there are a significant number of homes in the City that are classified as seasonal units and second homes. The vacancy rate in all units in the City in 2005 was reported to be 10.91 percent.]] A variety of retail uses are located throughout the City and include those in neighborhood shopping centers, commercial strips and villages, and shopping centers, with the largest being Fashion Island, a regional center that is framed by a mixture of office, entertainment, and residential uses. Other neighborhood retail centers are located throughout the City. In addition to the retail uses, the City also supports a variety of professional office uses, which are located mostly within Newport Center and the Airport Area. Industrial uses are primarily located within the West Newport Mesa area, east of Banning Ranch, and include a variety of industrial, manufacturing, and supporting retail uses. Research and development uses are clustered in the Airport Area while government, educational, and institutional uses are scattered throughout the City. One of the primary locations for medical uses in the City is near Hoag Hospital, which is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard. 3.3 History and Evolution of the Proposed Development Prior environmental documents were prepared in 2007 and 2008 for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) and were the subject of public review and hearing. These documents evaluated the redevelopment of the subject property with a 9 -unit residential condominium development, which was subsequently revised to address, among other things, aesthetic impacts and to respond to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED) established in 2007 for the proposed project. The prior applications did not include the replacement of the existing landing and dock facilities that are located in Carnation Cove.2 Because these facilities currently exist in a deteriorated condition and pose a potential safety hazard, new docks were designed and incorporated into the proposed project. As a result, the Aerie residential project that is the subject of this environmental analysis has been expanded to include the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing and dock facilities existing within Carnation Cove, in addition to the proposed 8 -unit residential condominium development proposed by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. As a result of those revisions, the City conducted a subsequent environmental analysis in April 2008 that contained an assessment of the proposed 8 -unit project and boat dock facility. Public hearings were conducted following the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Newport Beach Planning Commission recommended approval of the project at a public hearing on June 19, 2008. The City Council, which conducted a public hearing on July 22, 2008, received public testimony and requested additional information related to the proposed project and the environmental analysis. No action was taken on the project and the public hearing was continued 3 The cove located on the project site and studied in the technical reports prepared for this MND is sometimes referred to within this MND as "Carnation Cove." Although local usage of the term "Carnation Cove" generally refers to a larger area of shoreline extending north of the project site, for purposes of the analysis contained in this MND and the technical reports prepared in connection with this MND, the evaluation is based upon site- specific analysis of the cove located on the project site. Therefore, references to "Carnation Cove" within this MND include, and in some instances are limited to, the beach area and cove on the oroiect site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter ao— Project Description indefinitely to allow time for City staff and the applicant to respond to the City Council's request for additional information. Subsequently, a decision was made to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Report. 3.4 Description of the Proposed Project The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development as illustrated in the Conceptual site Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -6) and as described below. Residential Structure The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean levels with common recreation areas, mechanical and electrical areas, storage areas, and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement "). Exhibits 3 -7 through 3 -12 illustrate each of the six levels of the proposed residential structure; cross - sections of through the site are shown in Exhibit 3- 13 and 3 -14. Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet, which includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. Exhibits 3 -15 and 3 -16 illustrate the proposed architectural character of the project. The floor area allocations for each of the eight condominium units are summarized in Table 3 -1. Table 3 -1 Project Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area S . Ft. Garage (S q. Ft. Storage (S q. Ft.) Total (S q. Ft. 1 1 3,716 416 471 4,603 2 1 3,204 410 705 4,319 3 1 2,662 397 648 3,707 4 1 2,916 418 709 4,043 5 2 4,990 483 1,143 6,616 6 2 4,130 436 889 5,455 7 1 1 3,745 399 674 1 4,818 8 1 4,063 552 704 5,319 Sub -Total 29,426 3,511 5,943 38,880 Parkin g /Circulation/ Common Area 22'829 Total 61,709 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -12 CD C . a te s m KN w C U of m w �Nm m� 4 X30 m2c°v cj cis m eo WN �a o� m jem u n IaS OLI I, c M m ._ a Q 0 s� W LL w C N E N N R m 7 Y U o t wY Q a W $ N C � t rz C e� >o W� �a o c r M a a" u LLOI '1Y3wa n 'UM a SW,14! uo TdG VNOMCJ v NON aAtl NOLLtlNiltl7 LAL- IOL I ir�a_ altlad Wvawma'ugq� 1N3w35VB�M' a �_� 5 jem u n IaS OLI I, c M m ._ a Q 0 s� W LL w C N E N N R m 7 Y U o t wY Q a W $ N C � t rz C e� >o W� �a o c r M a a" co C M !9 .IL 0 r G W LL G N E d N c0 m U t oL m m �m U t O O Q E3o mo G�� a >o GO W �`+ �a � c m 0) c M@ . o. L L O W V r N LL U C . OL U 0 v co U � Egg 36Z l7 G L Of S O GO W¢ ra o� d o c Ma Y_ L 0 t O K LL W O C O U d N U t J- ca m m �m m t n m E3o mZN t7 Q�g a W �a o� m Ma Y_ y � o t O X LL W �p t H U C _ of m m �No mY W 2N ty >o W N o e d I 3Atl NOLL1MtlV7 LOL IoC I �_ �,MW4_— I NV7� , l,l II lI it it I� e���l a I N � f6 Ma Y_ L C O 0 X LL W t t 7 O LL U C . o c am Wm U � tog wool 7 C t 0 m�� A G ,my d eo WN �a o2 m Q � k I � �IIII ll� J Y _ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d, r . 15 •■ I_ I u� TLIU t� FNE _JAI al'I •I��� w LLI y 1 M", 1111M Mm M� aQ L N X = W p Y U N N N O U U C t 0 m E3o aZN IID C � t C � � ��g 5 W$ ME a o� Q N nl a inn Lot L, n Ilu iiooiuul i I ��l I— null II _ _vc a � k I � �IIII ll� J Y _ �i �J!I�aJii�ai?as d, r . 15 •■ I_ I u� TLIU t� FNE _JAI al'I •I��� w LLI y 1 M", 1111M Mm M� aQ L N X = W p Y U N N N O U U C t 0 m E3o aZN IID C � t C � � ��g 5 W$ ME a o� Q N nl a Will f I I I III II I- on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A n n II I n II n-II I ■- "II ®1 o �BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl Slllllnl ill IllliI I II II I ll T I II I I.YI li 1_I LI III -I fir. n [IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A " "Ae� gl�ff�iv� � �I I H� �Iku- il�l�l �__ b nn "li�ln � R I11� � � � n non ii IARp rt= -I I f I I on�n�IbFII�Aj�A " " -n_A n n II I n II n-II I II II n ®1 o �BI�p�IBBBBBB��afl IIBAII ���bllnib�nenrlfLlle [ fir. n [IL�(=nfJ1 =1f� =1aA�Y eRenln� =R X11 =i� A� =A =A =A " "Ae� gl�ff�iv� � �I I I� � �__ b nn "li�ln � R I11� � � � n non IARp vp r M � c Y_ (Q :2 U = N X r W O U N N N O u U m m N I= 0 aye E3o ._�..ZN C I Q iS W N �a O I N a \m � \ I } \ \\ /« / U. k \§ k §' k� t` \ ^ .� All `Gw? f�� | r \\ \� °' $ }�46 - \m � \ I } \ \\ /« / U. k \§ k §' k� wa z � w eoe.aw'om.a xr n cr a wsmrt'.w a r n'>a..iszwm..aa.�..imw. a. s c0 N A O w � Q > L � X W W m Y N N W c C fC L 0 O Z t U of a4i w �m m � Q E3o �2N [ � t eo wQ �a o� d N M Oi a" Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description As indicated in Table 3 -1, each condominium unit will have a private storage room that will be located in the sub - basement level. Common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level. The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet, or approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed emergency exit). The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or Newport Bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepits are proposed at each above grade level. The Project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The Docks In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property as illustrated in Exhibit 3 -18. The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can accommodate four (4) boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats up to 100 -feet in length and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan (Exhibit 3 -18). The new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing docks will be removed and replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All guidepiles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -24 I 1 O i O SZ �hrc 1. rj a o� �O 1 1• i- N l � � 1 � U O O 0 0 og s� oN n 8 N d 5 � a 1^ b \ Z�Y WAY � a gSZ p 1, rr, � 40 ` �^ • 5 °o z fl C r M Ma Y V t 0 xQ W U KO COD Q � 30 W Z N C � t C'p�'yyj w W N �a o� a N a Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan (refer to Exhibit 3 -18), the pile - supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform construction will include the repair or replacement of four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and safety railings will be repaired and patched as necessary. Green Architecture Design Criteria The proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. The active and passive "green" strategies that will be implemented include: Passive Strategies Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Gray water retention for property irrigation. • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials. • Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials. Active Strategies • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. • Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. Other Design Elements Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. Cross ventilation systems. Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. Construction Management Plan A Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared as a component of the proposed project. The CMP addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing, schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses parking management (e.g., off -site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, and safety and security), air Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). The Construction Management Plan is included as Appendix B. 3.5 Project Phasing The applicant is proposing to construct the project in four discrete phases over a period of approximately 32 months based on the schedule summarized in Table 3 -2. The Construction Management Plan is presented in Appendix B. This schedule is preliminary and may change based, intervening weather conditions or other unanticipated circumstances. Table 3 -2 Proposed Construction Phasing Phase Construction Activities Duration' Asbestos and lead -based paint removal, 1 demolition, caisson placement and grading. 6 Months Grading is comprised of three segments of earth removal, and lagging Concrete placement consisting of shotcrete shoring, placement of structural slabs and 2 walls, waterproofing, and sub -slab drainage 18 Months systems. Integration of site drainage, plumbing underground and electrical underground s stems. Metal study wall framing will begin on lower levels and work up. Integration of rough plumbing, mechanical, and electrical systems will follow after steel stud walls are in place. 3Z Both vehicular elevators will be installed and 13 Months operational at this time. Installation of windows and doors will occur, as will planting of large plant materials at site's bayward side. Finally, construction of the docks will occur. Finishes will be installed. Exterior finishes such as exterior plaster, roofing systems, stone veneer, guard rails, exterior lighting and solar panels will be installed, as will the 4 balance of the landscaping and 11 Months hardscape /paving, artificial rock finishes, softscape, landscape lighting and drainage systems. Interior finishes will be installed, including drywall, painting, cabinetry, stone and tile at counters, walls and floors. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Phase Construction Activities Duration' 'Because of overlapping phases, the total duration of construction is estimated to be 32 months. 2Phase 3 will start before Phase 2 is completed so that the majority of Phase 2 and Phase 3 will occur simultaneously. SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture (February 23, 2008 3.6 Project Objectives The Aerie Project Objectives are set forth below. Some of the Project Objectives consist of a general introductory statement, complemented by reference to specific actions proposed by the Applicant to achieve that Objective. Those specific listed actions, standing alone, are not the Project Objectives, but provide both a qualitative and quantitative context to help the reader better understand the scope and scale of the Applicant's Project's Objectives and assist in the comparative evaluation of the Project Alternatives in the Project's Environmental Impact Report. For example, the specific actions listed under Project Objective 6 are not intended to suggest, for instance, that a project alternative not providing a drinking fountain at a public vantage point would not, therefore, meet Project Objective 6. Rather, the combination of those specific listed actions is intended to allow assessment of the scope and scale of Project Objective 6 by explaining how the Project itself intends to protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor from public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood." The Project Objectives are: To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description 4. To provide amenities commensurate with most newer residential development in comparable bayfront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. 6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 8. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 3.7 Project Processing Requirements and Requested Entitlements Project implementation will necessitate the approval of the following discretionary actions by the Newport Beach City Council: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) This action would change the land use designation of the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre) on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) The amendment to the CLUP would result in a change in the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584 square foot portion of the parcel at 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential — 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential — 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 3.0 — Project Description Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Approval of the zone change would change the zoning designation of the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multi- family Residential, 2,178 square feet per unit). • Tentative Tract Map (NT2005- 004/TT16882) TTM 16882 will combine the 584 square foot portion of the parcel located at 101 Bayside Place with parcels identified as 201 — 205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue, and will subdivide the air space for eight (8) residential condominium units. Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) The modification permit would allow: (1) above and below grade building encroachments within the 10 -foot front yard setback along Carnation Avenue; (2) 42 -inch high protective guard rails within the required 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue where they are restricted to 36 inches; (3) above and below grade building and balcony encroachments within the required 10' 7" side yard setback abutting 215 Carnation Avenue; (4) and balcony encroachments within the 10' 7" side yard setback abutting Bayside Place. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) This permit would allow demolition of the existing dwelling units within the Coastal Zone pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 3 -30 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0— Environmental Analysis CHAPTER 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This section documents the environmental analysis for those parameters for which the proposed Aerie residential development project may or would result in potentially significant adverse impacts. These parameters were identified based on the environmental analysis conducted for the project and reflected in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR and in comments received during the 30 -day NOP comment period. The purpose of Chapter 4.0 (Environmental Analysis) is to describe the existing environmental conditions on the subject property and in the environs and to identify the potential impacts or consequences that may result from implementation of the proposed project. In order to facilitate the analysis of each issue in this EIR, a standard format was developed to analyze each issue. This format is presented below with a brief discussion of the information included within each topic. Existing Conditions This introductory section describes the existing environmental conditions related to each issue analyzed in the Draft EIR. In accordance with Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines, both the local and regional settings are discussed as they exist prior to implementation of the proposed project. The existing conditions provide the baseline against which the potential environmental impacts are evaluated. Significance Criteria Specific criteria have been identified upon which the significance of project - related potential impacts are determined. The significance criteria which are the basis of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR are derived from the significant effects presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted local, State, and federal policies and programs which may apply, and other commonly accepted technical and non - technical standards. Standard Conditions The proposed project will incorporate, where necessary or required, standard conditions as imposed by the City and /or other responsible agencies. The standard conditions will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Potential Impacts This section of the Draft EIR identifies and describes the potential impacts, which will result from project implementation. All project - related impacts have been clearly and adequately analyzed in accordance with Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts that have been avoided or reduced to a less than significant level are identified as "less than significant" and analyzed accordingly. In order to facilitate the impact analysis, the following outline has been utilized. Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Long -Term (Operational) Impacts Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 4.0 — Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measures Where a potential significant environmental effect has been identified in the environmental analysis, mitigation measures have been included in this section of the document which ".. . minimize significant adverse impacts ... for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR ", as prescribed in Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Level of Significance After Mitigation The residual impacts of the proposed project (i.e., impacts resulting after the implementation of mitigation measures, if any) will be identified in this section of the EIR. Where potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, they will be identified. Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are those effects that either cannot be mitigated or they remain significant even after mitigation. These significant effects will be identified in this section of the Draft EIR. Prior to approval of the proposed project, the Newport Beach City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations that identifies and describes the public benefit(s) associated with project implementation that offset the significant impacts. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning 4.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Existing Land Use Existing site conditions and a description of the surrounding property are discussed in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). Land Use Planning Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach completed the first comprehensive revision of the City's General Plan in over 30 years in 2006. The General Plan presents a vision for the city's future and a strategy to make that vision a reality. The General Plan recognizes that the City is primarily a residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods and is nearly fully developed. As a result, the Plan focuses on conserving the existing pattern of land uses and establishes policies for their protection and long -term maintenance. The discussion presented below provides a summary of each of the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan. Land Use Element The Land Use Element provides policy guidance regarding the ultimate pattern of development anticipated for full buildout of the City. It provides the basis for zoning regulations and other municipal code standards. Because the City is nearly fully developed, this element focuses on how population and employment growth can be accommodated yet still preserve its distinguishing and valued qualities. The subject property is located within the residential area of Corona del Mar south of Bayside Drive. Specifically, the site is located within Statistical Area F3, which encompasses the east side of the Newport Harbor entrance and Corona del Mar State Beach. The land use designations within this statistical area include a range of residential densities, including Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), Two Unit Residential (RT), and Multiple -Unit Residential (RM). Other land use designations include Private Institutions (PI) and Parks and Recreation (PR). The subject property is designated RM and RT. Exhibit 4.1 -1 illustrates the land use designations adopted for the subject property and the surrounding area. Harbor and Bay Element This element of the General Plan addresses natural resources, community identity, and economic characteristics of the City given the location of Newport Beach on the coast. Some aspects of the Harbor and Bay Element address public access, water quality, and natural environment as well as land use policies relating to the waterfront uses along Newport Harbor. Circulation Element The Circulation Element governs the long -term mobility systems of the City. The goals and policies in this element are closely correlated with the Land Use Element and are intended to provide the best possible balance between the City's future growth and land use development, roadway size, traffic service levels, and community character. Figure CE1 in the Circulation Element reflects the Citys Master Plan of Streets and Highways. With the exception of Coast Highway, no Master Plan roadways are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The Circulation Element also includes the Bikeways Master Plan (refer to Figure CE4 in the Circulation Element). As indicated in that figure, a Class I Bikeway (i.e., off -road paved facility) is identified north of the site on Bayside Drive approximately 700 feet northeast of the project site. The City has also adopted an Equestrian and Hiking Trails Master Plan (refer to Figure CE5 in the Circulation Draft Environmental Impact Report Aede PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Element). None of these existing and proposed trails, which are confined to the area north of the Upper Newport Bay and south of San Joaquin Hills Road, exist within the vicinity of the project. Safety Element The primary goal of the Safety Element is to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from natural and human - induced hazards. The Newport Beach Safety Element provides policy guidance related to coastal hazards (e.g., tsunamis, coastal erosion, etc.), geologic hazards (e.g., slope failures, adverse soils conditions, etc.), seismic hazards (e.g., liquefaction, ground shaking, etc.), flood hazards, wildland and urban fire hazards, hazardous materials (e.g., hazardous waste, leaking underground storage tanks, etc.) aviation hazards, and disaster planning. Coastal Hazards Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability /high risk events such as tsunamis as well as isolated hazard that include storm surges and coastal erosion. The Safety Element addresses these potential hazards, which are generally limited to the portions of the City located immediately adjacent to the coast, within and adjacent to Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay areas. A portion of the subject property is located within the limits of the 100 -year zone established for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide identified in Figure S1 (Coastal Hazards) in the Safety Element. Geologic Hazards The geologic diversity of Newport Beach is strongly related to tectonic movement along the San Andreas Fault and its broad zone of subsidiary faults. This along with sea level fluctuations related to changes in climate, has resulted in a landscape that is also diverse in geologic hazards that have the potential to cause loss or harm to the community and /or the environment. The major geologic constraints identified in the Safety Element include slope failure, compressible soils, and expansive soils. Based on that Figure S2 (Seismic Hazards), the site is not underlain by adverse conditions, and is subject to the potential for slope failure as indicated on that exhibit in the Safety Element. Seismic Hazards The greatest potential for seismic activity to affect the City of Newport Beach is activity occurring along the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the Whittier Fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills Fault zone, and the Elysian Park Fault zone, which with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would result in ground shaking in the City and in nearby communities. Other secondary seismic effects include liquefaction and seismically- induced slope failure. However, no portion of the site is identified in the Safety Element as subject to potential liquefaction associated with seismic activity. Flood Hazards The Safety Element also addresses potential flooding associated with significant storm events. The 100- and 500 -year flood zones within the City of Newport Beach have been mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the FEMA studies, no portion of the subject property is subject to inundation resulting from either a 100- or 500 -year storm event. Fire Hazard The City's Safety Element also addresses wildland fire hazards (refer to Figure S4). The City is distinguished by three classifications if fire susceptibility, including: High, Moderate, and Low /None; the City does not contain 'Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as defined by Government Code Section 51179. The majority of the City, including the subject site is identified to have a Low /None Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning classification for fire susceptibility potential. The City of Newport Beach has adopted the 2001 California Fire Code with City amendments and some exceptions. These provisions include construction standards in new structures and remodels, road widths and configurations designed to accommodate the passage of fire trucks and engines, and requirements for minimum fire flow rates for water mains. Hazardous Materials The Hazardous Materials component of the Safety Element addresses several areas related to hazardous materials, including toxic release inventory, hazardous waste, leaking underground storage tanks, oil fields, methane gas mitigation districts, and hazards overlay. The Safety Element includes programs for ensuring that the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment is minimized. Aviation Hazards The City of Newport Beach borders the southeastern portion of John Wayne Airport (JWA); however, the subject property is located approximately five miles southwest of JWA, which generates nearly all of the aviation traffic affecting the City of Newport Beach. Although the accident potential zones delineated for JWA are located in the areas adjacent to and surrounding the airport, three areas within the City were found to be subject to increased vulnerability to aviation hazards due to the location and orientation of runways and flight patterns: portions of the Balboa Peninsula, Balboa Island, and Upper Newport Bay. However, no portion of the subject property has been identified as subject potential aviation hazards. Disaster Planning Any potential hazard occurring in the City of Newport Beach resulting from either man -made or natural disasters may require the evacuation of residents of the City. In order to facilitate such evacuation, the City employs the Standardized Emergency Management System for emergency response. This system provides for assistance by one or more emergency response agencies as well as the potential implementation of other policies and plans from the County of Orange, State of California and /or federal government. In addition, the City has adopted an Emergency Management Plan that is implemented in the event of any emergency. This plan is prepared and updated by the Newport Beach Fire Department. Housing Element The Housing Element is designed to facilitate attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and to foster the availability of housing to all income levels to the extent possible given the constraints within the City. The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement of the Citys housing policies and services as a specific guide for implementation of these policies and is closely correlated with the Land Use Element. The Element examines current housing needs, estimates future housing needs, and establishes goals, policies, and programs pertaining to those needs. According to the updated data presented in the Housing Element, the City had a total of 42,143 housing units in 2005, including approximately 62 percent of the homes that were single - family detached and attached, 17 percent duplex to fourplex units, 23 percent multiple - family homes, and two percent mobile homes. The site is designated as RM and RT and, therefore, is intended to contribute to the supply of housing within the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Noise Element Section 4.1— Land Use and The Noise Element serves as a tool for including noise control in the planning process, which is intended to ensure land use compatibility. This element identifies noise sensitive land uses as well as the sources of noise, defines areas of noise impacts for the purpose of developing policies intended to protect residents and sensitive receptors from the effects of excessive noise. The most common noise sources in the City of Newport Beach include the existing freeway/highway system and the major arterial roadways extending throughout the City. In addition, aircraft operations associated with John Wayne Airport (JWA) also result in noise excessive noise levels in parts of the City. Other aircraft operations related to helicopter operations at Hoag Hospital are also a source of noise that affects residential uses in the vicinity of the hospital. Newport Beach has the largest small boat harbor in Southern California. The operations of the small motorized boats generate undesirable noise in proximity to residences. Non - transportation related noise sources include restaurant/bar /entertainment establishments, mixed -use structures, mechanical equipment, and recreational facilities. Figures N1 and N5 in the Noise Element indicate that no portion of the property is subject to either existing or future vehicular noise associated with traffic on the surface roadways in the project environs. In addition, the site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour established for aircraft operations at JWA. The Noise Element articulates policies that are intended to ensure that construction noise is minimized to avoid impacts to sensitive land uses through limitations on hours of truck deliveries and enforcement of the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on the hours of maintenance and /or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas. Natural Resources Element The primary objective of the Natural Resources Element is to provide policy direction regarding the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources. It identifies the City's natural resources and policies for their preservation, development and use. The element addresses water supply and water quality, air quality, biological resources, open space, cultural and scientific resources, mineral resources, visual resources, and energy. Although no portion of the site is identified as a potential resource, Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element identified an eelgrass bed in proximity to the subject property; however, this area is not identified as an environmental study area (ESA) on Figure NR2. Important biological resources are limited to the coastal areas, Newport Harbor, and Upper Newport Bay and the areas adjacent to it (refer to Figure NR1 in the Natural Resources Element. This element of the General Plan also addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean Boulevard as a Coastal View Road and the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is designated as a Public View Point. Begonia Park is also located approximately one quarter mile northwest of the site. Historical Resources Element This Element addresses the protection and sustainability of Newport Beach's cultural, historic and paleontological resources. Goals and policies presented within the element are intended to recognize, maintain, and protect the community's unique historical, cultural, and archaeological sites and structures. Figure HR1 (Historic Resources) in the Historical Resources Element identifies the historic resources includes on the National Register of Historic Places, California Historical Landmarks, other historic sites or potentially historic sites in the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) database, and other historic sites in the City's Register. None of the sites identified in Figure HR1 are located on the project site. Recreation Element The primary purpose of the Recreation Element is to ensure that the balance between the provision of sufficient parks and recreation facilities are appropriate for the residential and business population of Newport Beach. Specific recreational issues and policies contained in the Recreation Element address parks and recreation facilities (278 acres of developed parks), recreation programs, shared facilities, coastal recreation and support facilities, marine recreation, and public access. The existing recreational facilities are identified Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and on Figure R1 in the Recreation Element. Begonia Park is located north of the subject property. The site is within the viewshed of portions of the recreational facility. Newport Beach is divided into recreation service areas for the purposes of park planning and to equitably administer parkland dedications and fees provided by residential development. The subject property is located within Service Area 10 (i.e., Corona del Mar). The land dedicated to recreational facilities in this service area is mostly within Corona del Mar State Beach. There is a deficit of 9.1 acres of combined park/beach acreage within this service area. The Service Area 10 Recreation and Open Space Plan (refer to Figure R3 in the Recreation Element) reflects the distribution of beaches and public park facilities. Arts and Cultural Element The goals and policies of the Arts and Cultural Element are intended to serve as a guide for meeting the future cultural needs of the community. The City's Arts Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on matters including artistic aspects of the City. This commission also participates in the designation of historical landmarks and reviews design elements for public sculpture, fountains, murals, benches, and other fixtures. Newport Beach Local Coastal Program The subject property is located within the Coastal Zone and is subject to the land use regulations prescribed in the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) certified by the Coastal Commission in 2005. The City does not have a certified implementation plan and, therefore, the City does not have coastal development permit jurisdiction. The CLUP was derived from the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The land use intensity or residential density limit is prescribed in the CLUP. Although the Land Use Element may contain more precise development limits for specific properties, the land use intensity or residential density limit that is the most protective of coastal resources takes precedence should a conflict exist with the CLUP. However, in no case shall the policies of the CLUP be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. As previously identified, the subject property is designated RM -A, with a small parcel (i.e., 584 square feet) designated RM -D. In addition to identifying goals and policies for future development within the Citys coastal zone, the CLUP identified several planning study areas that encompass certain areas of the City that are characterized by unique land use and /or development characteristics that cannot be properly addressed through standard land use designations; however, the subject property is not located within one of the planning study areas. The CLUP prescribes the development review process, which requires a coastal development permit prior to commencement of any development in the coastal zone, with the exceptions of development in areas where the Coastal Commission retains permit jurisdiction, developments where an amendment to a Coastal Commission - issued permit is required, developments determined to be categorically excluded according to the categories and standards established by the Coastal Commission, and developments determined to be excluded from the coastal development permit requirements pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30610 and its implementing regulations. The proposed project is subject to the City's coastal development review process. Zoning The subject property is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential) and MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential — 2,178 square feet of land area /dwelling unit). These zoning classifications are consistent with the adopted General Plan land use designations, which would allow both single - family and higher density multiple - family residential development on the site. The R -2 zoning would permit up to _ dwelling units /acre; the MFR zoning would permit up to 20 du /ac. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning SCAG Policies and Proarams The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency that was established under the California Government Code. Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) having the mandated roles and responsibilities described below. As the region's MPO, SCAG is required to maintain a continuing cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Further, as the RTPA, SCAG is also responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). SCAG is also responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air quality Management Plan and is responsible for determining conformity of projects, plans and programs to the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The Growth Management chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains several policies that are particularly applicable to the proposed project, including those related to population, housing and employment and the provision of adequate public facilities and infrastructure. The Growth Management chapter contains goals to improve the regional standard of living, quality of life, and to provide social, political, and cultural diversity. The Air Quality chapter of the RCPG contains core actions related to development to ensure that regional air quality goals and objectives are met. In addition, the Water Quality chapter also contains core recommendations and policy options to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water and to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are necessary to protect the beneficial uses of all waters. 4.1.2 Significance Criteria Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will conflict with the adopted plans and goals of the community as expressed in the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition, the following would be considered significant adverse impacts of the proposed project related to land use as identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: • Conflict with an 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. • Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. • Physically dividing an established community. • Substantial or extreme use incompatibility. Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan. • Inconsistency or conflict with established recreational, educational, religious our scientific uses of the area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning 4.1.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.1 -1 All development proposed for the Aerie project shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. SC 4 -1 -2 The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. 4.1.4 Potential Impacts 4.1.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts No short-term land use impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.1.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Conflict with an 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. The proposed project is subject to the applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and relevant policies. As indicated previously, the subject property is designated RT (Two Unit Residential) and RM (Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac). The applicant is proposing to amend the Newport Beach General Plan to elimination the RT land use designation on a small portion of the site and replace it with the RM land use to be consistent with the RM land use designation in the project area. The relationship of the proposed project with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan adopted by the City of Newport Beach is presented below. Newport Beach General Plan Although a small portion of the project site is currently designated RT (Two -Unit Residential), the majority of the site is zoned RM (Multiple -Unit Residential), which allows for a density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to redesignate the RT component of the site as RM on the Land Use Element Map. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the proposed RM designation with the approval of the proposed amendment. The Newport Beach General Plan includes several policies that guide development in the City. The consistency analysis presented in Table 4.1 -1 reflects the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies contained within the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.1 -1 General Plan Policy Analysis Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistent Analysis Land Use Element The proposed project respects the site's topographic Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique features by adhering to the PLOED defined by the City character of the different neighborhoods, business Council, which protects the majority of the bluff, the rock districts, and harbor that together identify Newport outcroppings and natural cove. The architectural style of LU 1.1 Beach. Locate and design development to reflect the project reflects an organic, modem /contemporary style Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, that promotes architectural diversity in the City. The and view sheds. location and design protects and enhances existing public views and the existing visual quality of the site to the benefit of the neighborhood and City. The area in which the site is located is characterized by a variety of single- and multiple - family residential homes that reflect a range of densities and a variety of architectural While recognizing the qualities that uniquely define its styles, which contribute to the unique character of Corona neighborhoods and districts, promote the identity of the del Mar. Both the density of the proposed project and the LU 1.2 entire City that differentiates it as a special place within proposed reuse of the site are consistent with the variety the Southern California region. of densities and styles within the area, which is consistent "identity' with the of the City. The distinctive architectural character of the proposed structure is consistent with the City's desire to differentiate Newport Beach from other coastal cities. As indicated above, the proposed project has been designed to complement the natural features of the area, including the bluff, cove and harbor area. The "curvilinear' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project' mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project's design also preserves the area's visual, recreational, and habitat resources. First, as discussed in Section 4.5 of the EIR, the project will contribute to the Protect the natural setting that contributes to the diversity of form and scale of the development that character and identity of Newport Beach and the sense currently exists in the City and will not adversely affect LU 1.3 of place it provides for its residents and visitors. views from important vantages within the area identified by Preserve open space resources, beaches, harbor, the City. Several visual simulations presented in Section parks, bluffs, preserves, and estuaries as visual, 4.5 reveal that the project will not have a significant recreational and habitat resources. adverse aesthetic Impact on visual resources. In addition, unlike the existing multi - family apartment structure, the site design does not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council, except for the dock access /emergency exit; however, that feature is recessed into the bluff to be nearly imperceptible when viewed from the harbor. Second, the project will not adversely affect public access to the small beach area locate don the project site. Although direct public access to the beach area is not available either from the project site or another nearby public coastal access point, this area will remain accessible to the public via the harbor. Finally, habitat resources on the project site (e.g., eelgrass) would be preserved. As discussed in Section 4.7 of the EIR, the incorporate of mitigation measures will Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Poli2z Consistency Analysis ensure that the impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, the SOMP prepared for the project would also result in the implementation of BMPs that currently do not exist, resulting in an improvement to surface water discharges into the harbor emanating from the site. The project proposes only eight residential dwelling units in a single structure. This density of the project is below the density permitted by both the General Plan (i.e., 20 Implement a conservative growth strategy that du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9 units enhances the quality of life of residents and balances allowed on the project site). This is consistent with the LU 1.4 the needs of all constituencies with the preservation of conservative growth strategy discussed in Policy LU 1.4. open space and natural resources. In addition, project implementation would not result In impacts to open space and where potentially significant impacts to nature resources are identified (e.g., eelgrass), mitigation measures have been prescribed, which are consistent with adopted policies for such mitigation. As indicated in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site from the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of LU 1.6 and visual resources that include open space, project implementation. The proposed project also mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from includes a view "window" at the northerly property limits, public vantage points. which currently does not exist. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88. As a result, project implementation will result in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when compared to the existing conditions. Project implementation will not adversely affect the use of either the harbor or waterfront and will not conflict with Preserve the uses of the Harbor and the waterfront that either recreational or commercial boaters. The boat dock contribute to the charm and character of Newport below the site will be replaced to accommodate the 8 LU 2.5 Beach and provided needed support for recreational residents of the project and one guest boat, which is and commercial boaters, visitors, and residents, with consistent with the City's madne- oriented character. The appropriate regulations necessary to protect the replacement dock has been designed to comply with interests of all users as well as adjoining residents. existing marine navigation requirements and will not encroach into the harbor in a way that would adversely affect boating lanes. Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and The project applicant is proposing to redevelop an existing corridors, allowing for reuse and infill with uses that are site that was developed in 1949 and 1955. The existing complementary in type, form, scale, and character. dwelling units are older than many in the Corona del Mar Changes in use and /or density/intensity should be neighborhood. The age and architectural character of the considered only in those areas that are economically existing residential structure contrast with the character under performing, are necessary to accommodate and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled Newport Beach's share of projected regional and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes LU 3.2 population growth, improve the relationship and reduce that provide visual interest and variety, especially commuting distance between home and jobs, or compared to the older and more mundane features of the enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as existing buildings on the subject property. The proposed a special place to live for its residents. The scale of infll project will introduce a new multiple - family structure growth and new development shall be coordinated with that complements the existing neighborhood and is in the provision of adequate infrastructure and public keeping with the intent of Policy LU 3.2. When compared services, including standards for acceptable traffic level to the existing apartment building, the proposed project of service. introduces a modern architectural style. The overhead utility pole on Carnation Avenue will be eliminated in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis connection with the project. In addition, the building setback at the south end of the subject property has been increased to expand the existing view corridor between the site and that the south. As a result, the project will both enhance the neighborhood itself, as well as the public views through the project site. With upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin, adequate infrastructure and public services are available to serve the project. Therefore, project implementation would result in an improvement in infrastructure service to the area. All of the remaining infrastructure facilities (e.g., sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.) have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. The site has been designed to protect the existing natural resource values. With only one minor exception (i.e., dock access /emergency exit), the development will not extend below the predominant line of existing development established by the City Council for the site. In fact, project implementation will result in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared to existing conditions. In addition, views from the Ocean Boulevard "public view point" adjacent to site will be enhanced by increasing the view angle by approximately Require that new development is located and designed 76 percent from that location. Important views from other to protect areas with high natural resource value and public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) have also been LU 3.7 protect residents and visitors from threats to life or preserved. Furthermore, the site has been designed to property. avoid potentially significant water quality impacts by containing and treating water on -site before discharging it into the harbor. Impacts to other important natural resources in the cove and harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.) have also been avoided or, where adverse biological resource impacts had the potential to occur, they have been mitigated to a less than significant level. The project has been designed to protect residents and visitors from threats to life or property. Project security measures including both interior and exterior cameras, motion sensors, regular security patrols, safe rooms, etc. The requested amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan would affect only a very small parcel (584 square feet, or less than one percent of Accommodate land use development consistent with the 61,282 square foot project site). As a result, the LU 4.1 the Land Use Plan. proposed amendment would not directly affect land use consistency or compatibility. Furthermore, the project's density is below the density permitted by both the General Plan (20 du /ac) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code (9 units ) on the project site. The site is located in a mixed residential area that is Require that the height of development in characterized by a variety of residential densities, nonresidential and higher density residential areas including both single- and multiple- family residential LU 5.1.2 transition as it nears lower density residential areas to development. The proposed structure has a maximum minimize conflicts at the interface between the different building height of approximately 32 feet, consistent with types of development. other homes In the project area. The project's height is, on average, approximately four feet below the Municipal Code's maximum height limit. Require that multi - family dwellings be designed to The existing single- and multiple- family residential convey a high quality architectural character in structures were built prior to 1960 and are dated in their accordance with the following principles (other than architectural style and character. The proposed project LU 5.1.9 Newport Center and Airport Area) which are guided has been designed to reflect a modem character, which , by Goals 6.14 and 6.15: Building Elevations, Ground complements the variety of architectural styles that exist Floor Treatment, Roof Design, Parking, and Open within the Corona del Mar neighborhood. The Space and Amenity. condominium structure complies with the Newport Beach Municipal Code's building height requirements and is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental HB 9.2 HB 9.3 H 1.1 HR 2.1 Permit and design bulkheads and groins to protect the character of the existing beach profiles and to restore eroded beach profiles found around the harbor and island perimeters, and the safe navigation and berthing of vessels. Limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers, floats, groins, appurtenances related to marine activities, and public walkways. Section 4.1 — Land Use and materials. Adequate on -site parking is provided and the project also includes the on -site recreational amenities and a replacement boat dock to serve future residents. The proposed project reflects a distinctive architectural character that continues the tradition of architectural variety and diversity within the City and neighborhood. The project design complies with the principles for building elevations (e.g., street and ocean - facing elevations designed with high quality finishes, windows, doors, etc.). In addition, the project has been designed to avoid blank walls and unsightly utility spaces. The roof profiles provide modulation through undulation, which provides visual interest and variety when compared to other roof profiles in the area. Parking is provided In several below -grade spaces. Finally, the PLOED has been respected to maintain that element as an open space feature and common open space has also been provided to ensure recreation opportunities (e.g., swimming pool) are Annougn no oulkneaos are proposed, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -sllp boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. Implementation of the proposed boat dock will neither adversely affect beach profiles in the harbor nor adversely affect safe navigation within the harbor because the dock has been designed to avoid such impacts (e.g., extend The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. The portions of the proposed dock built bayward of the bulkhead line are limited to pre- stressed concrete piles set In pre- drilled holes and timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons. No aspect of the dock would either impede navigation in the harbor or create a safety hazard because the facilities does not extend into the navigable channel. Element Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically possible. existing dwelling units, including a single - family residence and a 14 -unit apartment building. Project implementation will result in the development of an 8 -unit condominium building In place of the 15 existing dwelling units. Although project implementation would result in fewer residential dwelling units than currently exist on the site (or is permitted by the existing land use and zoning designations), the new dwelling units represent an improvement in quality over the existing units, which were constructed 50 to 60 years ago. The age of the existing residential structures contracts with the character and quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt over the vears. Historical Resources Element Require that, in accordance with CEOA, new development protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the not result in potential impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must comply with State law in the event human remains are encountered. In addition, because the Monterey Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis paleontological resources and require that the impact identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. caused by any development be mitigated in Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by accordance with CEQA. the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the rind has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discover, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collection swill be the responsibility of the project applicant. Circulation Element On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Packing Code requirements. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Require that new development provide adequate, Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of CE 7.1.1 convenient parking for residents, guest, business Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) patrons, and visitors. two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. All project parking is hidden from public view. The proposed project has been designed to accommodate all resident and guest parking on -site. The Aerie Corona del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., determined that Site and design new development to avoid use of the proposed automobile elevator system can adequately CE 7.1.8 parking configurations or management programs that accommodate resident and guest parking in the lower are difficult to maintain and enforce. levels of the proposed structure without substantial back- up onto Carnation Avenue. In addition, guest, bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking are all provided below grade on the Second Floor, and will not utilize the proposed automobile elevators stem for ingress/egress. No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above, adequate on -site parking for residents and guests is provided. Project implementation will not result in any loss Require new development to minimize curb cuts or of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the length of CE 7.1.11 protect on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to the curb cut on the project site has been substantially create on street parking spaces wherever feasible. reduced, the project will create three additional on- street parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Recreation Element Require developers of new residential subdivisions to The project includes private recreational amenities, provide parklands at five acres per 1,000 persons, as including a swimming pool, recreation room, and private stated in the City's Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, or boat dock. In addition, in compliance with Policy R 1.1, R 1.1 contribute in -lieu fees for the development of public the project applicant will comply with the existing City's recreation facilities meeting demands generated by the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance through the contribution of development's resident population, as required in the in -lieu fees for the development of public recreation City's park Dedication Fees Ordinance. facilities. R 8.5 Protect and, where feasible, expand and enhance: The proposed project include the replacement of the guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at existing 4 -boat dock with a facility that will accommodate 9 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1—Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis privately owned marinas, restaurants and other boats, including one for each of the project's 8 dwelling appropriate locations I units and one guest slip. Natural Resources Element The project applicant will be required to comply with the Require all development to comply with the regulations NPDES requirements established by the City, including NR 3.4 under the City's municipal separate storm drain system the preparation of a SWPPP to address construction permit under the National Pollutant Discharge activities and a WQMP for long -term operations of the Elimination System (NPDES). project. A draft SWPPP and WQMP have been prepared and submitted to the City of Newport Beach. As indicated above, the proposed project will Implement NR 3.5 Require that development does not degrade natural BMPS to improve the quality of both construction- related water bodies. and long -term runoff emanating from the site prior to their discharge into Newport Harbor. Require new development applications to include a NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize Refer to Response to Policy No. NR 3.4. runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. The proposed project complies with the requirement to Include site design and source control BMPS in all prepare a SWPPP and WQMP to address both developments. When the combination of site design construction and post - development water quality impacts. and source control BMPS are not sufficient to protect Both site design and structural BMPS have been W NR 3.11 water quality as required by the NPDES, structural incorporate into the project to ensure that surface flows treatment BMPS will be implemented along with site emanating from the subject property are treated prior to design and source control measures. their discharge into Newport Harbor. The SWPPP and WQMP are sufficient to protect water quality as required by the NPDES. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared and Require gradingterosion control plans with structural establishes both structural and non - structural BMPS in order NR 4.4 BMPS that prevent or minimize erosion during and after to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction construction for development on steep slopes, graded, phase. These measures will be incorporated in the or disturbed area. gradinglerosion control plans submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, the applicant has prepared a WQMP to address post-development water quality impacts. The proposed project will comply with all South Coast AQMD rules and requisite local, state and federal requirements to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction. Section 4.3 of the EIR identifies potential Require developers to use and operate construction construction- related impacts, compliance with standard NR 8.1 equipment, use building materials and paints, and conditions, and mitigation measures that will employed to control dust created by construction activities to ensure that construction air pollutant emissions are minimize air pollutants. minimized. Based on the emissions estimated for each phase of the project's construction (as detailed in the project Construction Management Plan), the EIR concludes that none of the significance thresholds for any of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed with an 8 -unit condominium structure will not result in potentially significant impacts to any sensitive terrestrial plan or animal species or habitat. Although it is possible Require that the siting and design of new development, that some direct and indirect impacts to the existing including landscaping and public access, protect eelgrass bed located in the harbor area adjacent to the NR 10.4 sensitive or rare resources against any significant site mould be impacted during construction of the proposed disruption of habitat values. replacement dock facility, pre- and post - construction surveys have been prescribed to document any loss of eelgrass, which would be offset by replacement at a 1.2 to 1 ratio as prescribed In Section 4.7.5. As a result, the EIR concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. Avoid impacts to eelgrass (Zostera manna) to the As indicated in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources), NR 11.3 extent feasible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass in potential direct and indirect Impacts to eelgrass may occur accordance with the Southern California Eel grass I as a result of construction activities associated with the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 41 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. General Plan Policy ConsistenU Analysis Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of proposed replacement dock facility. However, MM 4.7 -1a eelgrass in Newport Harbor at appropriate sites, where and MM 47-1b require pre- and post - construction surveys feasible. and prescribe the Implementation of eelgrass mitigation in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy as indicated in this policy. As a result, the EIR concludes that impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed replacement dock has been designed to ensure that it is consistent with the surrounding area within the harbor. For Instance, the new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than Require that all structures permitted to encroach Into concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as NR 14.5 open coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries be sited close to an existing rock outcropping as possible and and designed to be consistent with the natural minimize the dock's visual impact. In addition, the dock appearance of the surrounding area. extends only to the pierhead line, consistent with City requirements and neighboring development. It does not encroach Into the navigable waters of Newport Harbor. The dock facility will be subject to review and approval by the City to ensure that it complies with all applicant requirements. Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR evaluates potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources. As indicated In that section, no impacts to cultural (i.e., archaeological) resources are anticipated; however, the proposed project may impact paleontological resources that may exist within Require new development to protect and preserve the Monterey formation. As a result, a qualified paleontological and archaeological resources from paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation resources in accordance with the requirements of Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of NR 18.1 CEQA. Through planning policies and permit Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are conditions, ensure the preservation of significant encountered during construction activities, ground - archaeological and paleontological resources and disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall require that the impact caused by any development be be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has mitigated in accordance with CEQA. been salvaged. Any fossils discovered dudng project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discover, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collection swill be the responsibility of the project applicant. As indicated in Section 4.10, because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, Notify cultural organizations, including Native American which requires consultation with Native Amedcan organizations, of proposed development that have the representatives before adopting or amending a general NR 18.3 potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow plan. The City has complied with the requirements of SB qualified representative of such groups to monitor 18 by submitting a request to the Native American grading and /or excavation of development sites. Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. Require new development, where on site preservation MM 4.10 -1 requires that any discovery of fossils or related and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically paleontological materials, shall be accessioned into the valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to collections of a suitable repository, along with supporting NR 18.4 a responsible public or private institution with a suitable documentation and an itemized catalogue. Curation costs repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange to accession any collections are the responsibility of the county, whenever possible. project applicant. NR 20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic 1 As indicated in section 4.5 (Aesthetes), although project Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan 13011 Consistency Analysis and visual resources that include open space, implementation will result in the introduction of a different mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from structure on the site, views from important public vantages public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site to" the "public view point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, views of the turning basin would also be created along the northern property boundary as a result of the proposed project. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in an increase of approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face when compared to the existing conditions. Protect and enhance public view corridors from the A Public View Point is located on Ocean Boulevard south following roadway segments (shown in Figure NR3), of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance NR 20.3 and other locations may be identified in the future the view from the designated view location. The view (Ocean Boulevard). window at this location will be expanded by approximately 76 percent i.e., from 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). Design and site new development, including Landscaping will be incorporated into the project design to NR 20.4 landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, complement the proposed structure and enhance the including those down public streets, to frame, accent, visual character of the residential building and complement and minimize impacts to public views. the aesthetic character in the neighborhood. The proposed project is located in an area of Corona del Mar that is developed. Sidewalks exist along the streets to accommodate pedestrians walking in the neighborhood. As previously indicated, a Public View Point is located on Provide public trails, recreation areas, and viewing Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project NR 20.5 areas adjacent to public view corridors, where feasible. implementation will enhance the view from the designated view location. The view window at this location will be expanded by approximately 76 percent (i.e., from 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). In addition, the project design includes a bench and fountain, which will accommodate pedestrians. Support programs to remove and underground Project implementation will result in the undergrounding of NR 21.3 overhead utilities, in new development as well as overhead utility poles and facilities along Camation existing neighborhoods. Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, which will enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the neighborhood. The Corona del Mar community is represented by a variety of architectural styles and designs and is characterized by a range of smaller single- family detached residences to large, multiple- family structures when viewed from the harbor. Introduction of the proposed multiple - family structure will be similar in both physical mass and character, which is vaned and diverse architecturally, as the existing development in the immediate neighborhood. Although the proposed multiple family structure would be Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it NR 22.1 structures consistent with the unique character and would be small than the Channel Reef development visual scale of Newport Beach. located to the south as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the project's structural elements will appear to be "broken," giving the impression of two structures, when viewed from the bay in order to reduce the overall scale of the structure. The massing is further reduce with the incorporation of landscape features, including trees and shrubs, which also serve to soften the structure. NR 23.1 1 Preserve cliffs, canyons, bluffs, significant rock I The project site encompasses a south-facing bluff. A Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. General Plan Policy Consistent Mal is outcroppings, and site buildings to minimize alteration small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by of the site's natural topography and preserve the rock outcroppings. Although development will extend features as a visual resource. down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet above the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City Council, the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below that elevation with the exception of the dock access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilinear" features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the man -made features (e.g., concrete remnants, pipes, etc., would be removed from the site and the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. Development of the proposed dock facility will occur in the water beyond the cove; none of the rock outcroppings would be affected by the construction of the proposed dock facility (or the residential structure above). Although some views of the cove and rock features below the bluff from some vantages in the harbor would be partially or totally obscured by the proposed dock facility, the obstruction would be brief and intermittent only as one travels in and out of the harbor. As a result, visual Impacts are not permanent and are not significant. The project's principle structure and major accessory structures will extend down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (i.e., approximately two feet above the 50.7 NAVD88 PLOED established by the City Council). The exception is the Require all new blufftop development located on a bluff location of an emergency access at elevation 40.5 feet subject to marine erosion to be setback based on the NAVD88. However, this feature has been recessed to predominant line of development. This requirement minimize its impact on the visual character of the bluff NR 23.4 shall apply to the principal structure and major when viewed from the harbor. Furthermore, the project accessory structures such as guesthouses and pools. complies with the development standards prescribed in the The setback shall be increased where necessary to MFR zoning. Project implementation will not result in ensure safety and stability of the development. potential safety impacts or adversely affect the stability of the development. As indicated In the geotechnical analysis prepared for the project, the site is suitable for development with the incorporation of the measures identified by the geotechnical consultant. Require new accessory structures, such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural NR 23.5 foundations to be sited at least 10 feet from the edge of Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.3.8 -9 (Table 4.1 -2). bluffs subject to marine erosion. Require accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened bv erosion, instability or other hazards. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native vegetation. Current project design features avoid the Design and site new development to minimize the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the NR 23.7 removal of native vegetation, preserve rock north side of the project site that extends into Newport outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. Harbor. However, within the current development footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will undertake focuses surveys during the appropriate Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental S3.9 S3.10 S3.11 S3.12 General Plan negwre property owners to recora a waiver or Towre shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval of a coastal development permit for new development on a beach or shoreline that is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff. Shoreline protection may be permitted to protect existing structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years), unless an environmentally acceptable design to stabilize the bluff and prevent bluff retreat is devised. Kegwre that applications Tor new aevelopment with me potential to be Impacted or Impact coastal erosion include slope stability analyses and erosion rate estimates provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. Section 4.1— Land Use and blooming season or eacn or [nose species to connrm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code will be obtained. No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as a result of project implementation. Although not identified as an on Figure NR2 ESA (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the propose replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted Mitigation 4.5-1 requires the recordation of a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit includes such a waiver. The project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that the no shoreline retreat was evident based on a review of aerial photographs (1970s to 2004) and, further, the site has not been subject flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely Impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of Refer to Response to Policy No. S 3.10. The proposed project has been designed to Include erosion control features to minimize the potential for erosion. For example, all common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration and the City's "Water- Efficient Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17) will be implemented with common areas maintained by the residents' HOA. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental General Plan Section 4.1 — Land Use A site - specific fault investigation was conducted for the proposed project, which identified two faults on the subject property, consisting of sheared bedrock zones. Based on the findings of the 2003 fault investigation, both faults were S4.7 Conduct further seismic studies for new development classified as "inactive." According to CDMG Special in areas where potential active faults may occur. Publications 42, "active" faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the site are not considered "active" because there has been no displacement in at least 11.000 vears. Noise Element Require that all proposed projects are compatible with N 1.1 the noise environment through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. CNEL noise contour (refer to Figure N4 in the Noise Element). The ambient noise levels in the project environs are less than 60 dBA CNEL. According to Table N2, the proposed multi - family residential project is "clearly compatible" with the ambient noise environment of the multi - family residential neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project will comply with the Interior and exterior noise levels prescribed for residential uses in the Noise Require the employment of noise mitigation measures measures that reduce construction- related noise levels for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise during each phase. In addition, several mitigation impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs measures are also proposed to further reduce noise levels N 1.8 when there is an Increase in the ambient CNEL to the maximum extent feasible during construction of the produced by new development impacting noise proposed project. Although no significant long -term noise sensitive uses. impacts will occur as a result of project implementation, short-term, construction impacts will remain potentially The dock facility includes eight slips for future residents as N 2.5 Enforce compliance of all boating activities with the well as one guest slip. Boating activities will comply with noise standards defined in the Municipal Code. the noise standards prescribed in the Newport Beach Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to N 4.1 excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, Refer to Response to Policy No. N 1.1. such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on construction hours are limited to those prescribed in the hours of maintenance or construction activity in or City's Noise Ordinance (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. N 4.6 adjacent to residential areas, Including noise that Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on results from in -home hobby or work- related activities. Saturday). Compliance with the Noise Control Ordinance would be monitored by the City's Code Enforcement Department. Refer to Response to Policy No. 4.6. Compliance with the N 5.1 Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. Noise Control Ordinance would be monitored by the City's Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan Because the proposed project is located within the City's Coastal Zone, it is also subject to the policies articulate din the Coastal Land Use Plan. Table 4.1 -2 provides a summary of the relevant CLUP policies and the relationship of the project with each relevant policy. Table 4.1 -2 CLUP Policy Analysis Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 2.1.2 -1 2.2.1 -1 2.2.1 -2 2.3.2 -1 2.7 -1 Land uses and new development In the coastal zone shall be consistent with the Coastal Land Use Plan Map and all applicable LCP policies and regulations. Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and 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. Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. Continue to use public beaches for public recreational uses and prohibit uses on beaches that interfere with public access and enjoyment of coastal resources. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. Section 4.1— Land Use and i ne proposea conoominium oeveiopmenr on me sne is consistent with the land use designation and density allocated on the adopted Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the project addresses the relevant policies related to residential development and the protection of coastal resources identified in the CLUP as discussed in density prescribed in the CLUP and Land Use Element for the site. Redevelopment of the site with 8 dwelling units on the approximately 1.4 -acre site equates to approximately 7 du /ac, which is within the density allocation prescribed in the General Plan and zoning (20 du /ac). As described below in this table, the proposed project also addresses the policies related to resource The area within which the project is located is served by the existing infrastructure, including circulation, sewer, water, storm drainage, public services, and utilities. With the exception of storm drainage facilities, all of the infrastructure has adequate capacity to provide the necessary service to the project. As indicated in Section 4.6, a catch basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently deficient to accommodate existing storm flows (i.e., without the proposed project). The project applicant will be responsible for upgrading this existing deficient facility to accommodate existino and future storm flow. A small beach area is located in the small cove below the bluff. Although direct public access to the beach area is not available either from Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue or other nearby public coastal access routes, this area will remain accessible to the public via the harbor and will not be adversely affected by project The proposed residential structure complies with the building and development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance. As previously Indicated, the density and character of the proposed project are consistent with the intensity and character of development in the project area, which reflects a variety of styles that contributes to the uniqueness of Corona del Mar. Although the proposed multiple - family structure would be larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it would be smaller than the Channel Reef development located to the south, as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). In addition, the proposed structure has a maximum building height of approximately 32 feet, which is consistent with other homes in the project area and is, on average, approximately four feet under the maximum building height permitted by the Municipal Code. However, the project will require a Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) to allow minor encroachment s into the front and side Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -19 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis setbacks. The majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Policy 2.7 -2 prescribes the continued administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low- and moderate- Income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Continue the administration of provisions of State law Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or 2.7-2 relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of conversion of low- and moderate- income units within the low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal Coastal Zone. With the exception of the three existing zone. occupied units, the existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years. There are no low- or moderate - income households residing on this property. Therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this project. Hazards and Protective Devices Several technical studies have been prepared to evaluate the potential project - related impacts, including bluff erosion, wave runup, etc. Given the location, topography and development proposed, seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces, and tsunamis comprise the most significant potential hazards to development. As indicated in Section 4.9 of the EIR, potential seismic constraints are addressed through the implementation of MM 4.9 -1a, which ensures that project implementation will adhere to the engineering recommendations for site grading and foundation design recommended in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project. In addition, SC Review all applications for new development to determine 4.9-2 ensures that the project will comply with all 2'8'1 -1 potential threats from coastal and other hazards. applicable City and 2007 California Building Code requirements. With respect to potential threats from coastal hazards, a Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their life time (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or adjacent area. Design and site new development to avoid hazardous 2.8.1 -2 areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1 and other hazards. Design land divisions, including lot line adjustments, to 2.8.1 -3 avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.8.1 -1. property from coastal and other hazards. The proposed project will replace residential development similar to that currently existing on the site and would not contribute further to the instability of the area or further Require new development to assure stability and alter the existing landform. As previously indicated, structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute although excavation proposed to accommodate the lower significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction levels of the structure will extend below elevation 50.7 feet 2'8'1 -4 of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the NAVD88 PLOED, grading will occur behind the construction of protective devices that would substantially predominant line of development and not on the exposed alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. bluff and, therefore, will be consistent with the established bluff development policy prescribed by the City Council because it would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site. The location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -20 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 2.8.3 -1 2.8.6 -8 Require all coastal development permit applications for new development on a beach or on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action to assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through wave uprush and impact reported prepared by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in coastal processes. The conditions that shall be considered in a wave uprush study are: a seasonally eroded beach combined with long -term (75 years) erosion. High tide conditions, combined with long -term (75 years) projections for sea level rise; storm waves from a 100 - year event or a storm that compares to the 1982/83 El Nino event. Limit the use of protective devices to the minimum required to protect existing development and prohibit their use to enlarge or expand areas for new development or for new development. "Existing development" for purposes of this policy shall consist only of a principle structure (e.g., residential dwelling, required garage, or second residential unit) and shall not include accessory or ancillary structures such as decks, patios, pools, tennis courts, cabanas, stairs, landscaping, etc. Section 4.1 — Land Use and and development characteristics: (1) a north - facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west - facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west - facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD88. In addition, the project will not require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural Iandforms along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic located above areas subject to wave and storm surge and the potential for seiches and /or tsunamis is considered remote. The tsunami, like the design extreme wave /wake, will not reach the proposed improvements. Due to the infrequent nature and the relatively low 500 -year recurrence interval tsunami wave height, combined with the elevation of the proposed improvements, the site is reasonably safe from tsunami hazards. A study was also completed for the dock replacement component of the proposed project. That study concluded that neither the construction nor the long -term use of the facility would expose the dock to adverse impacts associated with those phenomena. The study concluded that the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. The City maintains mooring cans within the Harbor that are The project will not require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural Iandforms along the bluffs. In fact, the project has been designed to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during its economic life. A Coastal Hazard Study for the proposed project was conducted by GeoSoils, Inc., which revealed that no shoreline retreat was evident based on a view of aerial photographs and, further, that the site has not been subject to flooding, erosion damage or wave runup attack in the past. The study concluded that flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely impact the proposed improvements over their life time (i.e., 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 t FOIN Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Policy 2.8.6 -10 2.8.7 -2 2.8.7 -3 2.9.3 -1 Site and design new structures to avoid the need for shoreline and bluff protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). Require new development to provide adequate drainage and erosion control facilities that convey site drainage in a non - erosive manner in order to minimize hazards resulting from increased runoff, erosion and other hydrologic impacts to streams. Require applications for new development, where applicable (i.e., in areas of known or potential geologic or seismic hazards), to include a geologic/soils /geotechnical study that identifies any geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains a statement that the project site Is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazard. Require such reports to be signed by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. Section 4.1— Land Use and destruction of the site or adjacent area. Several technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with this policy. These studies include: (1) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). In addition, the proposed replacement landing and dock facility will be similar in nature to those existing in the area and, therefore, will not adversely affect or be affected by the coastal process that characterize the area. As indicated previously, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologic/geotechnical report prepared I ne project site is not located in the vicinity or a stream. However, as required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared, which establishes both structural and non- structural BMPS in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion during the construction phase. These measures will be incorporated in the grading /erosion control plans submitted to the City of Newport Beach. In addition, a hydrological analysis was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine that evaluated the post - development hydrologic conditions. Based on that analysis, the proposed project will result in minor increase in surface water; however, the project has been designed to accommodate 100 -year storm flows. Although a catch basin located in Carnation Avenue is currently deficient, the facility will be upgraded to ensure that it has adequate capacity to accommodate both existing and future storm flows. As indicated above, a grading report (Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005) and a coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated October 2006) were prepared for the proposed project. These studies thoroughly evaluates the proposed project and prescribes appropriate measures to address soils and geotechnical constraints on the site. As indicated in that study, the site is suitable for the development proposed. accommodate all resident and guest parking on -site. The Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., determined that the proposed automobile elevator system can adequately accommodate resident parking in the lower levels of the proposed structure without substantial back -up onto Carnation Avenue. In Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -22 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis addition, guest, bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking are all provided below the grade of the Second Floor, and will not utilize the proposed automobile elevator system for in ress /e ress. On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed use. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest spaces, one (1) service space, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, basement, and First and Second Floods. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well Continue to require new development to provide off -street as bicycle, golf cart, and motorcycle parking 2.9.3-2 parking sufficient to serve the approved use in order to accommodations. The Second Floor parking is directly minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking accessible via a ramp from Carnation Avenue. Resident available for coastal access. parking is accessible via Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. All of the parking is hidden from public view. In addition, the project will create three additional on- street public parking spaces because the length of the curb cut on the project site has been substantially reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact because it will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Require that all proposed development maintain and 2.9.3-3 enhance public access to the coast by providing adequate Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 2.9.3 -3. parking pursuant to the off -street parking regulations of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005. The off - street parking allocated to the project within the proposed structure has been designed to comply with the Continue to require off - street parking in new development q p g p City's size, clearance, and access requirements. In ad^'i! eaddition, the traffic study prepared by Austin-1 2.9.3 -5 to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to Foust Associates, Inc., evaluated site access and insure their use. concluded that the number of parking spaces and the use of the elevators to provide access would not adversely affect circulation on the adjacent circulation network. On -site parking will exceed the Newport Beach Parking Prohibit new development that would result in restrictions Code requirements and is sufficient to serve the proposed on public parking that would impede or restrict public use. In addition, the project will also crate three new on- access to beaches, trails, or parklands, (including, but not street public parking spaces because the length of the 2.9.3 -6 limited to, the posting of "no parking" signs, red curbing, curb cut on the project site has been substantially and physical barriers), except where such restrictions are reduced. The addition of these on- street parking spaces needed to protect public safety and where no other is considered a beneficial impact because it will feasible altemative exists to provide public safety. accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. No new curb cuts are proposed. As indicated above, adequate on -site parking for residents and guests Is provided. Project implementation will not result in any loss of existing on -street parking. In fact, because the length of the curb cut on the project site has been Require new development to minimize curb cuts to protect substantially reduced, the project will crate three 2.9.3 -10 on- street parking spaces. Close curb cuts to create new additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition parking wherever feasible. of these on -street parking spaces is considered to be a beneficial impact because it will accommodate visitors to the area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. Shoreline and Bluff Top Access Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -23 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 3.1.1 -1 1911 3.1.1 -9 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Allow public access Improvements In environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) when sited, designed, and maintained in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to the ESHA. Protect, expand, and enhance a system to public coastal access that achieves the following: maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; provides access to coastal view corridors; facilitates alternative modes of transportation; minimizes alterations to natural landforms; protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; and does not violate private property rights. Section 4.1— Land Use and Coastal access from the blurt to the beach below Is not currently provided through the subject property. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. The site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site and submerged lands. Specifically, the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety and maintenance and liability concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to bay. However, public access to the beach areas exists in proximity to the site, including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Place. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. With the availability of adequate public access in the Immediate vicinity of the site, additional access through the subject property is not necessary, particularly given the physical constraints, safety, and maintenance concerns cited above. Public access to the cove below from the harbor would still remain and would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, kayakers, or others. Project implementation does not include any public access improvements in ESHAs. Although not identified as an environmentally sensitive habitat area by the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the dove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eelgrass. Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 3.1.1 -1 for a discussion regarding public access. As discussed In that section, the existing public access system will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, public access is available at several locations to the north and south. Also, consistent with Policy No. 3.1.1 -9, existing coastal views from the project site would be enhanced as a result of eliminating existing overhead utility facilities on Carnation Avenue and expanding the view through the site from Ocean Boulevard. The view angle through the site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, a view of the harbor and turning basin would also be created at the northern property boundary where no view currently exists. Although project implementation would not facilitate alternative modes of transportation, it would result in fewer dwelling units than currently exist on the site (8 units proposed versus 15 that currently exist). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -24 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality if the site, the proposed project has been designed with "curvilinear' features, which allow the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the dock access /emergency exit proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 Incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. Finally, potentially adverse impacts to both terrestrial and aquatic habitats have been minimized through site design. Where potential impacts have been identified, they have been mitigated to a less than significant level. Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. Direct beach access is not currently available through the site; however, several public access routes exist in the vicinity of the project site that would continue to serve residents and 3.1.1-11 Require new development to minimize impacts to public beachgoers. Public access to the cove below from the access to and along the shoreline. harbor would still remain and would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, Including the proposed dock facility. The location of the dock would not preclude the existing access that is currently available to swimmers, ka akers, or others. Refer to response to Policy 3.1.1 -1. As indicated above, Encourage the creation of new public vertical accessways the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents a potentially 3.1.1 -24 where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas significant safety hazard as well as potential liability and of limited public accessibility. maintenance problems. Adequate public access currently exists to the north and south of the subject property. Coastal access from the bluff to the beach below is not currently provided through the subject property and is not proposed as part of the project. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. Specifically, the site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site, and submerged lands. The steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety, maintenance, and liability concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to the bay. Consistent with the policies above provide maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue are the nearest 3.1.1 -26 shoreline and along the shoreline with new development public roadways to the shoreline; however, as previously except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, described, the site is characterized by topographic military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal constraints that pose safety concerns related to the resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. steepness of the terrain, making the feasibility of providing public access through the site difficult. Furthermore, as suggested in this policy, adequate, convenient public access to the bay is currently available at several locations in the vicinity of the subject property, Including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Given the proximity of these nearby public access locations, the provision of additional public access through the subject property is neither required nor appropriate based on the parameters prescribed in the CLUP policies noted above, Including but not limited to Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -25 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Anal sis the topographic constraints (i.e., steep slopes and narrow passage), proximity of residential uses and potential loss of privacy, managements and maintenance requirements associated with the access, public safety, and the balance of property rights. Implement public access policies in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: topographic and geologic site characteristics; capacity of the site to sustain use and at 3.1.1 -27 what level of intensity; fragility of natural resource areas; Refer to Response to CLUBP Policy 3.1.1 -26. proximity to residential uses; public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; support facilities, Including parking and restrooms; management and maintenance of the access; the need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site contains a coastal bluff. Although public access to the bluff and the base of the bluff will not be provided as part of the project (refer to Response to CLUP Policy 3.1.1 -1), the project will enhance the public Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public view from the top of the bluff at Ocean Boulevard and 3'1'2 -1 access to and along coastal bluffs. Carnation Avenue. The view angle through the project site from that location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent as a result of project implementation. In addition, a view "window" would also be created at the northern property limits where one does not currently exist. Site, design, and maintain public access Improvements in Public access is not proposed through the subject 3'1'2 -2 a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to coastal bluffs. property. As such, CLUP Policy No. 3.1.2 -2 does not apply to the proposed project. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. The proposed boat dock will not extend Continue to regulate the construction of bay and harbor beyond the pierhead line. Consistent with City policies, 3.1.4 -1 structures within established Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead construction of the proposed dock facility will not result in Lines, and Project Lines. potentially significant impacts to the existing pierhead line within the harbor. Boats docked along the outboard slip would be restricted to a maximum beam of 24 feet to ensure that no encroachment into the harbor would occur as a result of project implementation. Implementation of the proposed project is dependent on securing approval of all applicable permits from the City of When applicable, continue to require evidence of approval Newport Beach and responsible agencies having 3.1.4 -2 from the County of Orange, Coastal Commission, U.S. jurisdiction over the project, including the California Army Corps of Engineers, and other resource Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) and management agencies, prior to issuing permits. the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant will provide evidence of all applicable approvals as requested by the City.. The existing pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced as part of the project with a structure in -like -kind. Neither the existing pier walkway nor the proposed replacement structure will obstruct Design and site piers, Including remodels of and additions public lateral access since neither of the adjacent 3.1.4 -3 to existing piers so as not to obstruct public lateral access waterfront properties are open to the public. and to minimize impacts to coastal views and coastal resources. The proposed dock has been designed to minimize impacts to coastal views. Although the dock would obscure some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features, Section 4.5 of the EIR concludes that the docks would not result in a significant impact to the project site's visual resources. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning 3.1.4.4 3.2.1 -3 3.3.2 -6 4.1.1 -2 4.1.2 -2 CLUP In residential areas, limit structures bayward of the bulkhead line to piers and floats. Limit appurtenances and storage areas to those related to vessel launching and berthing. Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the needs of new residents when allowing new development. Finally, impacts to natural resources in the cove and harbor (e.g., eelgrass, etc.) as a result of the proposed dock have also been avoided or, where adverse biological resources impacts had the potential to occur, they have The applicant is proposing to replace the existing four -slip boat dock with one that would accommodate eight boats and a guest slip. Although the proposed boat dock will extend to the pierhead line, the structures built bayward of the bulkhead line will be limited to piers and floats. The proposed project includes the redevelopment of a site that currently supports 15 dwelling units in an area of the city that is developed. The proposed project includes private recreation, including a lounge, swimming pool, etc. It also includes 8 docks and one guest slide tie dock to serve the project's residents. Although the project does not propose to provide additional public recreation and /or park facilities, it will be subject to the City's park fee Recreational Su000rt Facilities Protect, and where feasible, enhance and expand guest docks at public facilities, yacht clubs and at privately owned marinas, restaurants and other appropriate locations. Ine proposed project includes the replacement or an existing 4 -slip boat dock. In addition the dock will be enlarged to accommodate up to 9 boats of various sizes, including one guest boat. The boat dock will be maintained by the homeowners' association and the slips will be for the exclusive use of the homeowners and their Resources Require a site - specific survey and analysis prepared by a qualified biologist as a fling requirement for coastal development permit applications where development would occur within or adjacent to areas identified as a potential ESHA. Identify ESHA as habitats or natural communities listed In Section 4.1.1 that possess any of the attributes fisted in Policy 4.1.1 -1. The ESAs depicted on Map 4 -1 shall represent a preliminary mapping of areas containing potential ESHA. Provide special protection to marine resource areas and species of special biological or economic significance. None or the mbNAS Illustrated on Map 4 -1 in me coastal Land Use Plan are located within the vicinity of the proposed project and, therefore, would not be adversely affected as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the bluff contains native vegetation and eelgrass beds are located in the cove below the bluff. As required by CLUP Policy No. 4.1.1 -2, surveys have been conducted for both terrestrial and aquatic resources. The findings and recommendation of those studies are presented in Section 4.4 (Biological Resources). Although some potential impacts to the eelgrass beds may occur as a result of the project, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant The aquatic biology survey conducted for the proposed project Indicated that several sensitive species inhabit the harbor waters in the vicinity of the subject property. However, with the exception of the eelgrass, no significant impacts are anticipated any of the sensitive biological species. As previously indicated, while potential construction impacts to the eelgrass may occur; they will be avoided or reduced to an Insignificant level through the implementation of several mitigation measures identified in Section 4.6 and Section 4.7. The intertidal area below the bluff supports a colony of sand dollars. Although not a protected species, it has been described as a unique resource because it does not exist in large numbers anywhere else in the bay. In order to protect the sand dollar, construction activities associated with the project, including the proposed dock Draft Envimnmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistent Anal is 2a. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that Is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Require that uses of the marine environment be carded Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California out in a manner that will sustain the biological productivity Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended). 4.1.2 -3 of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted populations of all species of marine organisms adequate shall be determined following the results of the two annual for long -tern commercial, recreational, scientific, and monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that educational purposes. address biological and water quality impacts have also been prescribed. Also, as indicated in Section 4.7, low to moderate densities of sand dollars were found on the project site. However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction prescribed by the CDFG that prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, MM 4.7 -2a requires avoidance of the sand flats within the cove by construction personnel and equipment. As a result, no unavoidable significant Impacts are anticipated with respect to biological resources. In addition to the eelgrass survey conducted for the Continue to require Caulerpa protocol surveys as a proposed project, Caulerpa taxifolia surveys were also 4.1.2 -5 condition of City approval of projects in the Newport Bay undertaken as required by this policy. No invasive species and immediately notify the SCCAT when found. of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, were noted in the general vicinity of the project site during either the 2005 or 2007 surveys. As a result, SCCAT was not notified. This policy identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on biufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species Utilize the following mitigation measures to reduce the and require their removal In new development. The potential for adverse impacts to ESA natural habitats from residential component of the project does not encroach 4.1.3 -1 sources including, but not limited to those identified in within sensitive habitat areas or wetlands and the Table 4.1.1. landscaping plan indicates that the bluff will be hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation; all non - native plans will be removed. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1.4 -1 4.1.4 -3 Continue to protect eelgrass meadows for their important ecological function as a nursery and foraging habitat within the Newport Bay ecosystem. Site and design boardwalks, docks, piers, and other structures that extend over the water to avoid impacts to eelgrass meadows. Encourage the use of materials that allow sunlight penetration and the growth of eelgrass. Section 4.1 — Land Use and construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, It was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that address biological and water quality An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Maine Fisheries Services (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991, as amended). Several mitigation measures have been prescribed, including pre- and post - development monitoring, to ensure that should potential impacts occur, they would not be permanent. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. Specifically, the developer would be required to mitigate potential impacts pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). If any eelgrass has been Impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional Impacted eelgrass potential impacts to the existing eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the project. For instance, project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat. Implementation of the turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. However, it is possible that some potential temporary impacts may occur as a result of construction activities. Dock construction would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, BMPs, which eliminate any disposal of trash and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.1.4 -4 4.1.4 -5 4.2.5 -1 4.3.1 -5 mitigation of impacts to eelgrass meadows in a comprehensive harbor area management plan for Where applicable, require eelgrass and Caulerpa taxilolia surveys to be conducted as a condition of City approval for projects in Newport Bay in accordance with operative protocols of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Caulerpa taxifolia Survey protocols. Avoid impacts to eelgmss (Zostem marina) to the greatest extent possible. Mitigate losses of eelgrass at a 1.2 to 1 mitigation ratio and in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Encourage the restoration of eelgrass throughout Newport Harbor where feasible. Water Require development on steep slopes or steep slopes with erosive soils to implement structural best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or minimize erosion consistent with any load allocation of the TMDLs adopted for Newport Bay. Section 4.1— Land Use and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel- related Impacts Include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chains within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result In adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. Implementation of prescribed mitigation measures will reduce the potential Impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, pre- and post - development surveys will be conducted to monitor the potential permanent impacts associated with the facility. If such potential impacts occur, they would be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1 as Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and 4.1.4 -3. Mitigation pursuant to the mitigation plan would be subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.1.4 -1 and 4.1.4 -3. As noted in those responses, the analysis presented in Section 4.7 (Biological Resources) summarizes the results of the eelgrass and Cau/erpa taxifolia surveys conducted for the proposed project. These studies were conducted in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and The eelgrass survey and impact assessment conducted for the proposed project indicated that some potential temporary impacts would occur; however, those impacts would be mitigated through the implementation of measures Intended to reduce siltation (e.g., silt curtains, etc.) and other effects of construction activities (e.g., anchor dragging) that could impact the existing eelgrass bed. As indicated in this policy, eelgrass losses would be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a hydrological analysis were prepared by qualified professionals in connection with the project. These include best management practices (BMPs) and structural methods to ensure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. These BMPs address both short-term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) effects and incorporate a variety of features to address erosion and sedimentation as well as non - sediment BMPs to address the use of fertilizers/pesticides, vehicle /equipment parking, solid Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -30 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Polic Consisteripy Analysis to the water quality impacts associated with urban development. The project applicant is required to prepare and implement BMPs pursuant to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that will be required prior to the Issuance of the grading permit for the proposed project. Require grading /erosion control plans to include loll Implementation of these construction BMPs will ensure 4.3.1 -6 stabilization on graded or disturbed areas. that grading /erosion control measures are implemented. These measures are intended to minimize erosion and stabilize the site during grading. As indicated above, the applicant will also be required to Implement BMPs to ensure that point source and non -point source pollutants are minimized see Response to Policy 4.3.1-5). See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6 for a discussion of the project's efforts to minimize land use disturbance activities. Require measures to be taken during construction to limit Also, the project has been designed to avoid impacts to land use disturbance activities such as clearing and native vegetation. Current project design features avoid grading, limiting cut - and -fill to reduce erosion and the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the sediment loss, and avoiding steep slopes, unstable areas, north side of the project site that extends into Newport 4.3.1 -7 and erosive soils. Require construction to minimize Harbor. However, within the current development disturbance of natural vegetation, including significant footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine trees, native vegetation, root structures, and other special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will physical or biological features important for preventing undertaken focused surveys during the appropriate erosion or sedimentation. blooming season of each of those species to confirm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code will be obtained.. Require that development not result in the degradation of 4.3.2 -3 coastal waters (including the ocean, estuaries and lakes) See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. caused by changes to the hydrologic landsca e. The hydrology study prepared for the proposed project includes a detention facility that will be constructed on -site to treat and detain storm flows. Specifically, the 1.95 cis To the maximum extent practicable, runoff should be emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated retained on private property to prevent the transport of by a proprietary StormFilter unit, and discharged into the 4.3.2 -8 bacteria, pesticides, fertilizers, pet waste, oil, engine existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly coolant, gasoline, hydrocarbons, brake dust, tire residue, less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. and other pollutants into recreaflonal waters. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the project site. When redeveloped, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 28 percent of the project site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. Although the impervious areas will increase by Require new development to minimize the creation of and approximately 6 percent, the total discharge from the site Increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly In the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 4.3.2 -11 connected impervious areas, to be maximum extent cfs, or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of compared to the existing 2.31 cfs. The decrease in storm pervious surfaces, where feasible. flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under existing conditions because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The proposed stone drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The Improved efficiency of the new storm drains stem, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -31 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Anal is filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. As suggested above, the proposed project will result in a The project will have a minimal impact on the absorption, purification, and retention functions of natural drainage systems that exist on the site. Although the project will result in an approximately 6 percent increase in the total Require development to protect the absorption, impermeable surface area of the site, the developed purification, and retention functions of natural drainage project is estimated to generate only 1.95 cfs, or a 15 systems that exist on the site, to the maximum extent percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the practicable. Where feasible, design drainage and project existing 2.31 cis. The decrease in storm flow is largely 4.3.2 -12 plans to complement and utilize existing drainage patterns attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would and systems, conveying drainage from the developed capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing area of the site in a non - erosive manner. Disturbed or the total storm flows on the site under existing condition degraded natural drainage systems should be restored, because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The where feasible. proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on-or off -site. The preliminary geotechnical analysis conducted for the proposed project concluded that the site is suitable for development with the Incorporation of measures outlined in the report. The proposed project has been designed to incorporate the recommendations of the report and will not expose the structure and /or the future residents to potential hazards. In addition, the site has also been designed to minimize impacts to natural and sensitive resources. For instance, the project has been design with "curvilinear' features that will allow the building to conform to the bluff when Site development on the most suitable portion of the site compared to the existing rectilinear features of the 4.3.2 -13 and design to ensure the protection and preservation of existing residential structure. In addition, the dock natural and sensitive site resources. access /emergency exit proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 also incorporates design features that conform to the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. Finally, the proposed dock facility is located in an area that avoids to the maximum extent possible, the eelgrass beds located in the harbor. Although potential construction impacts may occur, measures will be required to ensure that such impacts are minimized and reduced to an insignificant level (e.g., employ silt curtains, etc.). In the event that direct impacts occur to eelgrass, the applicant will be required to replace/restore it at a ratio of 1.2:1 consistent with adopted policies. As indicated in Section V (Inspection /Maintenance Require structural BMPs to be inspected, cleaned, and Responsibility for BMPs) of the WQMP prepared for the repaired as necessary to ensure proper functioning for the project, all of the structural BMPs will be inspected, life of the development. Condition coastal development cleaned and maintained in accordance with the BMP 4.3.2 -16 permits to require ongoing application and maintenance Maintenance Responsibility /Frequency Matrix, which is as is necessary for effective operation of all BMPs consistent with this policy to ensure that their (including site design, source control, and treatment effectiveness and efficiency in water quality treatment is control). maximized. Require beachfront and waterfront development to 4.3.2 -22 incorporate BMPs designed to prevent or minimize See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. polluted runoff to beach and coastal waters. 4.3.2 -23 Require new development applications to include a Water See Responses to CLUP Policies 4.3.1 -5 and 4.3.1 -6. Quality Management Plan (WQMP . The WQMP's Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -32 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Polic y Consistency Analysis purpose is to minimize to the maximum extent practicable dry weather runoff, runoff from small storms (less the %" of rain falling over a 24 -hour period) and the concentration of pollutants in such runoff during construction and post - construction from the property. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant To further reduce runoff, direct and encourage water plant species determined to be consistent with the conservation via the use of weather- and moisture -based California coastal bluff environment. Invasive and non - irrigation controls, fiered water consumption rates, and invasive species shall removed. Irrigation of bluff 4'3'2 -24 native or drought - tolerant plantings in residential, faces to establish et areas shall temporary commercial, and municipal properties to the maximum s. establish the plants. Upon and used only to establish extent practicable. establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation h system shall be removed. As a result, the need for irrigation will be reduced /minimized. Scenic and Visual Resources As indicated in Section 4.5 of the EIR (Aesthetics), although project implementation will result in the introduction of a different structure on the site, views from important public vantages (e.g., Begonia Park) would not be significantly affected. In addition, views through the site from the "Public View Point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the project would be enhanced. The view angle through the site from that Protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and location to the harbor and ocean would be increased by 4.4.1-1 visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views approximately 76 percent as a result of project to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal implementation. In addition, a view "window" will also be bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. created at the northerly property limits where one does not currently exist. Finally, the project will result in an enhanced view of the project site's bluff when viewed from the bay. While the lowest extent of existing development down the site's bluff face is 42.3 feet NAVD88, the project's main structure will be constructed at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, resulting in approximately 10 additional vertical feet of bluff face as compared with existing conditions. The proposed project has been designed to minimize impacts to public coastal views. As illustrated in the visual simulations prepared for the proposed project (refer to Section 4.5), the proposed residential structure has been designed to blend into the bluff through its "curvilinear" design, character, colors and building materials when compared to the existing structure and nearby homes 4.4.1-2 Design and site new development, including landscaping, located along the bluff. The aesthetic character of the so as to minimize impacts to public coastal views. residential neighborhood will be enhanced through the elimination of existing overhead utilities (i.e., undergrounding) on Carnation Avenue. Further, no significant encroachment into the ocean vista would occur when viewed from Begonia. Finally, views to the ocean from Ocean Boulevard would be enhanced as a result of the design of the project, which expands the existing vista bv aDDroximately 76 Dercant. With the exception of the emergency egress, the proposed project has been designed to limit the proposed development to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED), which was established by the Design and site new development to minimize alterations Newport Beach City Council at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 4.4.1 -3 to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and 88. Although excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of canyons. the proposed structure, this excavation will occur behind the bluff face and would not be visible from the harbor or elsewhere within the viewshed. In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -33 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. Finally, the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy. Views through the site from the "Public View Point" at Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the Where appropriate, require new development to provide project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The view easements or corridors designed to protect public c view angle through the site from that location to the harbor 4.4.1 -4 coastal views or t restore public coastal views in and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 developed areas. percent. Implementation of MM 4.5 -2 (refer to Section 4.5.4) requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that this view enhancement Is achieved and preserved In the future. The existing apartment building was constructed In 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built In 1955. These structures lack aesthetic character, especially with open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the structure facing Carnation Avenue. A portion of the existing structures extend down to the bluff face, to elevation 42.3 feet NAVD88. Project implementation will result in the replacement of 4.4.1 -5 Where feasible, require new development to restore and the existing buildings with a high quality structure of enhance the visual quality in visually degraded areas. modern design. In addition, overhead utilities that exist within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue would be undergrounded, resulting in the elimination of the utility features that extent vertically and horizontally within the vlewshed. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. Finally, the project would be slightly higher on the bluff then the existing structure. As a result, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. 4.4.1-6 Protect public coastal views from the following roadway Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.1 -4. segments: Ocean Boulevard At the present time, a 25 degree view currently exists between the existing apartment building on the site and Design and site new development, including landscaping, the neighbor's garage and fence to the south. Project blic coastal blic co on the edges of public view corridors, including implementation will result In an expansion /enhancement those down public to frame and accent public of that existing view, which would increase to 44 degrees coastal views. with the proposed project. Implementation of MM 4.5 -2 requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. With only minor exception (e.g., excavation required to accommodate the subterranean levels, side yard setback) Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of the project complies with all of the development standards 4.4.2 -2 structures consistent with the unique character and visual prescribed by the existing zoning and is, therefore, scale of Newport Beach. consistent with building height limits and other City building envelope restrictions. The below grade encroachments will not impact public views and the above grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -34 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistent Anal is between the proposed project and the home abutting the site to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public view currently exists. Furthermore, although the proposed multiple - family structure would be larger than the existing structure(s) occupying the site, it would be smaller than the Channel Reef development located to the south, as illustrated in several of the visual simulations (refer to Section 4.5). Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.4.2 -2 for a discussion of Zoning Code compliance. Also, note that Implement the regulation of the building envelope to views through the site from the "Public View Point" at preserve public views through the height, setback, floor Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue adjacent to the 4.4.2 -3 area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Project would be enhanced as a result of the project. The Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the view angle through the site from that location to the harbor building profile and maximize public view opportunities. and ocean would be increased by approximately 76 percent. In addition, views to the harbor and turning basin would also be created at the northern property boundary where no view currently exists. On bluffs subject to marine erosion, require new No new accessory structures are proposed. All project accessory structures as decks, patios, and walkways that structures will be supported by structural foundations. do not require structural foundations to be sited in The policy requires that accessory structures be removed 4.4.3.4 accordance with the predominant line of existing or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, development in the subject area, but not less than 10 feet instability or other hazards. SC 4.9-4 mandates that the from the bluff edge. Require accessory structures to be existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and removed or relocated landward when threatened by walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the erosion, Instability or other hazards. future. The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the Require all new bluff top development located on a bluff bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher not subject to marine erosion to be sited in accordance than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except with the predominant line of existing development in the for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As subject area. This requirement shall apply to the principal a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face 4.4.3 -5 structure and major accessory structures such as of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAV088, or guesthouses and pools. The setback shall be increased approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential where necessary to ensure safety and stability of the structures (other than the proposed emergency exit). The development. basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. As such, those subterranean spaces are not subject to the PLOED. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepots are proposed at each above grade level. On bluffs not subject to marine erosion, require new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways that do not require structural foundations, to be set back Refer to Responses to CLUP Policy Nos. 4.4.3 -4 and Refers. 4.4.3 -6 from the bluff edge in accordance with the predominant line of existing accessory development. Regluire accessory structures to be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. Protective devices are not required for the proposed project. As Indicated in the Coastal Hazard Study Require all new development located on a bluff top to be prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., flooding, erosion and wave setback from the bluff edge a sufficient distance to ensure runup will not adversely impact the proposed stability, ensure that it will not be endangered by erosion, improvements over their lifetime c years) and the and to avoid the need for protective devices during the proposed project will not create r contribute significantly economic life of the structure (75 years). Such setbacks d to erosion, geologic Instability, or destruction of the site or 4.4.3 -7 must take into consideration expected long -term bluff adjacent area. retreat over the next 75 years, as well as slope stability. The project will be set back a sufficient distance from the To assure stability, the development must maintain a bluff edge to ensure stability. As discussed above, the minimum factor of safety of 1.5 against landsliding for the City Council has established a predominant life of existing life of the structure. development for the site at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD88. This is the extent to which new structures may be built toward the bay, and down he bluff. At elevation 52.83 feet Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -35 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis NAVD88, the project will be more than two feet higher than the PLOED, except for the dock access /emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 feet NAVD88, or approximately eight feet lower than the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed dock access/emergency exit). Further, the site is not subject to potential landslidin . The City Council has established a predominant line of Prohibit development on bluff faces, except private existing bluff face development for the site at elevation development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean 50.7 feet NAVD88. New development on the bluff face is Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona proposed to be more than two feet higher than the del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD88, except for a line of existing development or public improvements dock access/emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet providing public access, protecting coastal resources, or NAVD88. As a point of reference, the lowest reach down 4'4'3 -8 providing for public safety. Permit such improvements the bluff face of the existing apartment building is 42.3 only when no feasible alternative exists and whe n feet NAVD88, or approximately eight feet lower than the designed and constructed to minimize alteration of the proposed residential structures (other than the proposed bluff face, to not contribute to further erosion of the bluff dock access/emergency exit). The basement and sub - face, and to be visually compatible with the surrounding basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible area to the maximum extent feasible. from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepots are proposed at each above -grade level. As previously indicated, with only minor exception (i.e., emergency access at 40.5 feet NAVD88, the proposed project complies with the PLOED setback prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council. A series of visual simulations was create to evaluate the potential visual Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces Impacts of the proposed project. Although the simulations along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific (refer to Section 4.5 (Aesthetics) Illustrate that the new Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to development would result in some changes in the visual be sited in accordance with the predominant line of character of the site, no significant visual impacts are 4.4.3 -9 existing development in order to protect public coastal anticipated, either from the harbor or other public views. Establish a predominant line of development for vantages within the vicinity of the project. The simulations both principle structures and accessory improvements. revealed that some views from Carnation Avenue and The setback shall be increased where necessary to Ocean Boulevard will be enhanced (i.e., elimination of ensure safety and stability of the development. overhead utilities on Carnation Avenue) or expanded (i.e., a wider view angle from the sidewalk along Ocean Boulevard). From other more distant vantages (e.g., Begonia Park), the proposed structure will not significantly change the existing view. As a result, no significant visual impacts are anticipated As indicated in the GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study, Require applications for new development to include flooding, erosion and wave runup will not adversely 4.4.3 -11 slope stability analyses and erosion rate esflmates impact the proposed improvements over their lifetime (i.e., provided by a licensed Certified Engineering Geologist or 75 years) and the proposed project will not create or Geotechnical Engineer. contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or adjacent area The project site encompasses a south - facing bluff. A small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet above the 50.7 feet NAVD88 PLOED identified by the City Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below Employ site design and construction techniques to that elevation with the exception of the dock 4.4.3 -12 minimize alteration of coastal bluffs to the maximum accesslemergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet extent feasible. NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilineal' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -36 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis structure will allow the building to conform to the character of the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. The project implements Policy 4.4.3 -13 through hydroseeding the bluff with a drought- tolerant mix of plants that are native to coastal California. Temporary Irrigation will be used only to establish the vegetation. Implementation of MM 4.7-4 will ensure that the planting and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. In addition, all common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess Irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Require new development adjacent to the edge of coastal The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently 4.4.3 -13 bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into across the bluff face, and discharge to Newport Bay with the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. less intensity than under current conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cis emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated by a proprietary Storm Filter unit, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Implementation of these measures will help reduce the potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site runoff. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to native vegetation. Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint, there is a potentially suitable habitat for nine special status plants. Therefore, the applicant will undertaken focused surveys during the appOropriate blooming season of each of those species to confirm that they do not exist on the site. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it Is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Design and site new development to minimize the Game Code will be obtained. 4.4.3 -15 removal of native vegetation, preserve rock outcroppings, and protect coastal resources. No rock outcroppings would be damaged or destroyed as a result of project implementation. Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2 (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgmss survey was conducted and determined that measures would be required during the construction phase to protect the beds from damage as a result of construction of the proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eel grass. Paleontological and Cultural Resources 4.5.1 -1 Require new development to protect and preserve I As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -37 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistency Analysis paleontological and archaeological resources from not result in potential impacts to paleontological and destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must resources. If avoidance of the resources is not feasible, comply with State law in the event human remains are require an in situ or site - capping preservation plan or a encountered. In addition, because the Monterey recovery plan for mitigating the effect of the development. Formation Is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Require a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist to monitor all grading and /or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources. If grading operations or excavations uncover paleontological /archaeological resources, require the paleontologistlarchaeologist monitor to suspend all development activity to avoid destruction of resources until a determination can be made as to the significance 4.5.1 -2 of the paleontological /archaeological resources. If Refer to Response to CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1. resources are detem fined to be significant, require submittal of a mitigation plan. Mitigation measures considered may range from in -situ preservation to recover and /or relocation. Mitigation plans shall include a good faith effort to avoid impacts to cultural resources through methods such as, but not limited to, project redesign, in situ preservation /capping, and placing cultural resources areas in open space. As Indicated in Section 4.10, because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB Notify cultural organizations, including Native American 18, which requires consultation with Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the representatives before adopting or amending a general 4.5.1 -3 potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow plan. The City has complied with the requirement of SB qualified representatives of such groups to monitor 18 by submitting a request to the Native American grading and /or excavation of development sites. Heritage Commission . In addition, the City also Native sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the native American representatives requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. Where in situ preservation and avoidance are not feasible, require new development to donate scientifically 4'5'1 -4 valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No 4.5.1 -1. responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Orange County, whenever possible. Where there is a potential to affect cultural or paleontological resources, require the submittal of an 4.5.1 -5 archaeological /cultural resources monitoring plan that Refer to Response to CLUP Policy No. 4.5.1 -1. Identifies monitoring methods and describes the procedures for selecting archaeological and Native American monitors and procedures that will be followed if Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -38 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1 — Land Use and Planning No. 4.6 -6 4.6-6 4.6-8 4.6 -9 CLUP Policy additional or unexpected archaeological /cultural resources are encountered during development of the site. Procedures may include, but are not limited to, provisions for cessation of all grading and construction activities in the area of the discovery that has any potential to uncover or otherwise disturb cultural deposits in the area of the discovery and all construction that may foreclose mitigation options to allow for significance testing. additional investigation and mitigation. Environmental Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to consider the individual and cumulative impacts of the development, define the least environmentally damaging alternative, and recommend modifications or mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts. The City may impose a fee on applicants to recover the cost of review of a proposed project when required by this policy. Where development is proposed within or adjacent to ESHA, wetlands or other sensitive resources, require the city staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s) to include the following in any recommendations of approval: an identification of the preferred project alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan. The decision making body (Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall make findings relative to the project's conformance to the recommendations of the City staff member(s) and /or contracted employee(s). Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, national Marine Fisheries Service, and other resource management agencies, as applicable, in the review of development applications in order to ensure that impacts to ESHA and marine resources, including rare, threatened, or endangered species, are avoided or minimized such that ESHA is not significantly degraded, habitat values are not significantly disrupted, and the biological productivity and Require applications for new development, where applicable, to include a geologictsoils /geotechnical study that Identifies any geologic hazards affecting the project site, any necessary mitigation measures, and contains statements that the project site is suitable for the proposed project has been thoroughly evaluated in the initial study and Draft EIR. Several technical analyses have been prepared to determine the nature and extent of both individual and cumulative impacts anticipated as a result of project implementation. As concluded in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR, while potentially significant project - related impacts have been identified, no significant cumulative impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been prescribed for each potentially significant impact, which will be implemented to ensure that most of the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. However, temporary construction noise will remain a significant an unavoidable adverse impact. Although not located within an established ESHA, the site is located within the Coastal Zone of the City and supports native vegetation and important coastal resources. As such, the site has been designed to minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitat, including coastal resources. Specifically, potential impacts to eelgrass may occur during construction of the proposed dock facility and subsequent to the construction of that feature; however, several mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that such impacts are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., less than significant). If permanent Impacts occur based on monitoring, replace of that habitat would be required at a ratio of 1.2:1, consistent with adopted plans and programs. The recommendation report issued by City staff will include an identification of the preferred project alternative, required modifications, or mitigation measures necessary to ensure conformance with the Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, the decision - making body shall make findings relative to the project's conformance to City staffs recommendations. The proposed project will be subject to review and comment by the resources agencies listed in CLUP Policy No. 4.6-8 through the environmental review (i.e., CEQA) process, including the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, and California Coastal Commission. Both a grading report (Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005) and a coastal hazard study (Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc, dated October 2006) were prepared for the proposed project. These studies thoroughly evaluated the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -39 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Policy No. CLUP Policy Consistengy Analysis safe from geologic hazard for its economic life. For address soils and geotechnical constraints on the site. As development on coastal bluffs, including bluffs facing indicated in that study, the site is suitable for the Upper Newport Bay, such reports shall Include slope development proposed and will be safe from geologic stability analyses and estimates of the long -term average hazard. bluff retreat rate over the expected life of the development. Reports are to be signed by an Excavation proposed for the project will result in the appropriately licensed professional and subject to review removal of existing fill soils as well as a majority of the and approval by qualified city staff member(s) and /or terrace deposits capping the bedrock and daylghting on contracted employee(s). the bluff face. With the removal of these materials, the bluff face will be less vulnerable to bluff erosion. In addition, the incorporation of site drainage measures will also redirect existing site surface drainage away from the bluff, thereby further reducing potential bluff erosion. The GeoSoils, Inc., Coastal Hazard Study concluded that the proposed improvements will neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or the destruction of the site or adjacent area. Newport Beach Zoning As indicated in Section 4.1.1, the majority of the subject property is zoned MFR (Multiple - Family Residential, 2,178), which would accommodate up to 20 du /ac based on one dwelling unit for every 2,178 square feet of land. The maximum density that could be achieved on the subject property is based on the MFR zoning parameters identified below. Total Site Area 61,282 square feet Existing Building Pad 13,481 square feet Slope area less than 50% 7,462 square feet Slope area greater than 50% 11,926 square feet Area under mean higher high water elevation 28,413 square feet The maximum density that would be permitted on the subject property is determined by subtracting the area of the site that exceeds 50 percent slope (11,926 square feet) and the area of the site located below mean higher high water (28,413 square feet) from the total project site area (61,284 square feet). This calculation results in a total of 20,945 square feet. Based on the minimum of 2,178 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, a maximum of 9 dwelling units would be permitted on the subject property. The project applicant is proposing a total of eight dwelling units, which is consistent with the density provision of the MFR zoning classification. A small portion of the site (584 square feet) is zoned R -2 (Two - Family Residential). The applicant has proposed a zone change to reclassify that small portion of the site to MFR, which would be consistent with the accompanying request to amend the Newport Beach Land Use Element to redesignate it as RM. Approval of the zone change (and General Plan Amendment) would eliminate the R -2 zoning and the existing conflict with the MFR zoning that applies to the majority of the property, which permits higher density development. Development of the site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the MFR zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. SCAG Policies and Proqrams Table 4.1 -3 provides a discussion of the project's consistency with the applicable goals, objectives, policies and programs reflected in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. As indicated in that Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-40 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the SCAG projections, plans and policies and no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Table 4.1 -3 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) Consistency Analysis Policy No. RCPG Polic Consistency Analysis Regional Transport tion Plan Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's Project implementation will not result in the generation of 4.01 adopted Regional Performance indicators (i.e., mobility, significant new traffic that would adversely affect regional accessibility, environment, reliability, safety, livable transportation facilities. communities, equity, and cost- effectiveness). 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental As indicated above, no significant long -term traffic impacts to an acceptable level. impacts will result from project implementation A Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, which addresses all aspects of the construction phase (e.g., phasing schedule, construction equipment, and the construction process). In addition, the CMP also addresses packing management (e.g., off- site and short-term parking, staging, etc.), traffic control 4.04 Transportation control measures shall be a priority. (e.g., haul routes and delivery requirements), safety and security (e.g., pedestrian protection, fencing, etc.), air quality control and noise suppression measures (e.g., dust control, noise control, vibration monitoring); and environmental compliance /protection (e.g., erosion and sediment control and beach protection, water quality control and environmental protection measures). Improvement of Regional Standard of Living The proposed project is located In an area of the City that is served by a full complement of public services and utilities. With the upsizing of the existing deficient Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, catch basin, adequate infrastructure and public services 3.05 which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and are available to serve the project. Therefore, project make better use of existing facilities. implementation would result in an improvement in infrastructure service to the area. All of the remaining infrastructure facilities (e.g., sewer, water, police and fire protection, etc.) have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project . Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of As indicated in Response to Policy 3.05 above, infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to adequate infrastructure and public services exist in the 3.09 seek new sources of funding for development and the project area to serve the proposed project. The provision of services. applicant will be responsible for upgrading an existing deficient catch basin. Improvement of Regional Quality of Life The applicant is proposing to redevelop the subject property, which will result in a reduction in the number of Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' dwelling units that exist on the site and, as a result, will programs aimed at designing land uses which reduce the total number of vehicle trips (and miles 3.12 encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need traveled) associated with site development. Project for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips implementation will not result in the construction of new and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunifies for or expanded roadways. Public transit opportunities residents to walk and bike. currently exist within the Corona del Mar community and in the City of Newport Beach that would serve the proposed residential project. As previously indicated in Response to Policy 3.12, Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the project implementation includes the reuse of an existing 3.13 use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit developed site, which will not require the expansion of through infll and redevelopment, existing transit services, which currently exist in the community. Existing transit facilities are adequate to serve the ro osed residential use. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-41 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-42 The project has been carefully designed to avoid and /or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. The project's significant and unavoidable temporary 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely construction noise impact is a function of its location on a to cause adverse environmental impacts. coastal bluff in a developed residential neighborhood. As discussed In Chapter 10.0 (Alternatives) of the EIR, projects of varying designs and densities generate similar construction noise impacts. The proposed project will not result in potentially significant Impacts to wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and /or endangered plants and animals. Although not identified as an ESA on Figure NR2 (Environmental Study Areas) of the City's General Plan, eelgrass beds are located adjacent to the cove below the bluff site. Nonetheless, an eelgrass survey as conducted and determined that measures would be Support the protection of vital resources such as required during the construction phase to protect the wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, beds from damage as a result of construction of the 3.20 production lands, and land containing unique and proposed replacement dock. Pre- and post - construction endangered plants and animals, surveys are also proposed to document any potential adverse effects and identify the need to provide mitigation for impacted eelgrass. In addition, the intertidal area below the bluff supports a colony of sand dollars. Although not a protected species, it has been described as a unique resource because it does not exist in large numbers anywhere else in the bay. Construction activities associated with the project, Including the proposed dock facility must avoid the intertidal area to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the sand dollar colony. As indicated in Section 4.10, project implementation will not result in potential impacts to paleontological and archaeological resources. Nonetheless, the project must comply with State law in the event human remains are encountered. In addition, because the Monterey Formation is known to contain fossils, mitigation has been identified to address potential impacts to such fossils. Specifically, a qualified paleontologist must be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate 3.21 preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded Paleontology. In the event that fossils are encountered cultural resources and archaeological sites. during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. The project site encompasses a south- facing bluff. A small cove exists below the bluff, which is characterized by rock outcroppings. Although development will extend Discourage development, or encourage the use of down to 52.83 feet NAVD88 (approximately two feet 3.22 special design requirements, In areas will steep slopes, above the 50.7 feet NAVD 88 PLOED identified by the high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. City Council), the integrity of the bluff will be maintained below that elevation with the exception of the dock access /emergency exit, which is proposed at the 40.5 feet NAVD88 elevation. However, the access would be recessed and designed to minimize the alteration of the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-42 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.1— Land Use and Planning natural appearance of the bluff. The proposed project has been designed to complement the site's natural bluff features. The "curvilinear' features reflected in the design of the proposed residential structure will allow the building to conform to the character of the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. In addition, the proposed colors are consistent with the natural environment, and the project's mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. Finally, the bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. In addition, development of the site has been designed to minimize potential seismic Impacts. The geotechnical report prepared for the project concluded that the project will not adversely affect the integrity of the bluff. Although not a mitigation measure, the project includes a Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in detailed Construction Management Plan, which certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of addresses project phasing and construction traffic in 3.23 biological and ecological resources, measures that order to minimize adverse noise and air quality impacts. would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize Where potential impacts are identified (e.g., biological earthquake damage, and to develop emergency resources, drainage and hydrology, etc.) mitigation response and recovery plans. measures have been prescribed that are intended to reduce or eliminate the Impact. Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the The proposed project will provide housing in the Corona 3.24 implementation of programs that Increase the supply and del Mar area of the City of Newport Beach. The project quality of housing and provide affordable housing as is not subject to the provision of affordable housing evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. based on the City's RHNA requirements. Provision of Social, Political, and Cultural Equity Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in Adequate public services exist within the City to their efforts to develop sustainable communities and accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment provide, equally to all members of society, accessible project. The site will be subject to school development 3'27 and effective services such as: public education, fees to address public education and the City's Park housing, health care, social services, recreational Dedication Fee Ordinance to address public recreation facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. facilities. In addition, adequate law enforcement and fire protection services can be provided to the development. Air Quality Chapter Core Actions The Draft EIR includes a thorough analysis of project - related air quality, noise, traffic, and land use impacts. Through the environmental document review process, The results of these environmental analysis concludes ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, that although some potential impacts may occur, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider air mitigation measures have been prescribed and will be 5.11 quality, land use, transportation and economic implemented in order to reduce most of the impacts to a relationships to ensure consistency and minimize less than significant level as required by CEQA. The conflicts. proposed project is consistent with the long -range land use plans and programs as well as adopted policies in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (refer to Section 4.1 Land Use). Open Space Ancilla ry Goals The project applicant has allocated areas within the structure and on the property that are dedicated to Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreational use by the residents of the proposed project. 9.01 recreation needs of the present and future residents in In addition, the project will be subject to the City's Park the region and to promote tourism in the region. Dedication Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to provide public recreation, including that within the coastal zone that is utilized by visitors to the City. Increase the accessibility to open space lands for The project will be subject to the City's Park Dedication 9'02 outdoor recreation. Fee Ordinance, which is utilized by the City to provide public recreation, including that within the coastal zone Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-43 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1— Land Use and Existing Land Use Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. Physically divide an established community. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 8 -unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood, development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility. Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -44 that is utilized by visitors to the City. The project applicant will be required to pay the park fee 9.03 Promote self- sustaining regional recreation resources imposed by the City of Newport Beach, which will be and facilities. used to provide recreational facilities to residents and visitors within the City, including within the coastal zone. Both terrestrial and marine biological surveys were conducted to evaluate the potential adverse effects of the proposed project on important habitat and /or resources. The eelgrass survey identifies several Develop well- managed viable ecosystems or known measures, including pre- and post - development 9.08 habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species, monitoring to document the project - related impacts and, including wetlands. if determined necessary, require appropriate measures to mitigate potential Impacts to that resource. Other measures are also proposed to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive biological resources are reduced to a less than significant level (refer to Section 4.7.4). Existing Land Use Conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan The subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the site. Therefore, no impacts either to CSS habitat or the coastal California gnatcatcher is anticipated as a result of project implementation. As a result, project implementation is consistent with the adopted NCCP for the Central /Coastal Subregion. No mitigation measures are required. Physically divide an established community. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 8 -unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a modern multiple - family structure within the neighborhood, development of the subject property would not adversely affect adjacent properties. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significant change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Substantial or extreme land use incompatibility. Redevelopment of the site, which currently supports 14 multiple - family dwelling units and a single - family residence, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed 8 -unit condominium project is consistent with the density of development permitted by the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The density of the proposed project is 5.7 du /ac, compared to the 11.4 du /ac that currently exists based on the 15 existing dwelling units and the 20 du /ac permitted by the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning. Further, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the MFR zoning district. The proposed structure is also consistent with the policies articulated in the General Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1 -44 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.1 — Land Use and Incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan. The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately five miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property encompasses approximately 1.4 acres that are currently developed with single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The site has been altered in order to accommodate the existing development. Neither the site nor the surrounding areas is located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect such a plan, sensitive habitat and /or resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. 4.1.5 Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, the proposed project, which includes the construction of an eight -unit condominium development and the replacement of the existing private marina with an eight -slip dock (and one guest side tie) that is consistent with the Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach General Plan and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The proposed project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. As a result, no significant long -term land use impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Short-term land use compatibility impacts associated with construction air quality will be reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3 (Air Quality). 4.1.6 Level of Significance after Mitigation As indicated above, the project is consistent with the long -range plans and programs adopted by the City. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.1-45 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation 4.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., (AFA) evaluated the project's short-term construction traffic impacts and the operational traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The analysis presented below provides a summary of the findings and recommendations of the "Aerie Corona Del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Access Assessment (March 4, 2009) prepared by AFA. This Assessment is included as Appendix C. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions The subject property is located in the residential oriented Corona del Mar neighborhood and is bounded by Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Principal access into the neighborhood is from West Coast Highway via Marguerite Avenue. Except for West Coast Highway, none of these streets are on the City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways and they are considered local streets. Traffic counts on Carnation Avenue were conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 5:45 p.m. on September 18, 2008 and included in the Traffic Access Assessment prepared by AFA. This period represents a typical operating condition (e.g., schools are in session). At the present time, Carnation Avenue carries approximately 24 vehicles per hour (vph) and 22 vph on average during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. The midday peak hour, beginning at 12:00 p.m. averages 29 vph. The local streets serve the residential neighborhoods within Corona del Mar. The subject property is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment complex and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Only three of the 15 dwelling units are occupied, generating an estimated 23 trips per day. If all of the dwelling units were occupied, it is estimated that they would generate up to 104 trips per day, including eight trips during the a.m. peak hour and 10 trips during the p.m. peak hour. 4.2.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach that results in an Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. The project will generate an increase in traffic at a Congestion Management Program (intersection resulting in a Level of Service (LOS) F, or if a Congestion Management Program intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. The project will result in inadequate access or parking capacity. 4.2.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.2 -1 On -site parking shall comply with the Newport Beach Zoning Code requirements. SC 4.2 -2 Sight distance at the project accesses shall comply with City of Newport Beach standards. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.2.4 Potential Impacts 4.2.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Traffic Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of heavy truck traffic hauling export soils and materials and equipment would occur. Table 4.2 -1 reflects the potential peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases required by the proposed project. Table 4.2 -1 Potential Construction - Related Project Trip Generation Phase Task Estimated Number of Trips Demolition activities would occur for approximately 6 days. It is anticipated an Demolition average of 10 trucks trips/ day would occur daily during the 6 days of demolition. 117 cement trucks total. Caisson 38 Caissons Installation for Row A installation would occur for approximately 13 days with an average of 9 cement trucks per day. Phase I Excavation - Sectment No. 1 1,084 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 41 days with an average of 27 truck trips/ day. Excavation to an Elevation of 50 feet and removal of 13,000 cubic yards of dirt. 72 cement trucks total. Caisson 23 Caissons Installation for Row B installation would occur for approximately 6 days with an average of 12 cement trucks per day. Excavation - Segment No. 2 Excavation to an Elevation of 40 feet and removal of 7,000 cubic ards of dirt. 584 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 21 days with an average of 28 truck trips/ day. Excavation - Segment No. 3 Excavation to an Elevation of 28 feet and removal of 5,240 cubic ards of dirt 437 truck trips total. Excavation to this depth would take approximately 15 days with an average of 29 truck trips/ day. 622 Cement trucks total. There will be approximately 12 concrete pour events during Phase II and each would take 30 to 40 days. Concrete formwork would Phase 2 Building Construction consist of 90% of the duration and 3 to 5 days for concrete pouring. There would be about 20 to 25 cement trucks trip per day during the concrete pouring and there will be an average of 1 month between each concrete pouring event. SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture; Construction Management Plan (February 23, 2009 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the proposed project will require the exportation of more than 25,000 cubic yards of earth material to the Brea Olinda Landfill, resulting in the generation of approximately 2,105 heavy truck trips over the 5 -month grading and excavation phase. Grading and excavation necessary to implement the proposed project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Although a maximum of up to 44 haul truck trips per day (based on a 15- minute discharge rate from the site) could be generated by the daily grading activities, the Construction Management Plan limits the number of heavy truck trips to 27 to 29 trips per day during the three excavation "segments" as indicated in Table 4.2 -1. Other construction - related heavy truck trips generated by the proposed project are those related to concrete pouring, which will account for a total of 622 trips in 12 concrete pour events that would take 30 to 40 days each within the 18 -month Phase II period. Concrete truck traffic would be generated on only three to five days during each concrete pour event. In addition, truck traffic is that related to material delivery to the site (i.e., material deliveries) would average two to four heavy trucks per week during the final nine months of the construction phase. The Construction Management Plan has incorporated several measures to ensure that the construction traffic would not result in significant impacts in the residential neighborhood. Specifically, the CMP includes the following: The project's haul route shall follow the route depicted in the CMP. Specifically, dump trucks, concrete mixers, deliveries, and shuttles for off -site parking will access the site via East Coast Highway and travel south on Marguerite Avenue, west on Seaview Avenue, and south on Carnation Avenue to the site. The trucks and construction vehicles will exit by driving east on Ocean Boulevard, north on Marguerite Avenue, and back to East Coast Highway. Dirt will be hauled to Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill in the City of Brea (or a closer site /location if available at the time grading occurs) . Dump trucks leaving from East Coast Highway will travel north on MacArthur Boulevard to SR -73, and continuing northbound on SR -55 to the 1 -5 northbound and to SR -57 northbound. Grading and dirt hauling shall occur only between Labor Day and Memorial Day. All deliveries will use the designated haul route once they enter the neighborhood starting from Marguerite Avenue. The contractor will also request an encroachment permit for a temporary staging area during construction , as described and illustrated in the CMP. Loading and unloading of all construction materials /equipment and /or construction vehicles will take place on -site or within the staging area. Loading and unloading will be managed by the construction valet team and will be overseen by the contractor. Dump trucks, cement trucks, etc., will arrive at the site with no greater frequency than the discharge rate by the contractor so that no more than one truck is on -site at one time and that trucks will not queue on Carnation Avenue. Once the delivery is complete, the trucks will exit the project area via the haul route identified above. All trucks (except cement trucks) will be required to shut off their engines during the loading /off- loading process. To prevent obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person will be retained to maintain safety adjacent to the existing roadways. Traffic control will be coordinated with the Police Department and Public Works Department, Traffic and Development Services Division, so that street traffic is not obstructed. Draft Environmental impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Dreg Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation Potential construction - related traffic impacts, which could include slowing of local traffic and impeding turning movements at private driveways would be avoided through the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP. To ensure that this project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts, and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, the Construction Management Plan has addressed all aspects of the construction phase, including traffic control and haul routes by regulating the number of haul trucks accessing and leaving the site, for instance. The construction traffic (i.e., a maximum of four trips per hour) would not adversely affect any intersection operations during either the a.m. or p.m. peak hours; therefore, no significant traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the site on a barge to the dock location. The proposed Construction Management Plan is enforceable through monitoring, which will be the responsibility of the contractor. Additional restrictions may be imposed by the Public Works Department in the event traffic congestion problems arise. Construction Parking The total construction period is estimated to extend approximately 32 months over four phases that vary in duration from five to 18 months. During these construction phases, the daily construction employee work force will vary from phase to phase, depending on the construction activity. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an average of 25 workers will be at the job site each day during Phase I and 45 workers each day during Phase II. During Phases III and IV, when work will mostly occur indoors, an average of 60 to 80 workers would be expected to be on -site on a daily basis. In order to ensure that adequate employee parking is provided to workers during each phase of construction, the CMP includes a detailed parking management plan. This plan mandates the following: Construction workers are prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard (or any residential street in the neighborhood). In stead, the applicant will secure one or more binding off -site parking agreements to accommodate the varying number of workers needed for each construction phase. The off -site parking location(s) will be located within a five -mile radius of the site. The off -site parking agreement shall be presented to the City prior to the issuance of permits required for the phase of construction that will require the off -site parking. The agreement will also ensure that one of the off -site parking locations will: (1) commit a sufficient number of parking spaces to Aerie construction workers during the relevant term, and (2) the off -site location possesses the proper permits and authority to rent the subject spaces. Shuttles will transfer construction workers from the remote parking locations to the project site. Specifically, two 10- passenger shuttle vans will run up to eight trips each morning and evening and up to five trips at lunch, assuming that some workers will remain at the jobsite during lunch. Carpooling among construction workers will also be encouraged throughout the duration of the construction phases. Once vehicular elevators are installed, workers will be permitted to park in the completed on -site garages. It is anticipated that approximately 31 cars will be able to park on -site once the parking garage is completed. Personnel will be provided to assist in parking the construction workers on -site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation As previously indicated, construction workers will be prohibited from parking on Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Compliance with this prohibition will be monitored daily by the construction valet and flagmen team. However, this prohibition shall not apply to short-term visitors to the site such as City inspectors, City staff, architects, and consultants. Carpooling will also be encouraged among professionals. 4.2.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impact The net changes in trip generation, which are summarized in Table 4.2 -2, assume that only three of the units are occupied, consistent with the "baseline" condition. As indicated in the table, project implementation represents an increase of 24 trips per day, including 2 a.m. peak hour trips and 2 p.m. peak hour trips. When compared to the potential occupancy of the 15 dwelling units that exist on the site, the project would generate 57 fewer daily trips and 4 fewer a.m. peak hour trips and 6 fewer p.m. peak hour trips. Table 4.2 -2 Net Change in Traffic Generation The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an Increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Parking Ingress /Egress The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -5 Dwelling Daily AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Units ADT ADT ADT Potential 15 104 8 10 Occupant; c Baselin e 3 23 2 2 Proposed 8 47 4 4 Net Change from Baseline 5 24 2 2 'Assumes all units are occupied. 2 "Baseline" conditions reflects 3 units currently occupied, including the SFD home and two apartments. SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers The City requires that a traffic analysis be prepared for projects that generate 300 or more trips per day. As indicated in Table 4.2 -2, the proposed project does not reach the minimum threshold; therefore, a traffic analysis was not required. Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, it likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an Increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic in excess of established thresholds. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant long -term traffic impacts. No mitigation measures are required. Parking Ingress /Egress The project proposes a unique access plan that includes a four -level parking garage with a total of 25 parking spaces for the 6 condominiums, not including the six private auto lifts. These spaces include 16 for residents, eight visitor spaces, and one service vehicle space; two parking spaces have also been provided for golf carts. In addition, the garage is also equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential parking Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -5 Aene PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 - Traffic and Circulation spaces, which can be used by the residents themselves to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three per unit. Access to the parking garage is proposed to be via a driveway on Carnation Avenue, which leads directly to /from vehicle elevators located at the face of the building. Two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located four feet below street level and do not take access via the proposed elevators. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor; residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through the touch of a button. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The entrance elevator will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that it is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site when it is not in use, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another keypad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10'x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and a maximum of approximately one minute round trip back to the street. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Two spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. These spaces are within the three sub- basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by vehicle elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. The project would require a total of 16 spaces for residents and 4 spaces for guests for a total of 20 spaces for the proposed 8 -unit project. As indicated in Table 4.2 -3, the project proposes 25 parking spaces for residents and guests, exceeding the minimum 20 off - street parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. Six additional parking spaces are also provided for six of the units by employing the use of the lifts. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aene PA2005 -196- Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.2 -3 Proposed Off-Street Parking Requirements Section 4.2— Traffic and Circulation Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry" elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field - measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the 8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue. Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two to three minutes. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -7 Code No. of Required No. of Parking Type Requirement Parking Spaces Spaces Provided Multi - Family Residential 2 Spaces /Unit' 16 232 4 or more DUs Guests 0.5 /S ace /unit 4 8 Total 20 31 'Includes one (1) covered parking space. 2Includes 17 "at- grade' parking spaces and 6 "lift" parking (i.e., parking spaces located above surface parking spaces requiring the use of a lift). 3Total parking does not include two (2) golf cart parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces also provided. All parking spaces are covered. SOURCE: Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 20.66.030) Brion Jeannette Architecture Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three (3) additional on- street public parking spaces. The addition of these on- street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. The approaches to /from the doors are designed such that motorists drive straight in and straight out of the elevators. Exiting vehicles proceed when the door opens and do not face another entering vehicle. A driver wishing to exit the garage utilizes the "exit" elevator, which is adjacent to, but does not conflict with the "entry" elevator. The entire elevator loading, elevator motion and unloading procedure requires between one and one and one half minutes. The AFA analysis investigated three condominium complexes with similar characteristics located in the immediate vicinity of the project to conduct counts and evaluate the potential for circulation conflicts. The study was conducted in order to evaluate the potential for ingress /egress queuing at the property. Traffic counts taken by AFA included minute -by- minute observation of the arrivals and departures from the three condominium complexes (8, 15, and 42 units) during the a.m., noon, and p.m. peak two hour periods. Based on those observations, only during one minute did the arrival rate reach as high as three vehicles per minute and that was only one time for the 15 -unit condominium project. On six occasions, two vehicles per minute arrived at the same time; however, that was associated with the 42 -uinit complex. Based on the actual field - measured arrival rates, it is estimated that rarely, if ever, will the queue of waiting vehicles at the entry of the 8 -unit project (only seven of which will utilize the elevators) back out onto Carnation Avenue. Although a vehicle back -up onto Carnation Avenue is expected to be a rare occurrence due to the proximity of the elevators to Carnation Avenue, the question of safety was also examined by AFA and documented in the study prepared for the proposed project. Existing traffic counts on Carnation Avenue are modest; the traffic volumes observed were 24 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. These figures equate to less than one vehicle every three to four minutes. The elevators can completely cycle in less than two to three minutes. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.2 — Traffic and Circulation The parking garage design is not limited to the access via vehicle elevator rather than ramps. As previously indicated, the garage is also proposed to be equipped with mechanical vehicle lifts in six of the residential spaces. The lifts will be used by the residents to increase their own parking from two spaces per unit to three spaces per unit (for six of the eight units). The lift operation requires the lower space to be vacant before the lift is either raised or lowered. Review of the floor plans revealed that there is available space behind the lifts to back a vehicle off or pull another on, then raise the left to open up the lower space. Therefore, in order to have three spaces per unit, the vehicle in the lower space must be moved elsewhere (e.g., perhaps out of the garage itself) while the lift is being operated. The AFA analysis concluded that the garage access design, which utilizes two vehicle elevators would not create any substantial vehicle queuing onto Carnation Avenue. This is particularly true for the project because only seven of the eight units will utilize the vehicle elevators. With one vehicle lift for each of six units combined with single car elevators, evacuation of all vehicles from the garage could be difficult in an emergency situation and both elevators may need to be operated as exit only in such a case. Circulation Element Consistency Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Circulation Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Circulation Element and the CLUP. In addition, the proposed project is also consistent with the applicable goals and policies articulated in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide adopted by SCAG, as reflected in Table 4.1 -3 in Section 4.1. Public Transportation There are no transit facilities or service either on or along the frontage of this site (i.e., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue); however, public transit service is provided along West Coast Highway and other arterial streets within the City. This project will not necessitate the realignment of any existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity. Project implementation would not create a significant demand for public transit due to the reduction in the number of dwelling units on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.5 Mitigation Measures All of the potential construction traffic impacts will be avoided through the implementation of the measures identified in Section 4.2.4.1 and prescribed in the CMP for the proposed project. Furthermore, no significant long -term impacts (e.g., queuing, congestion, etc.) are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions identified in Section 4.2.3 and the measures prescribed in the Construction Management Plan will ensure that potentially significant traffic impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level; no mitigation measures are required. No significant unavoidable traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.2 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air 4.3 AIR QUALITY 4.3.1 Existing Conditions Climate Climate in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The Pacific Ocean forms the southwestern border, and high mountains surround the rest of the SCAB. The SCAB lies in the semi- permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific; the resulting climate is mild and tempered by cool ocean breezes. This climatological pattern is rarely interrupted. However, periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana wind conditions do occur. The annual average temperature varies little throughout the Basin, ranging from the low to middle 60s, measured in degrees Fahrenheit. With a more pronounced oceanic influence, coastal areas show less variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures than inland areas. The climatological station closest to the site is the Newport Beach Station. The monthly average maximum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 63.3 °F in January to 73.5 °F in August, with an annual average maximum of 67.8 °F. The monthly average minimum temperature recorded at this station in the past 71 years ranged from 47.0 °F in January to 63.4 °F in August, with an annual average minimum of 54.8 °F. January is typically the coldest month, and August is typically the warmest month in this area of the Basin. During spring and early summer, pollution produced during any one day is typically blown out of the SCAB through mountain passes or lifted by warm, vertical currents adjacent to mountain slopes. Air contaminants can be transported 60 miles or more from the SCAB by ocean air during the afternoons. From early fall to winter, the transport is less pronounced because of slower average wind speed and the appearance of drainage winds earlier in the day. During stagnant wind conditions, offshore drainage winds may begin by late afternoon. Pollutants remaining in the SCAB are trapped and begin to accu- mulate during the night and the following morning. A low morning wind speed in pollutant source areas is an important indicator of air stagnation and the potential for buildup of primary air contaminants. Temperature normally decreases with altitude, and a reversal of this atmospheric state, where temperature increases with altitude, is called an inversion. The height from the earth to the inversion base is known as the mixing height. Persistent low inversions and cool coastal air tend to create morning fog and low stratus clouds. Cloudy days are less likely in the eastern portions of the SCAB and are about 25 percent more likely along the coast. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is limited by temperature inversions in the atmosphere close to the earth's surface. Inversions are generally lower in the nighttime, when the ground is cool, than during daylight hours when the sun warms the ground and, in turn, the surface air layer. As this heating process continues, the temperature of the surface air layer approaches the temperature of the inversion base, causing heating along its lower edge. If enough warming takes place, the inversion layer becomes weak and opens up to allow the surface air layers to mix upward. This can be seen in the middle to late afternoon on a hot summer day when the smog appears to clear up suddenly. Winter inversions typically break earlier in the day, preventing excessive contaminant buildup. The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. In the winter, the greatest pollution problem is accumulation of carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen due to extremely low inversions and air stagnation during the night and early morning hours. In the summer, the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality longer daylight hours and the brighter sunshine combine to cause a reaction between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen to form photochemical smog. Air Quality Management Federal Regulations /Standards Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS). The NAAQS were established for six major pollutants, termed "criteria" pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS), or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment' or "non- attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Non - attainment areas are imposed with additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of the CAA for the SCAB. The EPA established new national air quality standards for ground level ozone (03) and fine particulate matter in 1997. On May 14, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision ruling that the CAA, as applied in setting the new public health standards for ozone and particulate matter, was unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA. On February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the way the government sets air quality standards under the CAA. The court unanimously rejected industry arguments that the EPA must consider financial cost as well as health benefits in writing standards. The justices also rejected arguments that the EPA took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Nevertheless, the court threw out the EPA's policy for implementing new ozone rules, saying that the agency ignored a section of the law that restricts its authority to enforce such rules. In April 2003, the EPA was cleared by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement the eight -hour ground -level ozone standard. The EPA issued the proposed rule implementing the eight -hour ozone standard in April 2003. The EPA completed final eight -hour non - attainment status on April 15, 2004. The EPA revoked the one -hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. The EPA issued the final particulate matter (PM2.5) implementation rule in fall 2004. The EPA issued final designations for PM2,5 attainment status on December 14, 2004. The EPA lowered the 24 -hour PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 ug /m3 and revoked the annual average PM10 standard in December 2006. State Regulations /Standards The State of California began to set California ambient air quality standards ( CAAQS) in 1969 under the mandate of the Mulford - Carrell Act. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. In addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS, there are CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. Originally, there were no attainment deadlines for CAAQS. However, the CCAA of 1988 provided a time frame and a planning structure to promote their attainment. The CCAA required non - attainment areas in the State to prepare attainment plans and proposed to classify each such area on the basis of the submitted plan, as follows: moderate, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1994; Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality serious, if CAAQS attainment could not occur before December 31, 1997; and severe, if CAAQS attainment could not be conclusively demonstrated at all. The attainment plans are required to achieve a minimum 5 percent annual reduction in the emissions of non - attainment pollutants unless all feasible measures have been implemented. The State has currently classified the Basin as a non - attainment area for three criteria pollutants; 03, PM10, and PM2.5• Regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) The 1976 Lewis Air Quality Management Act established the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and other air districts throughout the State. The federal CAA Amendments of 1977 required that each state adopt an implementation plan outlining pollution control measures to attain the federal standards in non - attainment areas of the state. The ARB coordinates and oversees both State and federal air pollution control programs in California. It oversees activities of local air quality management agencies and is responsible for incorporating air quality management plans for local air basins into a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for EPA approval. The ARB maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the State in conjunction with local air districts. Data collected at these stations are used by the ARB to classify air basins as attainment or non - attainment with respect to each pollutant and to monitor progress in attaining air quality standards. The ARB has divided the State into 15 air basins. Significant authority for air quality control within them has been given to local air districts that regulate stationary source emissions and develop local non - attainment plans. The SCAQMD and the SCAG are responsible for formulating and implementing the AQMP for the Basin. Every three years the SCAQMD prepares a new AQMP, updating the previous plan and having a 20 -year horizon. The SCAQMD adopted the 2003 AQMP in August 2003 and forwarded it to ARB for review and approval. The ARB approved a modified version of the 2003 AQMP and forwarded it to the EPA in October 2003 for review and approval. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for the federal standards for 03 and PM10; replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration for the federal CO standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the Basin has met since 1992. This revision to the AQMP also addresses several State and federal planning requirements and incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emissions inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. This AQMP is consistent with and builds upon the approaches taken in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 Amendments to the ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin for the attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. However, this revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/1999 Plan) to offset increased emission estimates from mobile sources and meet all federal criteria pollutant standards within the time frames allowed under the federal Clean Air Act. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2007 AQMP, which it describes as a regional and multi- agency effort (i.e., the SCAQMD Governing Board, ARB, SCAG, and EPA). State and federal planning requirements will include developing control strategies, attainment demonstration, reasonable further progress, and maintenance plans. The 2007 AQMP also incorporates significant new scientific data, primarily in the form of updated emission inventories, ambient measurements, new meteorological episodes, and new air quality modeling tools. The SCAQMD has forwarded the 2007 AQMP to the ARB and EPA for their review and approval. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Ambient Air Quality Regional Air Quality Both the State of California (State) and the federal government have established health -based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SOA coarse particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility- reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. In addition to setting out primary and secondary AAQS, the State of California has established a set of episode criteria for ozone, CO, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These criteria refer to episode levels representing periods of short-term exposure to air pollutants that actually threaten public health. Health effects are progressively more severe as pollutant levels increase from Stage One to Stage Three. Table 4.3 -1 lists the health effects of these criteria pollutants and their potential sources. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety (EPA), these health effects would not occur unless the standards are exceeded by a large margin. The State AAQS are more stringent than the federal AAQS. Table 4.3 -1 Summary of Health Effects of the Major Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Primary Effects Ozone (03) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases Aggravation of respiratory and with nitrogen oxides in the presence of cardiovascular diseases. sunlight. Irritation of eyes. Impairment of cardiopulmonary function. Plant leaf injury. Nitrogen Motor vehicle exhaust. Aggravation of respiratory illness. Dioxide (NO2) High temperature stationary Reduced visibility. combustion. Reduced plant growth. Atmospheric reactions. Formation of acid rain. Carbon Byproducts from incomplete Reduced tolerance for exercise. Monoxide combustion of fuels and other carbon Impairment of mental function. (CO) containing substances, such as motor Impairment of fetal development. exhaust. Death at high levels of exposure. Natural events, such as decomposition Aggravation of some heart diseases of organic matter. (angina). Suspended Stationary combustion of solid fuels. Reduced lung function. Particulate Construction activities. Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Matter (PM2.5 Industrial processes. pollutants. and PM10) Atmospheric chemical reactions. Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases. Increased cough and chest discomfort. Soiling. Reduced visibility. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 - Air Pollutant Sources Primag Effects Sulfur Dioxide Combustion of sulfur- containing fossil Aggravation of respiratory diseases (SO2) fuels. (asthma, emphysema). PMio Smelting of sulfur- bearing metal ores. Reduced lung function. PM2.5 Industrial processes. Irritation of eyes. CO Attainment (except Los Angeles Count Reduced visibility. NO2 Attainment Plant injury. S02 Attainment Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, Lead Attainment finishes, coatings, etc. Lead (Pb) Contaminated soil (e.g., from leaded Impairment of blood function and nerve SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007 fuels and lead -based paints). construction. Behavioral and hearing problems in children. SOURCE: Air Resources Board 2005 The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD and other air districts with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this would be the motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall, and on highways. The SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution throughout its jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Air Pollution Constituents and Attainment Status Table 4.3 -2 summarizes the attainment status in the SCAB for the major criteria pollutants. Table 4.3 -2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Pollutant State Federal Ozone -1 hour Non - attainment Standard Revoked June 2005 Ozone -8 hour Not Established Severe 17 Non - attainment PMio Non - attainment Serious Non - attainment PM2.5 Non - attainment Nan - attainment CO Attainment (except Los Angeles Count Attainment NO2 Attainment Attainment/Maintenance S02 Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Ail others Attainment/Unclassifled Attainment/Unclassified SOURCE: Air Resources Board (July 2007 The criteria air pollutants and their attainment status in the SCAB based on ARB's Area Designations, Activities, and Maps are described below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 G16dd Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 — Air Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas typical of Southern California smog. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during summer and early fall. The entire SCAB is designated as a non - attainment area for the State one - hour ozone standard. The EPA has officially designated the status for the SCAB regarding the eight -hour ozone standard as "Severe 17;' which means the SCAB has until 2021 to attain the federal eight -hour ozone standard. Carbon Monoxide. CO is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. The entire SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for the federal CO standards. In addition, Orange County has been designated by the ARB to be an attainment area for State CO standards. Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NOA a reddish brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a color- less, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. It also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition (i.e., acid rain). NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. The entire SCAB has not exceeded both federal and State standards for nitrogen dioxide in the past five years with published monitoring data. It is designated as an attainment area under both federal and State standards. Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. The entire SCAB is in attainment with both federal and State sulfur dioxide standards. Lead. Lead is found in old paints and coatings, plumbing, and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream, lead can cause damage to the brain, nervous system, and other body systems. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead. The entire SCAB is in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles (all particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter, or PM10) derive from a variety of sources, including windblown dust and grinding operations. Fuel combustion and resultant exhaust from power plants and diesel buses and trucks are primarily responsible for fine particle (less than 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) levels. Fine particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Coarse particles (PM1e) can accumulate in the respiratory system and aggravate health problems such as asthma. The EPA's scientific review concluded that fine particles (PM2.5), which penetrate deeply into the lungs, are more likely than coarse particles to contribute to the health effects listed in a number of recently published community epidemiological studies at concentrations that extend well below those allowed by the current PM1e standards. These health effects include premature death and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease such as asthma); decreased lung functions (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and alterations in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.3 — Air lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms. The entire SCAB is a non - attainment area for the federal and State PM1e and PM2.5standards. Local Air Quality The SCAQMD, together with the ARB, maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the SCAB. The air quality monitoring station closest to the site is the Costa Mesa station, and its air quality trends are representative of the ambient air quality in the project area. The pollutants monitored are CO, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. The levels of particulate matter monitored at the Mission Viejo Station (the station closest to the project site that monitors these pollutants) are included in these tables for reference. The ambient air quality data in Table 4.3 -3 shows that nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and CO levels are below the relevant State and federal standards in the project area. Ozone levels exceed the State one - hour standard and federal eight -hour ozone standard from one to two times a year in 2004 and were below the federal and State standards in 2005 and 2006. The PM10 level monitored at the Mission Viejo station exceeded the State annual arithmetic average standards in two of the past three years but has not exceeded the federal standards since 1996. PM2.5 levels monitored at the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station were below the federal standard in the past three years. Table 4.3.3 Ambient Air Quality at the Costa Mesa /Mission Viejo Air Monitoring Stations Pollutant Standard 2004 2005 2006 Carbon Monoxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 4.9 4.7 3.5 No. days exceeded: State > 20 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 35 m/1 -hr 0 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 4.1 3.2 3.0 No. days exceeded:State 9.0 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Federal 9 m/8 -hr 0 0 0 Ozone Max 1 -hr concentration m 0.104 0.085 0.074 No. days exceeded: State > 0.09 m/1 -hr 2 0 0 Max 8 -hr concentration m 0.087 0.072 0.062 No. days exceeded: Federal > 0.08 m/8 -hr 1 0 0 Particulates PM,o Max 24 -hr concentration /m 47 41 57 No. days exceeded: State > 50 lm /24 -hr 0 0 1 Federal > 150 Im /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average /m 24 18 21 Exceeded: State > 20 /m ann. arith. av . Yes No Yes Federal > 50 Im ann. arith. av . No No No Particulates PM2.5 Max 24 -hr concentration /m 49.4 35.3 46.9 No. days exceeded: Federal > 65 /m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual Arithmetic Average /m 12 11 ND Exceeded: State > 12 /m ann. arith. av . No No ND Federal > 15 /m ann. arith. av . No No ND Nitrogen Dioxide Max 1 -hr concentration m 7 0.097 0.085 0.101 No. days exceeded: State > 0.25 m /1 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.014 0.015 Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Pollutant Standard 2004 2005 2006 > 0.053 ppm ann. arith. Exceeded: Federal avg. No No No Sulfur Dioxide Max 24 -hr concentration m 0.008 0.008 0.005 No. days exceeded: State > 0.04 m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Federal > 0.14 m /24 -hr 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (Ppm) 0.002 0.001 0.001 > 0.030 ppm ann. arith. Exceeded: Federal avg. No No No PMIO and PM2s data from the Mission Viejo Station. All other data from the Costa Mesa station. ppm — parts per million pg /m3 — micrograms (of pollutant) per cubic meter (of air) ND — No sufficient data. SOURCE: EPA and ARB; 2004 to 2006 Global Warming Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth's average near - surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 t 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities ". The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (COO and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human - induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc. and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, released by natural sources, or formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. In the last 200 years, mankind has been releasing substantial quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere. These man -made emissions are increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While man -made greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, some like the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are completely new to the atmosphere. Natural sources of carbon dioxide include the respiration (breathing) of animals and plants, and evaporation from the oceans. Together, these natural sources release about 150 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year worldwide, far outweighing the estimated 7 billion tons of man -made emissions per year from fossil fuel burning, waste incineration, deforestation and cement manufacture. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land and ocean - dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man -made carbon dioxide, and consequently the gas is building up in the atmosphere. Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Man -made sources include the mining and burning of fossil fuels, digestive processes in ruminant animals such as cattle, rice paddies and the burying of waste in landfills. Total annual emissions of methane are about 500 million tons, with man- made emissions accounting for the majority. As for carbon dioxide, the major removal process of atmospheric methane — (i.e., chemical breakdown in the atmosphere) cannot keep pace with source emissions, resulting in an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air In the fall of 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the global warming bill, into law. AB 32 codifies the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. AB 32 requires that that the State Air Resources Board adopt regulations by January 1, 2008, to require reporting and verification of statewide greenhouse gas emissions and to monitor and enforce compliance with that program. To date, there are no regulations adopted to implement AB 32 and there are no significance thresholds yet established for GHG emissions. The emission levels in California have been estimated to be 426 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 1990, 473 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2000, 532 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2010, and 600 million metric tons CO2 equivalent for 2020. AB 32's goals for emission reductions have been estimated to be approximately 174 million tons CO2 equivalent by 2020 based on the 2007 AQMP. Achieving AB 32's target will require significant development and implementation of energy efficiency technologies and extensive shifting of energy production to renewable sources. In addition to reducing GHGs, such strategies would concurrently reduce emissions of criteria pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. 4.3.2 Significance Criteria The State CEQA Guidelines suggest, from an "air quality" perspective, that a project would normally be judged to produce a significant or potentially significant effect on the environment if the project were to: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" is defined to mean "that the incremental effects of an individual 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" In order to determine whether or not a proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of emissions generated and its impacts on factors that affect air quality. To accomplish this determination of significance, the SCAQMD has established air pollution thresholds against which a proposed project can be evaluated and assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the proposed project would generate significant air emissions. If the thresholds are exceeded by a proposed project, then it should be considered significant. While, the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the construction or operational phase of a proposed project is significant. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed any of the air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These threshold factors are included below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Construction Phase Section 4.3 — Air The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by the SCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions: • 75 pounds per day for ROG • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day of SOx • 150 pounds per day for PM10 • 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutant thresholds are exceeded by the proposed project, then the project's air quality impacts may be considered significant. Operational Phase Specific criteria air pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants of special regional concern. Based upon this categorization, the following emissions significance thresholds have been established by the SCAQMD for project operations: 55 pounds per day for ROG 55 pounds per day for NOx 550 pounds per day for CO 150 pounds per day of SOx 150 pounds per day for PM1e 55 pounds per day of PM2.5 Projects with daily operation - related emissions that exceed any of the above emission thresholds may be considered significant. The SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of its Handbook that it considers a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its primary effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. Localized Emission Standards In addition to the mass daily threshold values presented above, the SCAQMD has established the following threshold criteria to determine if a project has the potential to contribute to an exceedance of the State Ambient Air Quality Standards. California State 1 -hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm California State 8 -hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm California State 1 -hour NO2 standard of 0.18 ppm SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM10 standard of 10.4 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour construction PM2.5 standard of 10.4 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM1e standard of 2.5 pg /m3 SCAQMD 24 -hour operational PM2.5 standard of 2.5 pg /m3 The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of the project are above or below State standards. If ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have significant impacts if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. Again, the SCAQMD indicates in Chapter 6 of their Handbook that they consider a project to be mitigated to a level of insignificance if its effects are mitigated below the thresholds provided above. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.3.3 Standard Conditions Section 4.3 —Air SC 4.3 -1 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which sets requirements for dust control associated with grading and construction activities. SC 4.3 -2 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2, which require the use of low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. SC 4.3 -3 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108, which sets limitations on ROG content in asphalt. SC 4.3 -4 The proposed project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113, which sets limitations on ROG content in architectural coatings. SC 4.3 -5 The proposed project shall comply with Title 24 energy - efficient design requirements as well as the provide window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. As indicated above, the project will be subject to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) during construction. SCAQMD Rule 403 does not require a permit for construction activities, per se, but rather, sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites (as well as other fugitive dust sources) in the SCAB. The general requirement prohibits a person from causing or allowing emissions of fugitive dust from construction (or other fugitive dust source) such that the presence of such dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emissions source. SCAQMD Rule 403 also prohibits a construction site from causing an incremental PM10 concentration impact at the property line of more than 50 micrograms per cubic meter as determined through PM1e high - volume sampling, but the concentration standard and associated PM1e sampling do not apply if specific measures identified in the rule are implemented and appropriately documented. In accordance with Rule 403, the SCAQMD requires that contractors implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for construction activities. Rule 403 identifies two sets of specific measures, one for projects less than 50 acres, and another set of conditions for projects that exceed 50 acres. 4.3.4 Potential Impacts 4.3.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Impacts Air quality impacts may occur during demolition activities, site preparation, and construction activities necessary to implement the proposed project. Major sources of emissions during construction typically include exhaust emissions generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during demolition and grading activities, and the emissions of reactive organic compounds during site paving and painting of the structures. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air As reflected in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), an extensive construction management plan was developed to include all phases of the proposed construction effort on a day -by -day basis. Equipment emissions are based on the OFFROAD2007 emissions model while vehicle emissions are based in the EMFAC2007 emissions model. In accordance with requirements under SCAQMD Rule 403 for dust suppression, a 55 percent control factor is applied to the demolition activities. A similar control efficiency is used by the URBEMIS2007 model for twice daily watering of graded surfaces. The project site includes approximately 1.4 acres of land. The URBEMIS model estimates that 25 percent of this area (0.35 acre) is disturbed on a daily basis. This acreage (i.e., 0.35 acre) is then used in the calculation of daily dust emissions, which are assumed to occur during excavation and grading activities. Based on the URBEMIS model, a value of 20 pounds per acre per day is assumed. Also, based on the URBEMIS model, a suppression of 55 percent is assumed for adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 as required for all projects constructed in the Southland. Truck trips are also included for the removal of debris and delivery of materials. The structures are then constructed over time with various phases of construction overlapping each other. Some of these phases involve work over five days a week while others would extend this to six days a week. The analysis includes both, and in these cases presents those emissions for the five days a week that overlap (though the greenhouse gas analysis considers the sixth day in its total). The URBEMIS model considers dust emissions negligible during the construction of the actual structures, and this analysis follows that approach. Like excavation, the analysis includes the daily delivery of materials to the site. The structure is painted in the final stages of construction. The major source of emissions associated with the application of paints and surface coatings is from the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These are also a form ROG and are assessed as such. The architect has specified that interior paint is to contain no more than 10 grams per liter and exterior paint is to contain no more than 27 grams per liter of VOC. The area to be painted is based on data included with the URBEMIS model. All interior surfaces are to receive three coats while exterior surfaces would receive one coat. While the application of asphalt also releases VOC emissions, no asphalt is proposed for the project and these surfaces will be of concrete construction. Based on the emissions estimated for each phase of the project's construction, none of the significance thresholds for any of the pollutants would be exceeded on a daily basis. Table 1 in Appendix D summarizes the daily emissions projected for site construction. As noted above, some phases of construction would occur five days a week whereas others would use six days. The table presents those five days of overlap in calculation of the worst -case days. (Greenhouse gases, discussed later in this analysis, also include these "sixth day" emissions.) As indicated in the emissions calculation presented in Appendix D, all daily emissions are under their respective criteria levels and the impact is less than significant. Equipment and vehicle calculation spreadsheets showing the daily specifics for each phase are also included in Appendix D. Short-Term Localized Impacts In addition to the mass daily threshold standards, project construction has the potential to raise localized ambient pollutant concentrations. If these concentrations were to exceed the State ambient air quality standards at receptor locations, a potentially significant impact could occur. The SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the construction of projects up to five acres in size. These tables are included in Sample Construction Scenarios for Projects Less than Five Acres in Size (February 2005) (Sample Construction Scenarios). The emissions values included in the screening tables are based on the emissions produced at the site (e.g., air compressors, back hoes, etc.) and do not include mobile source emissions (i.e., trucks and worker vehicles) that are spread over a much larger area. The Aerie residential project site is consists of about 1.4 acres so it fits within the Sample Construction Scenarios. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Screening level allowable daily emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate look -up tables" included in Appendix L of the Sample Construction Scenarios. The project borders on Source Receptor Areas (SRA) 18 and 20. In accordance with Appendix L of Sample Construction Scenarios, projects of 1.4 acres in size located in either SRA 18 (North Coastal Orange County) or SRA 20 (Central Orange County Coastal) would not create significant localized emissions impacts if CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 levels do not exceed 392.2, 185.2, 5.2, and 5.2 pounds per day, respectively. According to Table 1 in Appendix D, peak day CO and NOx levels are projected at 50.90 and 87.02 pounds per day, respectively, including both on -site equipment and off -site mobile sources. On -site values are well under the screening table limits and the localized impact of these two pollutants is less than significant. The highest levels of PM10 and PM2.5 are produced during the initial demolition phase with the majority of these emissions due to fugitive dust. These activities are estimated to result in 5.94 pounds of PM10 and 1.75 pounds of PM2,5 per day produced from on -site sources, including both equipment exhaust and fugitive dust. These values include a dust suppression control efficiency of 55 percent as based on requirements of SCAQMD Rule 403. While the value for PM2.5, is under the screening threshold and less than significant, the PM1e value exceeds it slightly. All other on -site construction phases and activities are projected to remain within the PM10 5.2 pounds - per -day screening threshold and would not result in localized impacts. The URBEMIS Model indicates that three - times, rather than twice -daily watering, would improve the dust control efficiency to a minimum of 65 percent (rather than 55 percent). As indicated in Section 6.2 of the Construction Management Plan, during grading activities, any exposed soil areas will be watered at least four times per day and stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials will be covered or watered three times daily. Implementation of these measures, which are identified below, will ensure that potential short-term dust impacts will not occur. The project shall comply with the Fugitive Dust Emission and Control Plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (under Rule 403). Dust will be minimized using water as control. Site and debris watering shall be performed a minimum of three times daily during demolition activities. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered three times daily. In addition, trucks carrying soil and debris shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. On windy days, or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever wind conditions exceed 325 miles per hour. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. This action would reduce PM10 associated with fugitive dust from 5.20 pounds per day to 4.04 pounds per day. When combined with PM10 from on -site equipment, daily on -site PM10 emissions are reduced to 4.78 pounds per day. This value with the implementation of the measures prescribed in the CMP is under the screening threshold of 5.2 pounds per day. Therefore, the potential PM10 impact is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 - Air Quality 4.3.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Mobile Source Emissions The occupation of the site is based on the URBEMIS2007 model. The URBEMIS default value for condominiums is 5.86 vehicle trips per unit. In accordance with the ITE Trip Generation Manual, these values can range from 1.83 to 11.79 trips per unit. Based on the size of the proposed units, as a worst -case scenario this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD Handbook and Internet web site updates. The Handbook recommends assessing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC or ROG) as an indicator of ozone. Emissions are based on a year 2013 occupancy. Both summer and winter scenarios were modeled and the higher of the two values are included in Table 4.3-4. Note that all values are within their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Model runs are included in the Appendix D. Table 4.3 -4 Daily Operational Emissions' Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 5 COz Mobile Sources 0.47 0.64 5.43 0.01 1.19 0.23 673.48 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.13 Landscape Maintenance 0.12 0.02 1.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 2.81 Consumer Products 0.41 - - Structural Maintenance 0.01 - - -- - Operational Total 1.02 0.74 7.01 0.01 1.20 0.24 776.42 Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 NT Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No No 'All figures in pounds per day. ZAveraged from the summer and winter emissions. 3 N - No Threshold. SOURCE: Synectecology (December 2008 Stationary Source Emissions In addition to vehicle trips, the proposed land uses would produce emissions from on -site sources. The combustion of natural gas for heating the structures and water would occur. Landscaping would be maintained requiring the use of gardening equipment and their attendant emissions. Additionally, the structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time resulting in the release of VOC emissions. The resultant emissions are projected by the URBEMIS2007 computer model and included in Table 4.3-4. Similar to mobile source emissions, all stationary source emissions are below their respective threshold values and the impact is less than significant. Long -Term Localized Impacts Long -term emissions also have the potential to exceed ambient air quality standards. Because operational emissions are mostly the product vehicle travel, these impacts are typically produced along the roadways. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air the atmosphere; adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion that have the potential to create "pockets" of CO are called "hot spots." These hot spots typically occur at intersections where vehicle speeds are reduced and idle time is increased. As noted above, as a worst -case scenario, this analysis uses a trip rate of 11.79 trips per unit per day and the project is estimated to result in 94 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the EMFAC2007 computer model, the peak traffic hour in Orange County includes 7.7 percent of the daily vehicle miles traveled. Assuming that the vehicles associated with the Aerie project follow a similar pattern, approximately seven vehicle trips would occur during the peak hour. This value is too small to add measurably to the CO emissions concentrations at any local intersections. Impacts to Sensitive Receptors Criteria Pollutants In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The project is of a size such that it does not result in daily emissions above either the construction or operational threshold values suggested by the SCAQMD and as such, the project does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. '411110MOTM The project site contains existing structures that would be removed during the first phase of construction. Based on the type and age of structures to be removed, asbestos containing materials (ACM), which could include floor tiles and mastics, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, base cove mastic, carpet glue, thermal system insulation, spray - applied fireproofing ceiling plaster, and roofing mastics, felts and flashing would be removed. Additionally, lead -based paint would be removed. Demolition and renovation activities that involve ACM are strictly regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities) adopted on October 8, 1989 and amended April 8, 1994. The purpose of this rule is to specify work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, and storage, disposal and landfilling requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials (ACWM). All operators are required to maintain records, including waste shipment records, and are required to use appropriate warning labels, signs, and markings. Any demolition work involving asbestos - containing material must be identified and potential emissions of asbestos determined. Any building to be demolished or renovation that involves asbestos - containing material would be subject to provisions related to the following tasks: Asbestos surveying (inspection, identification, quantification) to be conducted by a qualified environmental laboratory, and SCAQMD notification to include project description, removal procedures and time schedules (options provided in Rule), material handling and clean -up, material storage and disposal methods. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality All handling and removal of ACM must be performed by a certified California State licensed contractor that has been certified under the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA). All workers must undergo 40 hours of hazardous materials handling training and receive 8 hours of refresher training on a yearly basis. Similarly, lead paint is as a toxic material and its removal is regulated as such. Like asbestos removal, workers are trained and certified in the handling of these materials. Where necessary, actual asbestos and lead paint removal would be accomplished under a negative pressure environment with high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, through the use of a glove bag or through adequate wetting. These materials are to be contained in certified leak -proof containers and the general public is not allowed access to the demolition -site. Mandatory compliance with notification and removal processes identified in the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations would ensure that any potential impacts remain below a level considered significant. Objectionable Odors Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing concrete and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact because they will be short-term in nature and would not affect a significant number of people. Greenhouse Gases At the present time, greenhouse gases are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. Furthermore, the Final 2007 AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. Nevertheless, in order to provide decision - makers with as much information as possible, this analysis quantifies, to the extent feasible, potential greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed development. As indicated in Table 1 in Appendix D and Table 4.3-4, greenhouse gas emissions for both construction activities and operational activities (i.e., mobile and stationary source emissions) have been calculated to provide decision - makers with information related to greenhouse gases. These impacts are summarized below. Construction Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of greenhouse gases. Construction CO2 emissions are also included in Table 4.3-4, above. In accordance with the projected construction schedule, approximately 4,335,633 pounds (2,168 tons) of CO2 would be produced over the active construction period. Site Operations In the case of site operations, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, and specifically COZ, is due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. As indicated in Table 2 in Appendix D, the URBEMIS2007 model projects that on average 776.42 pounds (0.4 ton) of CO2 would be produced daily or about 283,393 pounds (142 tons) per year. These emissions include mobile sources, the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, and the use of landscape maintenance equipment. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality The generation of electricity also creates GHG emissions. Electricity used in the SCAB comes from within local areas, the State, and other states. There is no way to determine the point of origin for these emissions and as such, these emissions are not quantified by the URBEMIS model, nor are they typically included in CEQA analyses. However, because GHG are of concern at the global level, and the generation of this electricity could add to global CO2, the CO2 that is attributable to the generation of electrical power was also quantified. The SCAQMD Handbook includes estimates of electrical usage by land use while the Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions (November 2006) provides CO2 estimates from the generation of electricity. Based Table A9-11 1-A of the SCAQMD Handbook, each of the eight units would consume about 5,626.50 kilowatts per year. The eight units combined would then use 45,012 kilowatt -hours per year and the generation of this electricity will result in about 14 tons of CO2 per year. All told, the project then generates about 156 tons of CO2 per year. Electrical use and its emissions calculations are included in the appendix. In accordance with the 2007 AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. At approximately 156 tons per year, the project operations represent less than 0.00003 percent of this State's annual 2010 CO2 emissions' budget (and would represent an even smaller percentage of the 2013 CO2 budget). Recognizing that there is a great amount of public concern regarding GHGs, the majority of the information given above is for disclosure purposes as required by CEQA. There is no agreement among air quality experts, or guidance at the State level, regarding the level at which an individual project's incremental GHG effect is cumulatively considerable. Given the emerging level of experience within the air quality industry with GHG analyses, coupled with the fact that the policies implementing the state goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by the timetable established in AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 have not been adequately defined, there is no way to state with reasonable scientific certainty that the project would conflict with these policies. Notwithstanding the lack of guidance regarding GHGs, the proposed Aerie project has been designed utilizing "green" architecture criteria. As a result, the project will be constructed with both active and passive sustainable design elements that enhance the project design, reduce the amount of energy utilized, and minimize the project footprint on the environment. The active and passive "green" strategies that will be implemented include: Passive Strategies • Design to maximize solar orientation to increase the use of daylighting concepts and reduce energy usage. • Use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. • Optimum overhangs to minimize harsh summer sun exposures while allowing winter heat gain. • Natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics. • Dual paned glazing systems using "Low -E" glass (both non - mechanical and hybrid systems). • Gray water retention for property irrigation. • Use of environmentally friendly and sustainable materials. • Integration of California drought tolerant landscape materials. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.3 — Air Quality Active Strategies • Solar domestic hot water and pool heating • Solar photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity • Multi- zoned, high velocity hydronic heating and cooling systems. • Instantaneous hot water boilers with solar domestic hot water assist. Other Design Elements Renewable wood materials and sustainable fly ash concrete construction. • Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. • Reduction of energy use through high efficacy lighting fixtures. • Cross ventilation systems. • Lutron Homeworks interactive lighting control systems. AQMP Consistency The proposed project represents the removal of 15 dwelling units and the replacement of those units with eight condominiums. The project would neither result in growth- inducing impacts nor cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections. Furthermore, the project is of a size such that would not create either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants. Additionally, with the included mitigation to reduce PMIo emissions during the demolition phase, the project would not result in significant localized air quality impacts. As such, the project is consistent with the goals of AQMP, does not present a significant impact or conflict with the AQMP. 4.3.5 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant air quality impacts; no mitigation measures are required. 4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the Standard Conditions identified in Section 4.3.3 that require compliance with SCAQMD and related regulatory requirements and implementation of the CMP measures prescribed to avoid project - related PMIO demolition /construction emissions will ensure that potential air quality impacts do not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. No mitigation measures are required and no significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.3 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.4 NOISE Section 4.4 - Noise The analysis presented in this section of the Draft EIR summarizes the findings and recommendations of the "Environmental Noise Study for the construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach," prepared by Wieland Acoustics, Inc. (February 29,2009) as well as the "Construction and Noise Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential Development," prepared by The Planning Center (March 2009). These studies are includes in Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Noise Newport Beach Noise Element The City's Noise Element identifies four zone categories: Zone A, "Clearly Compatible;" Zone B, "Normally Compatible;" Zone C, "Normally Incompatible;" and Zone D, "Clearly Incompatible" These standards, identified in Table 4.4 -1, are for the assessment of long -term vehicular traffic noise impacts. For residential uses, the City considers exterior noise levels up to 65 dBA CNEL as Clearly Compatible and Normally Compatible; noise levels over 65 dBA CNEL are characterized as Normally Incompatible and Clearly Incompatible. Under the Normally Compatible category, new construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements 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. Interior noise levels up to 45 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable for residential uses. Table 4.4 -1 Land Use Compatibility for Exterior Community Noise Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -1 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (CNEL) Categories Uses <55 55- 60- 65- 70- 75- >80 60 65 70 75 80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial Regional, District Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D Commercial Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Regional, Village Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special Commercial Office Building, Research and Industrial Development, Professional Offices, City A A A B B C D Institutional Office Building Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, B B C Institutional Meeting Hall C D D D Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Recreation Golf Course, Go -cart Track, Equestrian A A A B B D D Center Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto General, Special Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, A A A A B B B Industrial, I Wholesale, Utilities Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.4 - Noise The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non - transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table 4.4 -2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-2 Community Noise Equivalent Land Use Categories Level (C EL) Categories Uses <55 55– 60– 65– 70– 75– >80 60 65 70 75 80 Institutional Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom O en Space Parks A A A B C D D Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers A A A A B C C Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A 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. SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element); 2006. The City also enforces the interior and exterior noise standards associated with stationary or non - transportation sources. Other noise impacts are regulated by the Noise Control Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, specifically in Chapter 10.26. These noise standards are summarized in Table 4.4 -2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -2 City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Section 4.4 - Noise Land Use Categories Allowable Noise Level (d BA L Interior Exterior ' 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM 7 AM -10 PM 10 PM -7 AM Categories Uses Single Family, Two Family, 45 40 55 50 Residential Multiple Family Zone I Residential Portions of Mixed 45 40 60 50 Use Developments Zone 111 Commercial (Zone 11) N/A N/A 65 60 Commercial Industrial or Manufacturing or Industrial Zone IV NIA NIA 70 70 Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries, Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions Zone I 'If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. Zit shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed the following: The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15- minute period; A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A- weighted slow response). In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. SOURCE: City of Ne ort Beach Noise Element Section 10.28 of the Noise Control Ordinance regulates noise associated with both construction activities and property maintenance. The City expressly prohibits noise - generating construction activities or property maintenance between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7;00 a.m. on weekdays and between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturday; such activities are prohibited on Sunday and federal holidays (Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity — Noise Regulations). Ambient Noise Levels Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (LeQ) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dB(A) to 59.9 dB(A) L..; ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 dB(A) to 59.3 dB(A) Lq. The maximum noise levels (Lm,,) range from 63.1 dB(A) to 80.9 dB(A) L., in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 dB(A) to 85.9 dB(A) L. directly across the channel. The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 4.4 -3. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -3 Ambient Noise Levels Section 4.4 - Noise Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Rear Patio, 101 Ba side Place 50.5 — 57.4 dB (A) 63.1 — 80.9 dB (A) Pool Area, 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 — 59.9 dB (A) 68.3 — 79.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2282 Channel Road 48.5 — 55.0 dB (A) 63.6 — 77.0 dB (A) Rear Patio, 2222 Channel Road 50.7 — 59.3 dB (A) 63.4 — 85.9 dB (A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (February 27, 2009 Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion (i.e., back and forth movement) through a solid medium in which the motion's amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration and is normally associated with activities such as railroads or industrial equipment but can also be associated with construction equipment such as jackhammers, pile drivers, and hydraulic hammers. Vibration displacement is the distance that a point on a surface moves away from its original static position. The instantaneous speed that a point on a surface moves is described as the velocity and the rate of change of the speed is described as acceleration. These descriptors can be used to correlate vibration to human response, building damage, and acceptable equipment vibration levels. During project construction, the operation of construction equipment can cause groundbome vibration. Similarly, during the operational phase of a project, receptors may be subject to levels of vibration that can cause annoyance due to noise generated form vibration of a structure or items within a structure. For this reason, potential groundbome vibration is best measured in terms of velocity and acceleration. Construction operations generally include a wide range of activities that can generate groundbome vibration, including blasting and demolition of structures, which generate the highest vibration values. Vibratory compactors or rollers, pile drivers, and pavement breakers can generate perceptible amounts of vibration at distances within 200 feet of the source. In addition, heavy trucks can also generate groundbome vibrations, which vary depending on vehicle type, weight, and pavement conditions. Trains generate substantial quantities of vibration due to their engineers, steel wheels, and heavy loads. The City of Newport Beach General Plan does not set specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides groundbome vibration criteria for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration for both vibration annoyance and cosmetic damage. Cosmetic damage includes, but is not limited to, damage to fences, property lines fences and walls, flatwork (e.g., paved areas.) The human reaction to various levels of vibration is highly subjective and variable. As noted in the FTA manual, "although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential of building damage, it is not suitable for evaluating human response" (FTA 2006). This is because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Table 4.4 -4 lists the FTA human annoyance criteria for groundborne vibration based on the relative perception of a vibration event for various types of vibration - sensitive land uses. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.4 -4 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) Section 4.4 - Noise Land Use Category Max Lv VdB' Description Workshop 90 Distinctly felt vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster) 0.3 sensitive areas. Office 84 Felt vibration. Appropriate to offices and non sensitive areas. Residential — Daytime 78 Barely felt vibration. Adequate for computer equipment. Residential - Nighttime 72 Vibration not felt, but goundbome noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. 'As measured in 1/3 octave bands of frequency over the frequency ranges of 8 to 80 Hz. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006) The Planning Center March 2009 The level at which groundbome vibration is strong enough to cause cosmetic damage has not been determined conclusively. The most conservative estimates are also reflected in the FTA criteria, summarized in Table 4.4 -5. Wood -frame buildings, such as typical residential structures, are more easily excited by ground vibration than heavier buildings. Table 4.4 -5 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Cosmetic Damage) Building Category PPV in /sec VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and mason no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch /second. SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (2006) The Planning Center March 2009 Noise- and Vibration - Sensitive Land Receptors Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration, including residential, schools, and open space /recreation areas, where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment, public health, and safety. Off -site sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include the existing single- and multiple - family homes surrounding the project site. These noise - sensitive uses are affected by the existing noise levels and would be potentially affected by noise from the project site during construction of the project and from on -site operations. Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the "threshold of feeling." As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear and is called the "threshold of pain." A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium. The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying less developed areas. 4.4.2 Significance Thresholds Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines a project would have a potentially significant noise and /or vibration impact if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. • For a project located within an airport land use or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use or private airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 4.4.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.4 -1 In accordance with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations), noise - generating construction and /or maintenance activities may be permitted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on Saturdays. No noise - generating construction activities may occur at any time on Sundays or on federal holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of materials to or from the site. 4.4.4 Potential Impacts 4.4.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction Noise Short-term noise impacts associated with project implementation are typically associated with excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the proposed project. Construction related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the project area; however, construction noise would end upon completion of the construction activities for each of the development and /or improvement phases. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 84 dBA Lmaz at the closest residential uses adjacent to the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near the project's boundary. Although compliance with the construction hours mandated by the City in Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code, it is anticipated that construction related noise impacts from the proposed project would be potentially significant even with compliance with the ordinance. Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during the construction of the proposed project. First, construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials to the site for the proposed project would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the site. Trucks accessing the project site would generate noise levels on the order of 72.5 dBA at a distance of 50 feet'. A truck traveling a 20 mph would cover a distance of 500 feet in 17 seconds, thereby increasing noise levels briefly as the truck passes. Project - related trucks would travel to the site and be required to shut down unnecessary idling while loading and unloading, after which it would take approximately 30 seconds to startup and then depart. Due to the size constraints of the project site, it is anticipated that generally only one truck would be delivering or hauling material to the site at any one time The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during excavation, grading, and erection of the new building on the project site. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. As noted in Table 3 -2 (Proposed Construction Phasing), certain phases of project construction would occur simultaneously. Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the piece of equipment that produces the highest noise levels. The character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site will change as work progresses, depending on the noise levels of the loudest piece of construction equipment in use. A combination of construction vehicles and handheld power tools would be used depending on the construction phase. Construction noise levels are based on those reported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM version 1.1, 2008). Table 4.4-4 lists noise levels for construction equipment from the RCNM. A noise monitoring program was initiated to collect noise data from the metal stud framing and concrete formwork. This monitoring data, which primarily involves hand tools, was necessary to supplement the noise data for construction vehicles from the RCNM. As indicated in Table 4.4 -6, typical noise levels range up to 83.3 dBA L,y at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is typically earthmoving equipment. 'Based on the Federal Highway Roadway Construction Noise Model for dump trucks. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Table 4.4 -6 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment Average Sound Levels (dBA LQ at 50 feet) Backhoe 73.6 Concrete Mixer Truck 74.8 Concrete Pump Truck 74.4 Excavator 76.7 Front End Loader 75.1 Jackhammer 81.7 Drill Rig Truck 72.2 Hydra Break Ram 80.0 Tractor 80.0 Vibratory Concrete Mixer 73.0 Flat Bed Truck 70.3 Auger Drill Rig 77.4 Mounted Impact Hammer Hoe Ram 83.3 Dozer 77.7 SOURCE: Roadway Construction Noise Model (version 1.1) The Planning Center March 2009 Short-term (construction) noise level increases will occur from the use of construction equipment associated with demolition of existing structures, grading and excavation, and building and construction activities. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Potential noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term and will cease after construction is completed. Short-term construction noise impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and, finally, for building construction. Heavy equipment noise can average about 80 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, over the estimated 32 -month construction program associated with the proposed project. Noise levels would vary, depending upon the type and number of construction machinery and vehicles in use and their location within the project site. The types of machinery to be active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: • Demolition of existing buildings and site improvements • Demolition and replacement of the existing landing and boat dock • Drill shoring caissons • Excavation and installation of lagging Shotcrete shoring walls • Install foundations • Build concrete structure Install plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exterior /interior, etc. • Hardscape and landscape Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise It is important to note that all equipment is not generally operated continuously or used simultaneously. The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). In order to reduce potential construction noise, the following noise control factors were considered in the preparation of the CMP. During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the caisson drilling process will progress at the rate of 3 to 4 caissons per day, including drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. The grading during Segments No. 1, 2, and 3 will consist of excavators with a ramp out or an electrical conveyor belt for dirt removal and with dump trucks at the rate of approximately 28 trucks per day removing the soil. There will be no pile driving during the entire construction process. The ram hoe may be required during the later part of the excavation process for approximately 10 percent of the grading operation at the lower elevations of the site. For Phases 3 and 4, small hand tools and compressors will be used within the concrete structure. Nose will also be generated by daily deliveries of materials to the site. The construction valet will manage the time of such deliveries so that they do not occur at the same time. In order to adequately evaluate the potential construction noise impacts for various construction activities anticipated from the proposed project, a noise monitoring program was undertaken that characterized noise levels associated with concrete formwork, metal stud framing, and installation of interior walls with cast -in -place concrete (refer to Appendix F). Noise modeling was then completed for each phase of the proposed project utilizing, where applicable, the data collected from the construction monitoring program based on the specific project equipment and phasing schedule identified in the Construction Management Program prepared for the project. Phase 1 — Demolition and Excavation Phase 1 consists of project - related demolition and excavation activities. Phase 1 would last approximately six months and would involve varying quantities of construction vehicles. The most noise intensive activities would occur when construction vehicles are working at -grade with the surface streets because no noise attenuation would be provided by the walls of excavated pits as would occur during the excavation phases. Demolition Demolition of the existing residential structures is anticipated to take six days and would utilize a backhoe, excavator, and loader during each of the six days. The potential noise impacts resulting from demolition are based on the types, numbers and hours of operation each day during the demolition activities (refer to Table 10 in Appendix F). Based on the six -day demolition schedule, noise contours were developed and are illustrated in Exhibit 4.4 -1, which illustrates that noise from demolition equipment would result in noise levels of 75-80 dBA Leq at the adjacent residence to the north of the site and 70-75 dBA L,q at the residences in the immediate vicinity of the project site, before diminishing with distance, for the six - day demolition. As shown in the Exhibit 4.4 -1, remnants of the existing buildings would provide some noise attenuation for the residences to the northwest of the project site until they were demolished. Dreg Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-9 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< ; ?, < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 ® < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 Scale (Feet) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-10 Exhibit 4.4 -1 Demolition Noise Contours Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Caisson Installation Section 4.4 - Noise Caisson placement, which would occur for up to 21 days, would occur after the buildings are demolished and the pad is graded level. Three to four caissons would be drilled per day. This activity includes drilling, steel placement, and filling with concrete. Construction equipment utilized for caisson emplacement includes a drill rig, backhoe loader, concrete pump truck and concrete trucks. In addition, an air compressor and mobile welding machine would be used when needed to splice the steel casings together. It is anticipated that 10 concrete truck loads would be necessary on a daily basis. As prescribed in the CMP, the concrete trucks would be sequenced so that a single truck would be unloading at a time. Exhibit 4.4 -2 illustrates that noise from caisson drilling would result in noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA Leq within the immediate vicinity of the project site before diminishing with increasing distance during the 13 to 21 day duration of this activity. Noise levels during this phase would be substantial due to the multiple concurrent construction vehicles operating at grade. Excavation The noise analysis evaluated potential noise impacts anticipated during the three grading operations at three levels: 50 feet, 40 feet and 28 feet. The equipment that would be used for excavating the site includes a dozer, excavator and loader at each elevation. In addition, at the 40- and 28 -foot elevations, a ram hoe may also be employed to facilitate excavation and grading. Exhibit 4.4 -3 illustrates the potential noise impacts. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels from excavation equipment would be partially attenuated due to being partially below grade where the ridgeline of the excavated area acts as a sound barrier. Noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA Leq are expected to occur at the nearest residence to the project site, (215 Carnation Avenue). Noise levels at the other residential uses near to the project site would experience attenuated noise levels in the 55-65 dI3 range, due to the construction vehicles operating within the excavated area. At the 40 foot elevation (refer to Exhibit 4.4 -4), noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area during this excavation phase. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Leq. Exhibit 4.4 -5 illustrates the potential noise impacts during the grading that would occur at the 28 foot elevation. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels are generally confined within the excavation area. The nearest residential use adjacent to the project site to the north would experience noise levels in excess of 85 dBA Leq because this residence overlooks the excavated area and would not benefit from the noise attenuation from excavated walls. The other surrounding residential uses would benefit from equipment working within an excavated area and would experience noise levels of between 55 and 60 dBA Leq. Phases 2 and 3 — Concrete Pouring /Concrete Formwork, and Metal Stud Framing Phase 2 involves shotcrete shoring, concrete placement for the foundation slab, structural decks and construction of retaining walls following excavation activities. Phase 3 would consist mainly of metal stud framing and installation of mechanical electrical and plumbing equipment. Portions of Phases 2 and 3 would occur concurrently and, together, they would last approximately 18 months. During Phase 3, the vehicle elevators will be installed, allowing additional storage of construction materials. As previously discussed, data from noise monitoring of concrete formwork and metal stud framing were used as the basis for the modeling conducted for the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-11 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< , 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -2 Caisson Drilling Noise Contours Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -12 Noise Level LD, eq o 190 in dB(A) Scale 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 — — — — Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center Exhibit 4.4 -3 Noise Contours from Excavation (50 Feet msQ Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -13 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< F<. < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -4 Noise contours from Excavation (40 Feet msl) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aene PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -14 0 190 Noise Level LID, eq Scale (Feet) in dB(A) 85< 80< 1 < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< " < =65 55< < =60 50 < 1 < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center Exhibit 4.4 -5 Noise Contours from Excavation (28 Feet msl) Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4 -15 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Concrete Pouring Concrete pouring is required to construct the exterior walls and floors of the proposed structure and would occur for approximately three to five days during the construction process. Approximately 20 to 25 cement trucks would come to the site each day during the 12 concrete pouring events; however, no more than one truck at a time would be permitted on Carnation Avenue. In addition to the concrete trucks, this activity would also require the use of a concrete pumper and concrete vibrator (hand tool). The concrete pour work could occur concurrently with the metal stud work. Noise generated from metal stud work was included with the noise generated with equipment associated with the concrete pouring. As shown Exhibit 4.4 -6, noise would occur primarily from the concrete truck and the concrete pumper truck along Carnation Avenue. Noise levels at the closest residences to these two trucks would be exposed to noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley during each day of concrete pouring. Concrete Formwork and Metal Study Framing Building construction would commence after the excavation /grading phase. The construction of the building for each floor is initiated by developing the form and then pouring the concrete floor first. After the concrete floor has cured, the exterior walls would be formed and also cast in place with concrete. At the time the forms for the exterior walls are being erected, metal stud framing for the interior walls would be constructed concurrently on the floor below where the forms are being constructed. Noise generated by the metal stud framing would be attenuated by the concrete exterior walls. The concrete formwork and metal stud framing would occur for approximately a year and a half. Integration of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and interior walls would start from the lowest level and continue on to the upper levels. SoundPlan modeling graphics were prepared showing interior wall construction occurring concurrently with preparation of the forms prior to pouring concrete. Equipment that would be utilized during these construction activities includes compressors, hand tools, plasma cutters, roto hammers, shot pin applicators, and small stationary power tools. Exhibit 4.4 -7 shows interior wall construction and form work below grade. As indicated in that exhibit, noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the first and second floors, respectively would result in noise levels of 55 -60 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the south of the projects site and 70 -75 dBA Ley at the nearest residence to the north of the site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA Le, or less. Exhibit 4.4 -8 shows the same type of work occurring above grade so that noise levels could be depicted with and without the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Concrete formwork for the fourth floor and metal stud framing for the third floor would occur for approximately 30 days. Construction activities for this stage are similar to the above for the formwork and interior metal framing for the first floor with the exception that the activities would occur roughly 10 feet above Carnation Avenue and the building footprint is smaller. It is estimated that the same number of workers and tools, and hours of operation would occur for this activity as shown in Table 16. Noise levels associated with the concrete formwork and metal stud framing for the fourth and third floors, respectively, would result in noise levels of 75 to 80 dBA Ley at the nearest residences to the north and 60 to 65 dBA Leq south of the projects site. The highest noise levels experienced at residential uses further away would be 60 -65 dBA Ley or less and would diminish with distance and intervening structures. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-16 Noise Level LD, eq in dB(A) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< 1 < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - - - Site Boundary SOURCE: The Planning Center 0 190 Scale (Feet) Exhibit 4.4 -6 Concrete Pouring Noise Contours Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-17 Noise Level eq o tso in dB(A) Scal 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 55< < =60 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - -- Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -7 First Floor Metal Stud Framing /Second Floor concrete Formwork SOURCE: The Planning Center Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.4-16 Noise Level LD, eq 0 19e in dB(A) Scale (Feet) 85< 80< < =85 75< < =80 70< < =75 65< < =70 60< < =65 50< < =55 45< < =50 < =45 - - — — Site Boundary Exhibit 4.4 -8 Third Floor Metal Stud Framing /Fourth Floor Concrete Formwork SOURCE: The Planning Center Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 4.419 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Phase 4 — Finishing Activities 4.4 - Noise The final construction phase would include the application of the interior and exterior finishes in window and door installation occurring for a period of seven months. Cabinetry built off -site, countertops, and finish materials would be delivered and installed in all units. Exterior finishes such as stone veneer, roof materials, photovoltaic array panels, and exterior plaster would begin. Landscaping and final fire suppression systems as well as passenger elevator installations would complete the structure. Noise levels for this phase were assumed to be comparable to noise generated during the metal stud framing phase. Noise generated during this phase would generally occur in the interior of the structure with interior and exterior walls providing noise attenuation from the activities. Noise would generally consist of use of electric screwdrivers, compressors and infrequent use of electric saws. Exterior work will involve tile cutting, which would occur indoors and brought to the exterior for installation as well as the use of a plaster sprayer for a period of a week. The proposed project involves the construction of the proposed Aerie residential building as well as the replacement of the existing docks. The noise and vibration generated by the construction of the docks was evaluated in a separate noise study conducted by Wieland Acoustics Incorporated. Construction of the docks is scheduled from May 2012 to July 2012 and is estimated to have a duration of 40 days. Dock construction is anticipated to occur concurrently with the construction of the 4`h floor interior walls and roof. The highest noise level associated with dock work is associated with the drilling phase, which results in 88 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest noise sensitive uses to the docks are 101 Bayside Place and 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 4.4 -7 summarizes the noise levels associated with each activity as well as the combined noise levels from both dock and building construction activities. The combined noise levels are logarithmically summed at the nearest noise sensitive uses. As shown in this Table 4.4 -7, noise levels would increase by 1.5 dB at 101 Bayside Place and 0.5 dB at 2495 Ocean Boulevard. Table 4.4 -7 Combined Dock and Building Construction Noise (dBA) Location Dock Drilling Noise Building Construction Noise Combined Dock and Building Noise 101 Bayside Place 71 67 72.5 2495 Ocean Boulevard 68 59 68.5 SOURCE: The Planning Center March 2009 Summary of Noise Impacts As shown by the noise contours of the construction activities (refer to Exhibits 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -8, noise levels associated with the proposed project's construction would vary substantially depending on the number and types of construction vehicles, type of construction activity, and the location of occurrence. Noise levels for each of the construction phases were evaluated at a reference distance of 100 feet from the eastern edge of the project site on Carnation Avenue to produce a chart of noise levels over the entire construction period, as shown in Exhibit 4.4 -9. Noise levels are expected to increase when receptors are closer than 100 feet and diminish beyond 100 feet. This exhibit illustrates the differences in noise levels over time based on the type of construction activity being performed. Noise levels are highest during the demolition, caisson drilling, and the concrete pouring when construction vehicles are at grade with Carnation Avenue. Noise levels subside substantially when construction equipment is working within the various depths of the excavated area due to the noise attenuation provided by the excavated walls. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -20 d c U c A a iL 0 0 U) U ct: m m m m � E30 N mZ� v L6 WN �a m D Q1 N ? 0 v E CL v� � N Y L cI LO 0 x W m _N y Z LL N O r Y Exterior Finishing Work L CD N f � U 114th 0 Windows, Doors, & Utilities i o -k i4th Floor Form Work 3rd Metal Framing (Interior Walls) 'K � i cv * 3rd 2nd Floor Form Metal Framing Work (Interior Walls) 2nd Floor Form Work 1st Metal Framing (Interior Walls) 0 * 1st Floor Form Work Basement Metal Framing (Interior Walls) `r Basement Form Work SubBasement Work Metal Framing (Interior Walls) m M Sub Basement K Form Work N O Bracing j - C O L X O W T N N — d U � � o o 771 777 w I Demolition, Caisson 11 Drilling o I 0 0 M m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-- be-1 tl8P d c U c A a iL 0 0 U) U ct: m m m m � E30 N mZ� v L6 WN �a m D Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise These excavated walls have no effect when residences are overlooking the site and have direct view of the construction equipment. After excavation, construction of the formwork and interior metal framed walls would occur with hand tools. Noise levels from these hand tools are substantially lower than the levels generated by construction vehicles, based on noise monitoring and noise level data provided by the Federal Highway Administration's Road Construction Noise Model. Construction vehicles would not be used during these phases, with the exception of building material deliveries and concrete pouring when short periods of substantial noise exposure would occur. In addition, noise generated by metal framing would occur within the interior of the newly constructed floor and be attenuated by the presence of exterior concrete walls and a concrete ceiling. After all the exterior and interior walls are constructed, the finish work would commence. The finish work would also be done with hand tools and various electric saws and related equipment. As explained above, noise levels associated with the finish work were conservatively assumed to be comparable to those of metal stud framing. However, interior finish work would occur within the interior of the building and be substantially attenuated by both the interior and exterior walls of the residential structure. Exterior finish work would also be done with hand tools. The ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (dBA Le) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dBA to 59.9 dBA. Construction noise from the phases that involve construction vehicles results in noise levels of 42.6 dBA to 82.1 dBA at 100 feet. For the worst case noise generating phase, this level of noise would be approximately 22 -31 dBA Laq above ambient background noise and would last approximately three to four months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases before the noise from construction vehicles would be attenuated by excavated walls. Second story residences adjacent to the project site with a clear line of sight to the construction vehicles would experience these noise levels for a period of seven months during the demolition, caisson drilling, and excavation phases because the excavated walls provide less attenuation or no attenuation. For approximately one and a half years, noise levels would be, on average, between 42.6 dBA to 61.9 dBA L. at 100 feet from the construction of the interior and exterior walls. Noise levels would be approximately 2 -11.5 dBA above the ambient background noise. As explained above, interior finish work was assumed to be equivalent to noise from interior metal stud work and would generate noise levels of 52.8 dBA at 100 feet. Exterior hardscape and landscape would last approximately four months. Noise levels would be approximately 0 -2 dBA above the ambient background noise. Noise levels are most intensive when construction vehicles are necessary during the demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases. The majority of the construction duration involves building construction that involves less noise intensive activities due to the use of hand tools (electric screw drivers, compressors, electric saws, etc.). Due to the length of construction activities (approximately 32 months) and the periodic level of noise from the period of construction vehicle use, noise exposure from project - related construction activities at the nearby residential receivers would result in a short-term significant impact from project related construction activities. Construction Vibration Construction Vibration Annoyance Structure Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -22 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. Using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4-4 above), vibration which is "barely felt' is not deemed significant. Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements which are ' %If' are considered potentially significant. The analysis of potential short-term vibration impacts was evaluated at both the closest distance that would occur as well as the average distance. The average distance assumed the vibrations would emanate from the center of the project site at an average distance of 80 feet from the project site boundary. The impact on the nearest vibration sensitive use (215 Carnation Avenue) was conservatively assumed to occur at the 215 Carnation property line. As a result, this analysis provides the maximum levels of vibration occurring at the outdoor living space located on the 215 Carnation Avenue property line. However, because construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site, construction vibration was also assessed at the center of the project site (80 feet from the 215 Carnation Avenue property boundary) to obtain the average vibration levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time. Table 4.4 -8 lists the maximum and average vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site for the off -site residential receptors and at the closest residential uses. As shown in this table, vibration levels generated by the construction vehicles during the caisson drilling and excavation with a ram hoe were found to exceed the FTA's perceptibility criteria for residential uses. Potential short-term impacts from vibration induced annoyance may occur at other residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment. Those phases that do not involve heavy construction equipment use were not modeled because hand tools do not generate perceptible levels of ground vibration. The residential uses being affected include only those residences immediately to the northeast and south of the project site. Project related construction activities were assessed for the potential to result in annoyance at the nearest vibration sensitive uses. The assessment of annoyance from vibration from construction activities is based on several criteria including perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. In terms of perceptibility, using the FTA criteria (Table 4.4 -4 above) vibration which is "barely felt" is not deemed significant because it does not constitute "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" as per Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. The word "excessive' is defined by the Merriam - Webster Dictionary as "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal:' If something is "barely felt,' it cannot reasonably be considered "excessive:" Therefore, for the evaluation of human annoyance caused by vibration from construction activities, the criteria for establishing potentially significant vibration induced annoyance impacts is average daytime (there will be no nighttime construction) vibration measurements that are "felt" The FTA has established 84 VdB as the level that is "felt' or readily perceived. In addition to the perceptibility criterion, the frequency of occurrence of vibration generating activities must be considered in determining what constitutes "exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels" pursuant to Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines. Loaded trucks have the potential to generate vibration as they vehicles travel down the street. However, project related truck trips will only result in transient (1 -2 second) exposures of perceptible vibration as they pass in front of residences. Based on this Fleeting exposure, loaded trucks would not result in significant vibration impacts for annoyance. A third criterion for vibration induced annoyance is the duration of vibration intensive construction activities. Construction activities that involve perceptible vibration or high frequency in a day may nevertheless be considered to have less than significant vibration generated annoyance impacts if the duration of construction is short. The project's demolition, caisson drilling and excavation phases have the most potential for generating vibration at vibration sensitive residential uses. Based on the Construction Schedule attached to the Construction Management Plan, it is anticipated that there are approximately 109 total work days associated with these activities. However, vibration intensive Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-23 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise construction activities would not exceed the "felt" vibration level of 84 VdB when construction equipment is operated 35 feet or more feet away from sensitive uses. The following represents the time period for during which demolition, caisson drilling and excavation would occur within 35 feet of vibration sensitive uses. Demolition — 1.5 days Caisson Drilling — 6.5 days Excavation — 17 days The total days for which vibration from project related construction activities would exceed the "felt" level is therefore approximately 25 work days. The last criterion considered in assessing vibration impacts is the time of occurrence. Residential uses are much more sensitive to vibrations occurring at night as compared to the day time. Construction activities that would generate perceptible levels of vibration are time - restricted by Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Under Section 10.28.040, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM, Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM, and is prohibited on Sundays and any federal holidays. The assessment of the potential for project related construction vibration to cause annoyance includes the four criteria previously described above: perceptibility, frequency of occurrence, time of occurrence and duration. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities would, in some instances as indicated in Table 4.4 -8, be "felt' under FTA criteria and could occur frequently in the days they do occur, because construction activity would be limited to the least vibration - sensitive times of the day, the duration of perceptible vibration would be relatively brief and intermittent, potential vibration impacts will not result in a significant vibration annoyance impact. Table 4.4-8 Vibration Levels from Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences (Vibration Annoyance) Construction Activity Maximum Vibration Levels VdB) 2 Average Vibration Levels Vd8' 3 Exceeds Perceptibility Criteria? ( "Felt" per Table 7: 84 Vd8 s1 Demolition Excavator Small bulldozer 65 43 No Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer 65 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Caisson Drillin Caisson Drill 96 72 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Pumper 47 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Excavation to 50 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 96 72 as Excavator Small bulldozer 67 43 No Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -24 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -25 Exceeds Maximum Perceptibility Vibration Average Criteria? Levels Vibration ( "Felt' per Table Construction Activity VdB)2 Levels (VdB)',3 7: 84(VdB)" Excavation to 40 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 96 72 Yes Ram Hoe 96 72 Yes Loader Small bulldozer 67 43 No Excavator Small bulldozer)' 67 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Excavation to 28 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 93 72 Yes Excavator Small bulldozer 1 64 43 No Loader Small bulldozer 64 43 No Loaded trucks 86 71 Yes Concrete Pours Pumper 75 71 No Concrete Mixer 75 71 No 'Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. 2 A the closest distance from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. 3 A an average distance (center of site to nearest structure) from where any large or small off -road construction equipment is in operation to the nearest structure. SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. Cosmetic Damage from Construction Vibration The FTA criterion for vibration - induced cosmetic damage to wood - framed structures is 0.2 inch per second. The potential for cosmetic damage generally refers to the potential for cosmetic damage (superficial cracks) to fences, walls, and flatwork, not damage that compromises the integrity of the structure. Table 19 lists the maximum vibration source levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site at off -site receptors. As noted above, a Construction Management Plan has been prepared for the proposed project, the components of which are considered to be included as a part of the project. The CMP requires, among other things, that the Applicant agree to indemnify the property owners in the immediately contiguous lots against any cosmetic damage to their homes resulting from vibration caused by construction activities necessary to complete the project as a condition to the issuance of demolition permits for the existing structure. This indemnify obligation is subject to those contiguous owners providing Applicant, if requested, with access to their structures to allow a pre - demolition inspection of the current condition of all structures on those properties. The CMP also requires that vibration probes will be placed at 215 Carnation Avenue to monitor construction activities. A vibration monitoring program will identify any construction activity which exceeds the criteria for cosmetic damage. If excessive vibration is found to occur, other construction methods will be employed, if possible, to eliminate any occurrence of cosmetic damage. Such alternative construction methods include, but are not limited to, use of different drill bits for the caisson drilling, use of less vibration - intensive construction vehicles, use of drilling and insertion of expansive grout to fracture rock, and /or use of lubricants for the caisson drilling. Because the CMP is Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -25 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise part of the Project Description, the evaluation of potential cosmetic damage from vibration considers activities required by the CMP to be incorporated within the project itself. Implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided ad reflected in Table 4.4 -9. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Table 4.4 -9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Structure (Cosmetic Damage Assessment) Off -Site Receptors Maximum RMS velocit�l In /sec z FTA Criteria (inlsec) Exceeds FTA Criteria? Demolition Excavator Small bulldozer 0.010 0.2 No Backhoe Loader Small bulldozer 0.010 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 1 0.2 No Caisson Drilling Caisson Drill 0.412 0.2 Yes Back Hoe Loader Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Pumper 1 0.012 0.2 No Loaded trucks 1 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 50 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.412 0.2 Yes Excavator Small bulldozer 0.014 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer 0.003 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 40Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.412 0.2 Yes Ram Hoe 0.412 0.2 Yes Loader Small bulldozerF 0.014 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer 0.014 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Excavation to 28 Feet NAVD88 Large bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Ram Hoe 0.008 0.2 No Loader Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Excavator Small bulldozer 0.008 0.2 No Loaded trucks 0.076 0.2 No Concrete Pour Pumper 0.164 0.2 No Concrete Mixer 0.076 0.2 No NOTE: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microinch /second. NA: Not Applicable ' At a distance of 10 feet from construction area to nearest residences to the east. 2 Vibration levels from the listed off -road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. SOURCE: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4 -26 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise Dock Based on published information, typical drilling produces the peak particle vibration (PPV) of 0.089 inches /second at a distance of 25 feet. Table 4.4 -10 provides a comparison of the estimated construction vibration levels to the maximum ambient vibration levels monitored at the nearby properties. Table 4.4 -10 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels Location Description Maximum Ambient Vibration Level Estimated Construction Vibration Level Cosmetic Damage (PPV Nuisance (VdB) Rear Patio — 101 Ba side Place 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in /sec 70 VdB 90' Pool Area — 2495 Ocean Blvd 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec 62 VdB @ 175' Rear Patio — 2282 Channel Rd 0.00298 in /sec 0.002 in /sec 42 VdB 785' Rear Patio — 2222 Channel Rd 0.00121 in /sec 0.002 in /sec 44 VdB 675' SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics March 12, 2009 The human annoyance and cosmetic damage criteria for vibration developed by the FTA were summarized in Table 4.4 -8 and Table 4.4 -9, respectively. As indicated in Table 4.4 -10, the anticipated vibration associated with the construction of the dock facilities would not exceed any of the damage criteria recognized by the Federal Transit Administration for either annoyance or cosmetic damage. As a result, no significant vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of dock construction. 4.4.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Based on the ambient noise levels identified in Table 4.4 -3, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The proposed project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapters 10.26 and 10.28 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Noise Element Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Noise Element. As revealed in the analysis presented in that table, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Noise Element. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-27 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Aircraft Noise Section 4.4 - Noise The proposed project is not located within the limits of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA). Therefore, the residential use would not be exposed to significant noise levels associated with that commercial aviation facility. The County of Orange Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) uses the current AELUP for JWA as the basis for determining potential aircraft noise impact from JWA. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL aircraft operation noise contours, where the AELUP defines the noise exposure to be "Moderate Noise Impact' (i.e., an impact that would require some kind of mitigation to reduce the aircraft noise) within Noise Impact Zone "2:' The AELUP also recognizes that individual sensitivities to annoyance can vary from person to person. Because the project site is located outside of this noise impact zone, no significant noise impacts from aircraft activities would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 4.4.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.4-1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase anticipated for the proposed project. MM 4.4 -1a All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices, intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 4.4 -1 b The construction contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. MM 4.4 -1c The construction contractor shall locate all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) as far from residential receptor locations as feasible. MM 4.4 -1d The construction contractor shall post a contact name and telephone number of the owner's authorized representative on -site. MM 4.4 -1 e The construction contractor shall install temporary sound blankets or plywood panels with a minimum Sound Transmission Class rating of 32 or higher and a density of 1.5 pounds per square foot or greater (e.g., SoundSeal BBC -13 -2 or equivalent) along the perimeter of the construction area proximate to residential uses. This does not include the side facing the harbor channel due to the noise attenuation provided by the buffer distance between the construction noise and harbor residences. The temporary sound blankets or plywood panels shall have a minimum height of six feet. If plywood panels are selected, they must have a minimum density of four pounds per square foot and have no perforations or gaps between the panels. MM 4.4 -1f The construction contractor shall select quieter tools or construction methods whenever feasible. Examples of this include the use of plasma cutters, which produce less noise than power saws with abrasive blades and ordering precut materials to specifications to avoid on -site cutting. MM 4.4 -1g The construction contractor shall maximize the use of enclosures as feasible. This includes four -sided or full enclosures with a top for compressors and other stationary machinery. This also includes locating activities, such as metal stud and rebar cutting, within constructed walled structures to minimize noise propagation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-28 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.4 - Noise 4.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Construction Noise Implementation of the construction noise reduction measures prescribed in the CMP and the mitigation measures Section 4.4.5 would attenuate noise to the maximum extent feasible. Temporary sound blankets would reduce noise levels by 5 dBA from construction activities whose line of sight is blocked by the blankets (FTA 2006). Enclosures have the potential to reduce noise levels by up to 8 dB. Working within a walled structure provides 5 dB of attenuation. With the implementation of the noise mitigation measures, noise from construction activities would be reduced. However, construction activities would still result in substantial increases above the ambient noise environment. The project would need to be in compliance with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.26.035, which limits construction - related noise levels to weekdays between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Compliance with the Municipal Code would limit noise from construction activities to the least sensitive portions of the day. However, because of the magnitude of noise generated during the phases that involve construction vehicle use, the proximity of the noise sensitive of uses, as well as the duration of the construction period, project - related construction noise would result in an unavoidable short-term significant impact. Construction Vibration Annoyance from vibration generated by project - related construction activities were found to result in less than significant impacts. Similarly, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts from caisson drilling, use of a ram hoe, and /or use of a large tracked dozer are avoided. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required and significant unavoidable vibration - induced cosmetic damage impacts will not occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.4-29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.5 AESTHETICS Section 4.5 - Aesthetics The aesthetic quality of Aerie property is determined by its visual character, consisting of elements such as natural and man -made features, elevations and topography, and prominent views of and from the site. In addition, surrounding urban and natural features comprise the visual setting within which the project site takes on a given degree of importance. Both natural and artificial landscape features contribute to perceived visual images and the aesthetic value of a view. The aesthetic value of a site or feature may be influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features associated with it. Visual images and their perceived visual quality can vary substantially by season and even hourly as weather, light, shadow, and elements that comprise the viewscape change. Judgments of visual quality must also be made based on a regional frame of reference, since the same landform or visual resource in different geographic areas could have different visual resource quality and sensitivity in each setting. For example, a small hill may be a significant visual element on a flat landscape but may have very little significance in mountainous terrain. Evaluating a project's landscape changes and its effects on visual quality is often seen as a highly subjective matter, open to many interpretations and personal preferences. However, a widely diverse body of knowledge and study of the subject of natural and urban aesthetics has led to coherent and systematic methods of visual impact analysis. In the absence of a methodology prescribed by the City of Newport Beach, this analysis utilizes a series of visual simulations constructed for the proposed project that illustrate the post - development characteristics of the proposed project. A qualitative, descriptive approach is employed to describe and evaluate the visual resources of the subject site and proposed development. The existing visual setting in and around the subject property is defined by on -site and off -site features and the various views from particular vantage points (i.e., "viewsheds ") that encompass those features. The on -site and off -site aesthetic character consists of urban and natural elements, and all occur within the context of a variety of urban land uses, including single - family attached and detached residential development located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property and adjacent roadways. A series of visual simulations has been prepared and serve as the basis for determining the potential impacts of the proposed project on the aesthetic character of the area. Visual Analysis Two -Point Perspective Methodology SoftMirage /BP Media Group, Inc., created a series of visual simulations from several vantages in the project area that are based on a Two -Point Perspective Methodology (refer to Appendix G). Perspective shows depth in an image or photograph based on the human eye and in this case, for the visual simulations, by a camera. The distance, height, and angle of the camera can change the orientation of whatever object is in focus. The two -point perspective is a common way to view photos or renderings with a great degree of accuracy because two -point perspectives rely on the use of accurate three - dimensional angles, while holding onto vertical lines to ensure design accuracy. In this method of creating the visual simulations, the camera is often placed looking on a comer of the focus object to better show at least two sides of the object. This is the preferred viewing angle for people when compared to the three -point perspective, which places the viewer seemingly substantially above the object looking down or below the object looking up. Although the simulations presented in this section are visually accurate, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible to re- create an image with absolute accuracy due to several variables that affect the accuracy. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.5.1 Existing Conditions Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Refer to Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) for a discussion of on- and off -site visual character and off -site views. Natural Resources Element As previously indicated, Figure NR3 in the Natural Resources Element identifies Ocean Boulevard in the vicinity of the subject property as a "Coastal View Road." In addition, the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue and Begonia Park are identified as a "Public View Point" The City has adopted several goals and policies intended to preserve and /or enhance the visual resources within Newport Beach. As a result, future development that may affect the Coastal View Roads and /or Public View Points must adhere to the adopted applicable policies and programs. 4.5.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. The proposed project will be considered to have a significant aesthetic impact if: The project has a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. 4.5.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.5.1 Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. SC 4.5 -2 Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare. SC 4.5 -3 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics 4.5.4 Potential Impacts 4.5.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Implementation of the proposed project will result in site preparation (e.g., grading, etc.) and construction activities that could have some short-term effects, which would temporarily change the character of the area; however, it is important to note that these potential effects are similar to those which are typical of similar development projects in the City that undergo development and redevelopment. The effects of construction will be visible during the anticipated 32 -month construction phase. Other effects during the initial phase of development include dust generation associated with site grading and construction of the new structures that are proposed for the subject property. Construction staging areas, storage of equipment and supplies, and related activities will contribute to a generally "disturbed" condition, which may be perceived as a potential visual impact. However, while these activities may be unsightly, they are not considered significant impacts because they are temporary in nature and will cease upon completion of the proposed construction program. Nonetheless, a measure has been recommended to locate staging areas away from areas most visible to the surrounding development, if feasible. 4.5.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single - family residential uses to the north, east and south, and multi - family uses to the immediate south and northeast. Many residential structures in the area are built into the coastal bluff. Newport Bay in the vicinity of the project site is characterized by boat docks ancillary to abutting single- and multiple - family residential uses. Development existing along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue extends down the bluff face. The north - facing portion of the property overlooks Bayside Place and the homes on Bayside Drive. The west - facing portion of the property overlooks a small cove off of Newport Bay, as well as several residential structures that are built into the bluff above the cove. The project site is currently developed with a multi- story, 14 -unit apartment building and a single -story, single - family residence. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures and the development of a new 8 -unit condominium structure that will have a total of six levels, including two levels and a portion of a third level that will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of four levels of the structure will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. The lowest two levels (i.e., basement and sub - basement) will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The potential effect of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street and from Newport Bay. The overall building height of the proposed residential structure will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple - family structure and approximately 17 feet over a portion of the existing single - family structure as measured from the front street grade level. View Corridors The certified Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP ") and the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3) designate the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue as a "Public View Point" Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is designated as a "Coastal View Road." Views from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard presently exist between the existing apartment building and a fence and garage structure located on the abutting property to the south and east. Existing development of the site blocks the view to the north from these public roads. Project implementation will result in the construction of a residential structure that is approximately nine feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The proposed condominium building has been designed to conform to the existing 28 -foot height limit imposed by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The proposed structure will not obstruct existing public views of the bay and coastline from the Public View Point due to its location. The existing view to the west measures 25 degrees while standing in the optimal position within the public right -of -way closest to the structure. The view will not only be Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics maintained but it will also be expanded by 76 percent, from 25 degrees to 44 degrees (refer to the Exhibit 4.5 -1). This increased viewing angle is the result of the design of the southwest wall of the proposed structure, which is located approximately 11 feet to the north of the existing building wall. The proposed design results in an increase in the distance between the proposed structure and the existing development to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be enhanced as a result of the increased distance between buildings. In addition, a northern view corridor will also be created where one does not currently exist. Visual Simulations Several visual simulations were created based on the Two-Point Methodology previously described. The purpose of the visual simulations is to provide a comparison of the existing visual /aesthetic character of the area to that of the project after the site is redeveloped as proposed. The locations from which the simulations have been created are illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -2. As indicated in that exhibit, several locations were selected from Begonia Park and the nearby area to illustrate the project's effect on the view corridor from the park to the harbor and ocean to the west. Other visual simulations were also created from locations in the immediate vicinity of the project site (e.g., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue) to reflect the project's aesthetic character and potential effect of development on views to the west from those vantages. In addition, views from several locations from inside the harbor illustrate the change in character associated with the proposed project and the effect of the proposed changes, including the proposed dock, from the west. The following discussion summarizes each of the simulations and describes the changes resulting from project implementation. Simulation V01— Bayside Drive Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -3) As indicated in this view from Bayside Drive Beach (approximately 2,000 northwest of the subject site), views of the site are in the background of the photograph. As noted in this simulation, residential development extends along nearly the entire length of the bluff, including the subject property. However, implementation of the proposed project will not significantly change the visual character of the area within which the project is located. The most noticeable change to the vista when viewed from the vantage from Bayside Drive Beach is the "curvilinear' design of the proposed residential structure, which allows the building to conform to the bluff when compared to the existing rectilinear features of the existing residential structure. Views of the portion of the bluff located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character. The proposed dock facility cannot be seen from Bayside Drive Beach because the intervening pier that extends into the harbor north of the beach location. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-4 3Atl NOI1tlNW7 LOC-IOL \ �/ 31tl3V I� I i r J o L—JI IL 1 I I I I % z I i n4 I I kD 0�1 Z w Y U Q Q Q w W Qp�p ®� F� pm>mo X(L aF - <F<> lu ONmOWrQO 'o 'o N-i �m lu ? Flu O L IL WO O J Q J 9 ♦O75 �n i Q Z 0 0 s � z d a d >° U� IL i U NV370 \ \ I \ 1VQm / J 0 ,a) U 3 . C et d � a t a X W U t *7 0 0 0 :+ 3 d d m 0 X W m L Q z c d O m` ui U 0 0 U) CU - of ct:0 m mT ip Z N V .e o W �`+ Ca O _ m N Q. N � y �Y s c x w Y E Vi U) N_ m OI A 0 O N W U K O N U t . of pU 0 W co R �po al rn w2� N � So co W¢ �a � C 0 Q RAY i X18 r PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE { ,N� _.•. _ �� -� � � yr` ' -5.+ Exhibit 4.5 -3 Visual Simulation V01 - Bayside Drive Beach Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Simulation V02 — Channel Road Beach (Exhibit 4.5 -4) Section 4.5- Aesthetics The Channel Road Beach location vantage is located on the Balboa Peninsula, approximately 1,300 feet west of the site. As revealed in this visual simulation, the change in the character of the site is apparent when viewed from this location. The large apartment structure that currently exists on the site, which is dominated by sharp vertical and horizontal features, will be replaced by a similarly large structure; however, the proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to "fit' the bluff by eliminating the sharp angles and replacing them with a curvilinear facade that conforms to the existing bluff feature. In addition, the proposed building also appears more subdued as a result of the darker color proposed. Although the proposed multiple - family structure would block the view of the red roof of the existing residence located to the rear when the project is completed, the tops of the trees would remain visible. In addition, more existing development on the east side of Ocean Boulevard can be seen because of the greater building setback from the southern property boundary. As identified above in Simulation V01, views of the portion of the bluff located below the proposed development will retain the existing topographic character. The proposed expanded dock facility can be seen below the bluff from the Channel Road Beach location. Although the larger rock outcroppings will remain visible, the rock features in front of the small cove would not be seen from this vantage because the dock, when occupied by one or more boats, would obscure some or all of the rocky features. Simulation V03 — Corner Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -5) The view of the site from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard illustrates the existing apartment building and the proposed multiple - family structure. As can be seen, views of the existing structure are dominated by the flat roof features of the and angular forms that dominate the multiple - family residential structure, which was built in 1948. In particular, the wide, open carport that fronts along Carnation Avenue reveals the automobiles that are parked in the structure at ground level. An ocean view exists between the existing apartment building on the site and the adjacent residence that fronts on Ocean Avenue. The area on Ocean Boulevard between the subject property and the property to the south is designated as a Public View Point. The post - development simulation illustrates the change in character that will occur. In particular, the features of the proposed multiple - family residential building will be curvilinear. Although the proposed structure will be higher than the existing apartment building, the character of the building will change dramatically, and will be characterized by a fagade that features a combination of exterior plaster and stone. The increased in building height would not adversely affect any public view. In addition, parking will not be visible when the building is viewed from the street; all parking will be accommodated below grade within the building. Landscaping will be integrated into the design to soften the building mass. As previously indicated, a Public View Point is located on Ocean Boulevard south of Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will enhance the view from the designated view location. The view window at this location will be expanded (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -1) by 76 percent (i.e., from approximately 25 degrees to about 44 degrees). Simulation VO4 — Ocean Boulevard View Corridor (Exhibit 4.5 -6) As previously indicated, Ocean Boulevard is designated as a "Coastal View Road" in the City's Natural Resource Element (refer to Figure NR3). Exhibit 4.5 -6 illustrates the view of the site looking north from a location south of the site on Ocean Boulevard. The open nature of the carport that dominates the lower level of the existing structure is highly visible from this vantage. The proposed building elevation reflects a modern character in contrast to the existing development. Although the proposed residential structure will be higher than the existing apartment building, it will not exceed the permitted building height. Project implementation will also result in a wider northerly view window when viewed from the south. In addition, the existing overhead utility pole and overhead lines at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue will be undergrounded, which will also improve the aesthetic character of the area. Finally, a public bench and drinking fountain will be located in the vicinity of the Carnation Avenue Public View Point to accommodate public access to the view location. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -8 PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE Exhibit 4.5 -4 Visual Simulation V02 - Channel Road Beach Z495 Exhibit 4.5-5 Visual Simulation V03 - Carnation Avenue/ Ocean Boulevard 1L 11� 1 r __ �qvi AR, 14 p (J A r. J J Exhibit 4.5 -6 Visual Simulation VO4- Ocean Boulevard View Corridor Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Simulation V08 — Carnation Avenue (Exhibit 4.5-7) The view from Carnation Avenue looking west to the ocean illustrates that changes that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project. Exhibit 4.5 -7 illustrates the proposed multiple family structure and the relationship of that new structure to the existing development. Redevelopment of the site with the proposed multiple - family residential structure will result in the appearance of the larger and taller structure in the foreground than currently exists, adjacent to the existing residence east of the site on Carnation Avenue. The existing landscaping at the eastern corner of the lot would be replaced and the proposed structure would dominate the foreground from this vantage. While a larger building will be introduced, the structure would not exceed the building height limitations prescribed for the zoning district. The existing view to the ocean to the west would be preserved and enhanced. In addition, as previously indicated, the overhead utilities that exist within the parkway on the south side of Carnation Avenue would be undergrounded, thus eliminating the utility features that extend vertically and horizontally within the viewshed. The elimination of these features would enhance views and the aesthetic character within the neighborhood. Simulation V09 — Ocean Boulevard (Exhibit 4.5 -8) This visual simulation illustrates the proposed project in context with the nearby residential development existing in the Corona del Mar neighborhood. As can be seen in Exhibit 4.5 -8 and in other simulations of the project environs, a variety of architectural styles is present in the area. When compared to the existing apartment building, which was designed and constructed in 1948, the proposed project introduces a modem architectural style. The various structural and landscape elements integrated into the proposed structure are intended to break up the mass and the new building. The overhead utility pole previously identified on Carnation Avenue, which can be seen in the background, will be eliminated. In addition, the building setback at the south end of the subject property has been increased to expand the existing view corridor between the subject property and that to the south. Consequently, a wider view between those structures would result, which would allow for and expanded view to the north from this view location. Begonia Park Visual Simulations Three visual simulations were created from vantages within Begonia Park, including one from the lower bench within the park, a simulation from the park's upper bench, and one from the northern limits of the park near the comer of Begonia Avenue and First Avenue. Visual Simulation V05 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -9) illustrates the view from the lower bench situated on Begonia Park north of the site. As can be seen, from this vantage, the harbor and ocean to the west are clearly visible from this location. The proposed multiple - family residential structure and associated landscaping will extend outward onto the bluff and encroach slightly into the viewshed beyond the limits of the existing apartment building and single - family residence that currently occupy the site. However, only a small portion of the ocean view at the horizon would be affected by the proposed project from the lower bench of Begonia Park; no portion of the harbor visible from this location would be affected by the proposed project. The view of the site from the upper bench of Begonia Park (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -10) reveals a similar view as that illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -9. However, from this location within the park, it is apparent that site development would extend outward onto the north face of the bluff, affecting a small area of the ocean view at the horizon, similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -9. Similar to the lower bench, no portion of the harbor view would be affected. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Cb'S{i N e i Exhibit 4.5 -7 Visual Simulation V08 - Carnation Avenue C I A .. �I fill -- - - - Ilk - Exhibit 4.5 -8 Visual Simulation V09 - Ocean Boulevard r ITI ill ! Fi 1 -1. r ww" t \ a II PROJECT SITE _ I----I►I PROJECT SITE IV 11 `3 w w Exhibit 4.5-9 Visual Simulation V05 - Begonia Park - Lower Bench w PROJECT SITE I W PROJECT SITE I '4 • � I? a ? P Exhibit 4.5-10 Visual Simulation V06 - Begonia Park - Upper Bench Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics The final visual simulation of the proposed project (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -11) from Begonia Park reveals that although the northerly encroachment of the multiple- family residential structure into the viewshed will occur, similar to that in Exhibit 4.5 -10, the effect on this view will be minimal. Only a small portion of the ocean at the horizon in the background would be eliminated from view and the view of the harbor is not reduced; however, this change would not be significant because it represents a nearly indistinguishable increment of the total viewshed and, in particular, the ocean view. In addition to the three visuar simulations from Begonia Park; a fourth'simulation was generated to illustrate the potential visual impacts associated with the project. Visual Simulation V16 — Begonia and Pacific (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -12), illustrates the southerly view from this vantage. The story poles that have been erected are intended to reflect the building envelope of the proposed project at 2333 Pacific Avenue, which is currently an undeveloped property. As can be seen in this visual simulation, construction of a residential project at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not significantly impact the viewshed from any of the four locations within or near Begonia Park. Harbor Near - Surface Level View Simulations Several visual simulations have been created, which look toward the proposed blufftop project and docks and cove below the bluff to provide a comparison of the existing visual character of the site from the harbor when viewed from the water surface (e.g., paddling in a kayak in the harbor). Visual Simulation V10 — Kayak 1 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -13) illustrates the changes anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. From this vantage in the harbor just south of the proposed project site, the differences in visual character relate mostly to the bluff development. The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be stepped back from its base as it rises above the bluff. While slightly higher than the existing structure, the curvilinear features combined with the colors used for facade and roof /deck features allow the proposed structure to conform to the existing topographic features when compared to the existing apartment building (and adjacent large single - family residence to the south), which is characterized by a tall vertical mass rising from the bluff face and no significant landscape features. The man -made elements (e.g., concrete remnants, drainage pipes, etc.), which tend to degrade the aesthetic quality of the bluff, will be removed. The bluff face below the proposed structure would be landscaped and enhanced with native plant materials. No significant visual impacts would occur to the cove or the natural features below the bluff. As indicated in this exhibit, the proposed dock facilities would not affect existing views to the cove. The larger dock feature, when viewed from this location within the harbor, would add additional docks and boats in the harbor, which is characterized by similar features north and south of the property. Visual Simulation V11 — Kayak 2 (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -14) provides a view from just beyond the proposed boat dock facility looking directly at the proposed multiple - family residential development. As indicated in this visual simulation, the proposed docks, when occupied by boats, would dominate the foreground view; however, the main features of both the bluff and the rocks features below would remain within view of kayakers or others boating in the harbor. The proposed structure has been designed to conform to the bluff with both colors and landscaping and the mass has been broken by the physical separation between the two main structural elements. The proposed structure would extend farther to the north, allowing for the wider view window to the south, between the proposed structure and the existing single - family residence to the south. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -13, the vertical elements of the existing structure have been eliminated to create a more topographically compatible effect. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Cb3I1 Met 1 _. ti.•.r •��D a 'O��ti_,�i- � ��•• -- i �? Aj .Yp } 1 I R rfJ K .Yp } 1 I R PROJECT SITE I.* -------�I PROJECT SITE 1.* --------- 00 1 i '/r F robES X9991 ll Exhibit 4.5-12 Visual Simulation V16 - Begonia & Pacific Ttt Fx TA'SF,A w . F,x T-t'SFA Exhibit 4.5 -13 Visual Simulation V10 - Kayak 1 v -f If'• JL MAWL- 1L °�.n, /' • 3 SST[ ' • Yom* a Y' -..� i� lYlt }- --' -kE:X A � - -�a ,tea .-.'.If ,�i'�z � ;✓t J -.. rY i _ .�.� ' ! -�. 'Y. LA t r l a. -. Exhibit 4.5 -14 Visual Simulation V11 - Kayak 2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Exhibit 4.5 -15 (Visual Simulation V12 — Kayak 3) illustrates the visual character of the proposed project from a vantage near the northern limits of the site within the harbor beyond the proposed boat dock. From this location in a kayak, the entirety of the proposed multiple - family residential development can be seen in contrast with the existing single- and multiple - family residential development to the south. The proposed boat dock can be seen in the foreground immediately south of the kayak location. As indicated, some of the existing rock outcroppings and related features characterizing the cove below the bluff would be obscured by the proposed dock and boats. In addition, other features along the water's edge south of the cove would also be obscured; however, all of those features would be seen from other vantages and their loss from view would be only from locations north of the proposed dock. It is important to note that none of the existing features would be eliminated or destroyed as a result of project implementation; rather, they would all remain as elements of the site and come into and go out of one's view depending on the location within the harbor. Their loss from the field of view would be brief when passing by the site in the harbor. The aesthetic character of the proposed multiple - family structure in this visual simulation can be compared to that of the existing residential to the south. As can be seen, the colors and curvilinear design as well as the manner in which each level of the structure has been stepped back from the bluff face allow the structure to conform to the bluff, in contrast with the existing single - family residential immediately south of the site and the multiple - family project located farther south, which are characterized by vertical elements and colors that may be less aesthetically compatible with the bluff topography. An additional visual simulation (Visual Simulation V17 — Kayak 4) was created, which depicts the proposed project from a vantage in the harbor that is between the boat dock for the existing residence south of the project and the boat dock for the proposed project. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -16, the proposed project, including the dock facilities proposed, reveal that when viewed from this location, neither the rock outcroppings nor the cove features would be affected by any of the proposed development. All of the significant existing cove and bluff features (e.g., rock outcroppings, sandy beach, etc.) will remain in view from this location within the channel. Furthermore, physical access to the cove is not precluded by either the residential development or the dock facilities proposed for the project. The effect of the proposed boat docks from this vantage would not have any significant effects on the important visual amenities within the harbor. The proposed multiple - family residential structure will be prominent; however, the building has been designed to conform to the existing topography. As can be seen in this simulation, the northern portion of the structure is consistent with the predominant line of existing development on the bluff. The existing multiple - family structure is more reflective of the existing development that characterizes the area, which generally does not conform to the existing topographic features (i.e., use of vertical elements, lighter colors, etc.). Because of the scale of the structures located south of the project site, including the Channel Reef Condominium and the large single - family residence, the proposed structure does not present a significant contrast to the existing residential development to the south. Although the proposed structure is larger than individual residences to the north, when comparable land area is considered, the relative scale and mass is compatible with the existing development. The landscaping provides additional "softening" of the structural edges. As previously indicated, native landscape materials will be integrated into the design of the project to enhance the appearance of the bluff. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-22 Exhibit 4.5 -15 Visual Simulation V12 - Kayak 3 ion.: r- 5 lip lit f �- -. 9 IWO Exhibit 4.5-16 Visual Simulation V17 - Kayak 4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Channel Visual Simulations Section 4.5 - Aesthetics In addition to the kayak vantages, three visual simulations were also created to illustrate the anticipated visual impacts of the proposed project when viewed from the harbor from above the water surface (i.e., in a boat motoring or sailing into and out of the channel). Exhibit 4.5 -17 (Visual Simulation V13 — Channel 1) illustrates the visual context of the proposed Aerie project to the existing development to the north and south and the overall visual character along the bluffs in the vicinity of the project site. As seen in this exhibit, the proposed project contrasts sharply with the existing single - family residence occupying the bluff face to the south as well as the residence located on the east side of Ocean Boulevard. The project design features include the graduated stepping of the residential structure as it extends upward. This feature, along with the curvilinear appearance, natural -tone colors and materials, and landscaping enable the structure to be integrated into the bluff topography, in contrast to the existing development that is dominated by their vertical elements (as well as when compared to the existing apartment building on the site). The northerly portion of the proposed building terraces back from the bluff as it rises to simulate an extension of the slope of the bluff in that location. In particular, when compared to the single - family residence adjacent to the subject property, the proposed multiple - family structure is more visually subdued, even though it is larger. The proposed structure is also substantially smaller than the Channel Reef apartment development farther south. The bluff has also been extensively landscaped with native plants to enhance its appearance. The entrance to the cove below the bluff is both visually and physically accessible. Views of the other significant topographic features of the property that create aesthetic value in addition to the bluff itself (specifically the rock outcroppings and cove), would not be significantly affected by the development; none would be altered by the proposed development. As previously indicated, any potential effect on the view of these features is brief and intermittent as one "cruises" into and out of the harbor and, therefore, is less than significant. All of the important visual amenities would be retained as a result of project implementation. Exhibit 4.5 -18 provides a direct view of the proposed project from inside the channel. This visual simulation (Visual Simulation V14 — Channel 2) illustrates similar visual context within the channel. Unlike the view farther south (refer to Exhibit 4.5 -17), the sandy beach cannot be seen from this vantage. In addition, a portion of the area characterized by the rock outcroppings would be obscured from view when the proposed docks are occupied; however, the majority of the bluff would be seen even with all of the slips in the boat dock occupied. From this vantage, the northern portion of the proposed structure is apparent as the building "wraps" around the bluff. The structural elements appear to be "broken" to reduce the overall scale of the structure. In this simulation, the stepping back is also apparent, particularly along the northern portion of the property. Existing development to the south of the subject property is characterized by the horizontal and vertical structural elements. Visual Simulation V15 — Channel 3) presented in Exhibit 4.5-19 depicts the proposed development from the channel just to the north of the proposed boat dock. In this simulation, the relationship of the proposed structure to those along the north- facing bluff can be seen. As revealed in Exhibit 4.5 -19, the proposed project will extend out to the northern portion of the bluff to obscure a portion of the existing residence on Carnation Avenue adjacent to the site. The project has been designed to "break up" the multiple - family structure to reduce its mass, which is illustrated in the appearance of two structures. Landscaping has also been integrated into the project design to "soften" the development edges created by the proposed structure. Similar to other vantages within the harbor, depending on the location of the viewer, visual amenities, may be obscured by the proposed boat dock. This is true for this vantage. Portions of the rock outcroppings, the sandy beach, and related features cannot be seen from this location within the harbor; however, virtually all of the bluff up to the proposed multiple - family structure will remain within view of boaters as they travel into and out of the harbor. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5-25 Off Exhibit 4.5 -17 Visual Simulation V13 - Channel 1 ve M « 4 a 6 ♦ 4 u P P Exhibit 4.5 -18 Visual Simulation V14 - Channel 2 cf 12 x•,. Yi 1 ' ' logo *'.7— *r 3 a J Exhibit 4.5 -19 Visual Simulation V15 - Channel 3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5 - Aesthetics Based on the significance criteria identified in Section 4.5.2, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, as illustrated in the visual simulations, the proposed structure would not adversely affect a scenic resource. With only minor exception (i.e., emergency access), the proposed project is situated above the PLOED as prescribed by the Newport Beach City Council in order to preserve the coastal bluff as a visual resource. The project has been designed to avoid any significant impact associated with the emergency access by creating a feature that is recessed, which would be indistinguishable from the existing topographic character of the bluff. Furthermore, none of the significant features, including rock outcroppings, significant vegetation, the sandy beach, etc., existing on the site would be affected by site development. The site is devoid of historic structures. As a result, the proposed project would have no significant adverse visual impact on these features. Although visual character of the site would be transformed, the project, including the proposed docks, has been designed to avoid potentially significant impacts to the visual character of the bluff and harbor environment. As previously indicated, the proposed multiple - family residential structure has been designed to comply with the development standards prescribed in the City's zoning ordinance, including building height, lighting, landscaping, etc., to ensure that no significant visual impacts occur. A modification to the side yard setback requirement is proposed. In addition, the existing scenic vista available from the designated Public View Point along Ocean Boulevard near the southern property boundary has been expanded through the project design to create a wider view angle. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.5 -1, the scenic vista would be expanded by 76 percent and a new view corridor will be created along the northern property line, which does not exist at the present time. In order to ensure that adverse effects on a scenic vista will be avoided, MM 4.5 -2 requires the dedication of a view easement through the property. As stipulated in that measure, no structure or landscape feature located within the easement would block any public view. Therefore, no significant visual impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Natural Resources Element As described in Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. Light and Glare The project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. For example, exterior materials proposed for the residential structure would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Tinted glazing is proposed on the windows and most of the windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Although outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, it would not create a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the project site, and are separated by a considerable distance from the project site and proposed residential structure. In addition to the distance between the existing proposed and existing structures, Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.55-29 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.5- Aesthetics there are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the project site that minimize the effects of lighting at night. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be designed to illuminate only the desired activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits, consistent with the City's adopted lighting standards (refer to SC 4.5 -2). All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the subject property to adversely effect at neighboring homes and /or properties. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Although the applicant is proposing to improve the existing landing and expand the boat dock to accommodate nine vessels, resulting in an increase in the area that would require lighting in that location, it would be similar to that which currently exists in this area and would be designed to cast light only on the affected area; therefore, no additional lighting and /or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. 4.5.5 Mitigation Measures As previously indicated, the project has been designed to avoid significant visual impacts. Although some view from the channel would be momentarily affected by the construction of the boat dock and related facilities, no important visual amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected. Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. 4.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Incorporation of the standard conditions will effectively address the visual and aesthetic character of the area. In addition, the proposed project will be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives articulated in the Natural Resources Element (Visual Resources) of the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts will occur as a result of project implement. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.5 -30 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology 4.6 DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (Hunsaker) prepared a hydrology analysis for the proposed project to document the existing hydrologic conditions of the site and to determine the post - development 100 -year peak storm runoff discharges, which will be utilized as the basis of storm drain design for the proposed project. In addition, Hunsaker also prepared a Conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The findings and recommendations presented in these documents are summarized below and are available for review at the City of Newport Beach. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions Local Drainage /Hydrology No stream or river exists on site. A portion of the existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a northerly and westerly direction before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. In addition, an existing drain pipe system also collects runoff, which is also discharged into Newport Bay. The site is currently developed. As such, the site is divided into three drainage areas as summarized in Table 4.6 -1 and illustrated on Exhibit 4.6 -1. Table 4.6 -1 Existing Hydrology Drainage Area Area (in acres) Flow Rate (cubic feet/second) A 0.125 0.76 B 0.181 1.04 C 0.081 0.51 Total 0.387 2.31 SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009) As indicated in Table 4.6 -1, a total of 2.31 cubic feet per second (cfs) is discharged in the existing condition during a 100 -year storm event. A portion of the runoff associated with the existing development (i.e., Area C) is discharged to Carnation Avenue where it flows into a public catch basin and then onto the bluff face and into the harbor from an existing 24 -inch diameter pipe located below the existing multiple - family residence at approximately 31 feet above mean sea level. Additional runoff is discharged into the bay near the base of the stairs at the northwestern corner of the site from a second private drain pipe. The remaining runoff occurs as surface runoff from the roof, which is discharged onto the bluff and ultimately into the cove and harbor below. The existing surface water flows are neither detained on -site nor treated prior to their discharge into the harbor. Flooding The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. The subject property is located in an area designated by FEMA as "Area C' on the FIRM (i.e., areas outside the 500 -year flood plain). The site is not subject to the effects of flooding associated with a 100 - year storm. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -1 0 � o y L � x j� .t9b W Qi ui Mo lo It 4 . O.P IY U o LU ad Q c� ,or r' } ^ w° I a W n It w it ayo % o t i { - m No 8r o' , - m ItId 4 l0 W � y awe m U �m m W� anrn t„ �o2N C6 V W "+ W Q� Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and within the East Costa Mesa - Newport Beach Watershed (i.e., County of Orange Watershed G). The subject property is tributary to and discharges directly into Lower Newport Bay, which is currently identified as a 303d- listed impaired water body for Chlordane, Copper, DDT, PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls), and Sediment Toxicity. Additionally, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have been proposed to be established for copper in 2007 and Chlordane, DDT, PCBs and Sediment Toxicity in 2019. Due to the proximity of the site to Lower Newport Bay, the site contains "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana Basin (Basin Plan). Surface water quality is subject to federal, state and local water quality requirements. General requirements are reflected in Table 4.6 -2 and described below. Table 4.6 -2 Water Quality Regulatory Agencies Water Quality Requirement Enforcement Agency Clean Water Act (CWA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (N DES) Permit Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB Drainage Area Management Plan DAMP County of Orange Local Water Quality Ordinance City of Newport Beach Coastal Programs Division (CPD) within the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management OCRM California Coastal Act California Coastal Commission CCC Local Coastal Program LCP City of Newport Beach Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, Order No. 2002 -0010, NPDES No. CAS618030, Waste Discharge Requirements for the county of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and The Incorporated Cities of Orange County Within the Santa Ana Region Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County. SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., (January 28, 2009 4.6.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. Substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and /or damage from water forces to the subject project and /or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures. Development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and /or property to potential serious injury and /or damage. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -3 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Impervious surfaces increase and /or divert storm water runoff that result in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows. Project implementation will cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters. • A usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes is substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge. • Storm water and /or induced runoff mixes with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.) that, in turn, substantially and adversely affects the habitat. • Sediments are increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and /or sensitive species. 4.6.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.6 -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall be required to submit a notice of intent (NOI) with the appropriate fees to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for coverage of such future projects under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit prior to initiation of construction activity. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC 4.6 -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project and submit the WQMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval. The WQMP shall specifically identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used to control predictable pollutant runoff, including flow /volume -based measures to treat the "first flush." The WQMP shall identify at a minimum the routine structural and non - structural measures specified in the Countywide NPDES Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP), which details implementation of the BMPs whenever they are applicable to a project, the assignment of long -term maintenance responsibilities, and shall reference the locations of structural BMPs SC 4.6 -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit that plan to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The SWPPP will establish BMPs in order to reduce sedimentation and erosion. SC 4.6-4 Future site grading and construction shall comply with the drainage controls imposed by the applicable Municipal Code requirements prescribed by the City of Newport Beach. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6-4 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology 4.6.4 Potential Impacts 4.6.4.1 Short -Terre Construction Impacts Water Quality The site is under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for issues related to water quality. As previously indicated, each of the nine California RWQCBs is responsible for adopting and implementing water quality control plans for each basin's water bodies, regulating waste discharges from both point and nonpoint sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated basin. Development of the subject property as proposed will result in alteration of the site and a change in the existing drainage conditions on the site. Exposure of the site during grading could result in an increase in erosion that could adversely affect water quality. In addition, the construction of parking lots and other circulation features that accommodate automobiles could also contribute to an increase in hydrocarbon and other pollutant discharges into the surface and ground water features. Site grading and construction activities that occur as a result of project implementation may result in short- term increases in silt and sediment to downstream locations. However, implementation of the BMPs prescribed in the SWPPP and WQMP that must be prepared for the proposed multiple - family residential project will ensure that the construction - related impacts resulting from site grading will minimize the amount of silt and sediment that is transported to downstream locations. These potential impacts will be avoided or reduced through the implementation of appropriate BMPs as prescribed in the Orange County DAMP and in the standard conditions previously identified. These measures will be implemented during grading and construction activities. In addition, other standard conditions (e.g., compliance with applicable building code requirements) will further minimize construction - related impacts. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Aerie residential project will not have a significant effect on water quality as a result of silt and sediment transport from construction activities. Although it is anticipated that the concentration of urban pollutants in storm runoff from the grading and construction activities associated with project implementation could increase during the construction phase, the runoff would be controlled through applicable BMPs to minimize discharges of pollutants, including siltation associated with erosion resulting from grading activities. Further, once construction activities are completed, these potential impacts will cease. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A variety of Best Management Practices (BMPS) have been identified in a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) to ensure that there is no contact between storm water and construction site wastes and materials and to prevent any accidental spills, leaks or wastes from draining off -site and into Newport Bay or the nearby storm drain system. The BMP program incorporated in the SWPPP is structured to maintain compliance with the Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards and provide multiple safeguards against potential harm to the environment. While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the BMPs have been tailored to provide effective options to those who are responsible for overseeing workplace safety and environmental compliance. BMPs included in the SWPPP address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, BMPs have also been prescribed for pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, etc. A final SWPPP will be subject to approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City or issuance of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -5 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology General Construction Permit by the RWQCB. The permits will include requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that all water pollution control measures are properly implemented. As indicated in Chapter 3.0, project implementation also includes the replacement of the existing four -slip dock facility with an eight -boat dock and one guest side tie to accommodate future residents of the proposed dwelling units. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality impacts. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Appropriate mitigation measures will be required to ensure that turbidity impacts and related water quality impacts associated with the off -shore activities are avoided or reduced to an acceptable level (refer to Section 4.7- 5). 4.6.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Hydrology Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage, the existing drainage areas that encompass the site will be modified. Impervious surfaces comprising the existing development encompass approximately 22 percent of the total area of the project site. When redeveloped as proposed, impermeable surfaces will cover approximately 26 percent of the project site. The remaining 72 percent will remain permeable. Project implementation will result in the elimination of two of the drainage areas that currently exist. However, although the subject property will encompass only one drainage area after grading and site development, implementation of the condominium project will not alter the existing off -site drainage patterns. Moreover, the total discharge from the site in the developed condition is estimated to be only 1.95 cfs or a 15 percent decrease in surface runoff when compared to the existing 2.31 cfs (refer to Table 4.6 -1). The decrease in storm flow is largely attributed to the addition of a swimming pool, which would capture runoff during the storm event, thereby reducing the total storm flows on the site under existing condition because a swimming pool does not currently exist. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration element within the outlet structure, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Table 4.6 -3 summarizes the post - development hydrologic conditions (refer to Exhibit 4.6 -2). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -6 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6— Drainage and Hydrology Table 4.6 -3 Post - Development Hydrology As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP. It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the deficient catch basin. 100 -Year Flood Plain Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -8 Area Flow Rate Drainage Area (in acres) (cubic feet/second) A 0.0 0.0 B 0.0 0.0 C 0.387 1.95 Total 0.387 0.50 'The 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cfs, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged from Area C. SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. (February 2, 2009 As indicated in Table 4.6 -2, virtually all of the stormwater emanating from the site in the developed condition will be generated in Drainage Area C. Although the 1.95 cfs anticipated to occur in the developed condition is less than under existing conditions, the entire building watershed has been directed to the pump vault proposed in the southern corner of the structure. The maximum pump discharge is 0.50, which approximates the flow currently entering the 24 -inch RCP prior to discharging onto the bluff face and into the harbor. The pump vault is designed to store the peak flow, thereby reducing the discharge to that approximating the existing discharge. In addition, a storm filter and bacteria treatment system will also be installed along Carnation Avenue. The outflow from this facility is proposed to connect to the existing 24 -inch RCP. It must also be noted that an off -site drainage area encompassing 11.54 acres contributes storm flows to the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. Storm flows generated within this drainage area has a 100 -year peak storm flow rate of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). The proposed project would result in a decrease in the 100 -year storm flow, which would be directed to an existing storm drain that has adequate capacity. However, the existing catch basin is currently deficient. Although no significant project - related impacts are anticipated as a result of the reduction in storm flow generated by the proposed project, this facility will be improved by the project applicant to accommodate the storm flows generated within the tributary area, including the project site. The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Carnation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the 11.54 -acre drainage area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. Implementation of this improvement by the applicant will ensure that adequate capacity will be provided in the deficient catch basin. 100 -Year Flood Plain Project implementation will not result in the placement of any portion of the development proposed on the subject property within the limits of the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -8 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Water Quality The potential stormwater or urban runoff pollutants reasonably expected to occur as a result of project implementation include: (1) sediment from driveways, parking areas, roads and roof tops; (2) organic compounds derived from automotive fluids, pesticides, and fertilizers; (3) nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous, etc.) generated by organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage and sediment; (4) metals (e.g., copper, lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel and zinc) from motor vehicles, re- roofing and hardscape /construction materials, and chemicals; (5) bacteria and viruses from animal excrement, sanitary sewer overflow, and trash container handling areas; (6) oil and grease from motor vehicles; (7) oxygen - demanding substances, including biodegradable organic materials and various household chemicals, which deplete dissolved oxygen levels in water courses; (8) pesticides, including household bug sprays, weed killers and other household sources; and (9) trash and debris, which include common litter, biodegradable organic matter such as leaves, grass cuttings, etc., from landscaped areas. A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby incorporated by reference into this Draft EIR. The WQMP identifies a number of structural and non- structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach water quality regulations, and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as part of a General Construction Permit (as discussed earlier). The following routine structural and non - structural BMPs will be incorporated into the project design. Routine Non - Structural BMPs N1 — Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Facility users will be notified of the impacts of their actions on water quality. Requirements will be established for the implementation of an awareness program that informs facility users of the impacts of dumping oil, paints, solvents or other potentially harmful chemicals into the storm drain; proper use and management of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides in home landscaping; and the impacts of littering and improper watering. N2 — Activity Restrictions Language will be included in the CC &Rs of the HOA to identify source water quality protection required of all property owners and contractors. N3 — Common Area Landscape Management Ongoing maintenance will be consistent with any City requirements, the county Water Conservation Resolution, and the State of California Model Water- Efficient Landscape Ordinance. In addition, fertilizer and pesticide usage will be consistent with the County Management Guidelines for use of Fertilizers and Pesticides. N4 — BMP Maintenance The HOA will be responsible for implementing each applicable non - structural BMP and scheduling inspection and maintenance cleaning of all applicable structural BMP facilities. The HOA will also be responsible for inspection and maintenance activities in landscape areas and for controlling debris and other water pollutants. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -9 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology • N11 —Common Area Litter Control Weekly sweeping and trash pick -up within the project area will be required, with daily inspection of trash receptacles. In addition, litter controls will be established and violations will be noted and reported. • N12 — Employee Training Annual employee training /education will be established by the HOA that applies to future employees, contractors and volunteers to inform and train those engaged in maintenance activities that include the use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc. • N15 — Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots All parking areas exposed to rain will be vacuum swept on a weekly basis. Routine Structural BMPs Provide storm drain system stenciling and signage Although the project does not propose on -site catch basins, signs will be posted throughout the site with "No Dumping — Drains to Ocean." Design and construct trash and waste storage areas to reduce pollution introduction Trash enclosures will be provided in designated areas that are covered to prevent contact with wind and rain. Drainage from trash enclosure areas will be prohibited from entering the storm drain. Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control All common areas will be landscaped with similar plant material having similar water requirements to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. The City's "Water- Efficient Landscaping" ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17) will be implemented with common areas maintained by the HOA. In addition, site design and treatment BMPs have also been identified in the WQMP and will be implemented to ensure that water entering the harbor has been adequately treated to avoid potential impacts to that impaired water body. Specifically, the site has been designed to minimize impervious areas and maximize permeability. The site has also been designed to minimize directly connected impervious areas. Treatment BMPs incorporated into the project intended to treat surface runoff include a proprietary StormFilter unit. The Stormwater Quality Design Flows (SQDF)' for the project's cumulative drainage areas have been determined to be 0.058 cfs. The size of the units will be determined based on the final hydrology study to be prepared prior to issuance of the grading permit. Following treatment by the project StormFilter unit, site runoff will pass through an Abtech Smart Sponge Plus drain insert for additional treatment for bacteria as a pollutant of concern. 'The Orange County DAMP requires that flow -based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) based on the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour for each hour of a storm event. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -10 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Other BMPs that will be implemented include parking and storage area maintenance to ensure that the parking area is cleaned on a regular basis. Use of absorbent materials to clean up vehicle - related spills and leaks will be disposed of properly. The pool will also be cleaned regularly to control algae, pool filters will be cleaned and inspected regularly, and pool water will be disposed of properly, into the sanitary sewer. Implementation of these and other measures outlined in the WQMP will ensure that potential water quality impacts resulting from project implementation will be less than significant and will be minimized. The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Lower Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. All 'first flush' and low flow runoff from the developed site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Carnation Avenue and filtered by a storm filter and bacteria filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Notwithstanding the increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards over the long -term operating life of the developed site. In addition, the WQMP also includes measures that are intended to avoid water quality impacts within Newport Bay during the construction of the proposed dock facility. These measures, which are also included in the CMP, are design features of the proposed project. They include: All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor daily With the incorporation of these measures prescribed in the CMP, no significant water quality impacts to Newport Bay would occur as a result of project implementation. 4.6.5 Mitigation Measures Hydrology Project implementation will result in a reduction in storm flows generated on the project site. Although no significant project - related impacts will occur, the applicant will upgrade the existing deficient catch basin, which will ensure that adequate capacity exists to accommodate storm flows within the drainage area. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -11 Aerie PA2005 -197 Draft Environmentat Impact Report Section 4.6 — Drainage and Hydrology Flooding Based on the hydraulic analysis prepared for the proposed project, project implementation will not result in a significant impact on the water surface elevations for 100 -year storm flows. The subject property is located in FEMA Area C (i.e., outside of the 500 -year flood plain); all of the development (i.e., structures) is proposed to be located outside of the revised floodplain. Therefore, no significant flooding impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Water Quality The incorporation of BMPs prescribed in the WQMP and Construction Management Plan as well as the storm drainagelflood control facilities proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project will reduce potential pollutants that enter the surface flows as a result of project implementation to the "maximum extent practicable," as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a result, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions, project features (upgraded catch basin), and, specifically, the BMPs prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, Draft WQMP and SWPPP, as well as implementation of the proposed storm drainage system described above, will ensure that the potential impacts associated with an increase in surface runoff resulting from development of the proposed Aerie residential project are reduced avoided. No significant unavoidable impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by P &D Consultants (June 10, 2005), which documented the existing biological constraints on the subject property. A Biological Impact Report to assess terrestrial resources was prepared by ICF /Jones & Stokes (December 2008). The analysis presented in these reports was based on current aerial photographs, a site visit and updated literature reviews (Appendix H). In addition, Coastal Resources Management, Inc., prepared a report entitled, "Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Code, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625" (May 9, 2008), which assessed the marine biological impacts associated with project implementation (Appendix 1). Finally, a "Jurisdictional Determination for Area of African Umbrella Sedge Adjacent to Aerie Project Site Location in Newport Beach, Orange County, California;' (Appendix J) was also undertaken by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) to determine whether wetlands were present on the subject property. The findings and recommendations of these reports are summarized in the following sections. 4.7.1 Existing Conditions Terrestrial Biological Resources Veaetation and Habitat The project site is located on a bluff located east of the entrance to Newport Harbor. Topographically, the site is characterized by a sloping coastal bluff that drops sharply to a small beach and cove along the western project boundary. The upper elevation of the project site is approximately 70 feet above mean sea level. Four depleted natural communities were identified in the literature review conducted for the proposed project as potentially occurring within the project vicinity: (1) Southern coastal salt marsh; (2) Southern cottonwood willow riparian forest; (3) Southern dune scrub; and (4) Southern foredunes. None of these depleted natural communities are present within the project site. Based on the reconnaissance field visit of the project site and a review of the plans prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates, the dominant vegetation type on the project site is ornamental species; however, a remnant southern coastal bluff scrub community exists on the rocky outcrop along the northern project boundary extending into Newport Bay. The coastal bluff face, which is located below the existing structures, is densely vegetated with ornamental species and some scattered natives. Southern coastal bluff scrub is dominated by woody and succulent species. Growth and flowering occur from late winter through spring. Species in this vegetation community and observed at the project site include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), bush sunflower (Encelia californica), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and coastal goldenbush ( /socoma menziesit).' The majority of the non - native plant species on the subject property included but are not limited to: sea lavender (Limonium perezil), soft -chess (Brome hordeaceus), (oxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), wild oat (Avena sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), century plant (Agave sp.), crystalline iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), sweet clover (MeNotus sp.), Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis sp.), and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). 'A Notice of Violation of the California Coastal Act (March 27, 2008) was issued to the property owner by the California Coastal Commission. The Notice Indicated that native bluff vegetation, including lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and bush sunflower (Encelia califomica) had been removed from the site. Although pruning and trimming necessary to maintain the lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) on the site occurred, none of these species have been removed as indicated in the Existing Vegetation Map prepared by Robert Mitchell & Associates. Based on the Existing Vegetation Map, the lemonade berry is making a comeback and appear to be in good health. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Critical Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plan Critical habitat is a term defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It refers to specific geographic areas that are essential to the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations or protection. The project site is not located within any designated critical habitat, including a designated Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area. Special- Status Plants and Wildlife Plant or wildlife species may be considered to have "special status" due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special status species are those listed under the federal Endangered Species List as threatened or endangered, or federal candidate for listing; those species listed under the California Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, or a state species of special concern; or California Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1A, 1B, and 2. A total of 82 special status plant and wildlife species are identified as potentially occurring in the project region. Of these 82 species, nine plant species and one wildlife species have potential to occur due to suitable habitat conditions or was observed at the project site. The remaining plant and wildlife species described in the sensitive species table were determined not to have potential to occur at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions (e.g., soils or vegetation associations) or geographic range. Special Status Plant Species The nine plant species that have the potential to occur at the project site are listed and described in Table 4.7 -1. During the reconnaissance site visit conducted for the project, none of these species were observed. Table 4.7 -1 Special Status Plants Species Status Potential for Occurrence Aphanisma blooms from March through June and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Aphanisma Federal: None Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and ( Aphanisma blitoides) State: None Coastal sage scrub from 3 to 1,000 feet. Habitat Other. CNP List 1 B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. South Coast Saltscale blooms from march through October and is found from Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb South Coast Saltscale Federal: None are Southern coastal bluff scrub, Coastal dunes, and (Atriplex paci(ca) State: None Coastal sage scrub from 0 to 460 feet. Habitat Other: GNP List 1B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presencelabsence. San Fernando Valley Spine6ower blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Los Angeles, Federal: Candidate and Ventura Counties. Typical habitats of this annual San Fernando Valley State: Endangered herb are open, sandy soils, valley and grassland foothills r. Fn andin (Chorizanfhe panyi var. fenandina) Other: CNP List 1B from 98 to 1,804 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate bloomin window would determine Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.7— Biological Resources Species Status Potential for Occurrence presence/absence. Southern Tarplant blooms from May through November and is found from Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Barbara Counties. Typical habitats for this annual herb Federal: None are marshes, swamps (margins), valley and foothill Southern Tarplant State: None grassland (vernally mesic), and vernal pools from 0 to (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis) Other: CNP List 1 B 1,394 feet. Habitat conditions on site are not ideal to support this species but are nonetheless present. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence /absence. Salt Marsh Bird's Beak blooms from May through October and is found from Los Angeles and Orange Federal: Endangered Counties. Typical habitats of this annual herb are Salt Marsh Bird's Beak State, Endangered coastal dunes, marshes, and coastal salt swamps from 0 (Cordylanthus ma dtimus sap. maritimus) Other: CNP List 1 B to 98 feet. This species is known from coastal bluffs and Newport Back Bay. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Many- stemmed Dudleya blooms from April through July and is found from Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Typical habitats of this perennial Many- stemmed Dudleya Federal: None herb are chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill (Dudleya multicaulis) State: None grasslands in clay soils from 49 to 2,592 feet. Habitat Other: CNP List 1B conditions on site are not ideal to support this species; however, this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presencelabsence. Laguna Beach Dudleya blooms from May through July and is found in Orange County. Typical habitats of this stoloniferous herb are cismontane woodland, chaparral, Laguna Beach Dudleya Federal: Threatened coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and rocky (Dudleya stolonifera) State: Threatened substrates from 32 to 853 feet. Habitat conditions on Other: CNP List 1B site are not ideal to support this species; however, this species is known from the project region. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine resence/absence. Cliff Spurge blooms from December through August and is found in Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Cliff Spurge Federal: None Counties. Typical habitats for this shrub are coastal bluff (Euphorbia misers) State: None scrub from 32 to 1,640 feet. Habitat conditions on site Other. CNP List 1B are suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine presence/absence. Big - leaved Crownbeard blooms from April through July and is found in Orange county. Typical habitats for this Big - leaved Crownbeard Federal: Threatened perennial herb are chaparral and coastal sage scrub (Verbesina dissita) State: Threatened from 147 to 672 feet. Habitat conditions on site are Other: CNP List 1B suitable to support this species. Focused surveys performed during the appropriate blooming window would determine resence /absence. SOURCE: ICF /Jones &Stokes December 2008 Wildlife The site has been significantly altered as a result of past development of the property. Nonetheless, wildlife species were observed on the site or are expected to occur, including amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. These species are described below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -3 Aerie PA2005 -996 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Amphibians require moisture for at least a portion of their life cycle and many require standing or flowing water for reproduction. Only one amphibian, the Pacific tree frog (Hyla regalia) is expected to occur at the project site. Similarly, only one species of reptile was observed at the site: the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). Birds are the most commonly observed vertebrate species at the site. Those species that are common residents of developed urban areas and observed at the site include the house sparrow (Passer domesticus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and double- crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Conditions at the site do not provide adequate nesting habitat for most raptors (i.e., birds of prey). The sparse southern coastal bluff scrub and ornamental vegetation at the project site do not provide extensive foraging or suitable nesting habitat for raptor species, which typically forage and breed in larger natural open spaces areas. However, some raptor species are adapted to urban conditions. Limited opportunity to forage at the project site exists along the southern coastal bluff, within the ornamental vegetation and on the small beach. Raptor species that may occur within the vicinity of the project site include Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperil), red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), sharp- shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), barn owl (Tyto Alba), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Small ground - dwelling mammals having potential to occur at the project site include several species of rodents. The pocket mouse (Peromyscus sp.), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Spermcphilus beecheyi), and Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubon6) are the most abundant of these species. Bats occur throughout most of southern California, including the project environs. Those species that could potentially occur at the project site are inactive during the winter and either hibernate or migrate, depending on the species. Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis califronicus), Mexican long- tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana), and big free - tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) are not expected to roost or forage at the project site due to lack of suitable habitat conditions. Larger mammals, including both herbivores and carnivores, are not expected to occur at the project site because it is not adjacent to any undeveloped open space. Only two mammal species were identified at the site based on their tracks: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and domestic cat (Fells catus). Special- Status Wildlife State- or Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Animals Many special status wildlife species are known to occur in the project vicinity. However, the project site has been significantly altered as a result of past development, resulting in the elimination of the potential for many special status wildlife to occur. One wildlife species, currently listed as endangered by the State (SE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FE), was observed utilizing the project site. Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalls) was observed during the reconnaissance survey conducted in 2008. Six threatened animal species were identified as potentially occurring within the region (i.e., Newport Beach U.S.G.S. quadrangle). These species include the California red - legged frog (Rana aurora draytonl), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), and southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis). In addition, 15 endangered animal species were also identified as potentially occurring within the region: San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecta sandiegonensis), Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), arroyo toad (Bulb, califomicus), short- tailed albatross (Phaebastria albatrus), light- footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tern (Sterna antillarum browns) Western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), least Bell's vireo (Vireo beed pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extrimus), Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldings), Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -996— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources and Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus). None of these species were observed on the subject property with the exception of the brown pelican. None of these threatened or endangered species are expected to occur on the site because of the level of disturbance that has occurred on the property. As indicated above, the federally endangered brown pelican was observed at the project site. This species, which is the smallest of the eight species of pelican, although it is a large bird in nearly every other regard, was observed at the project site utilizing the existing dock that extends into Newport harbor. Brown pelicans forage and roost in Newport Harbor and breed on the Channel Islands and islands off the Baja California coast. The brown pelican is also designated by the State of California as "Endangered." Habitat Linkages and Corridors Habitat linkages provide a genetic link or communication between two or more typically larger or superior in quality natural areas to the linkage and they provide substantial long -term habitat resources and facilitate movement across a linkage that can span generations of individual organisms. Connected patches also typically have substantially overlapping species inventories and resources. Such linkage sites can be small or constrained in some cases; however, they may be critical to the long -term health and viability of populations within the connected natural areas. Corridors, on the other hand, provide specific opportunities for individual animals to disperse or migrate among other areas, which may be very extensive but otherwise partially or entirely separated regions. Corridors are characterized by appropriate cover, minimum physical dimensions, and low levels of disturbance and mortality risk. Corridors adequate for one species may be inadequate for others. The project site and adjacent Newport Bay restrict opportunities for terrestrial wildlife movement because of the existing, surrounding urban development. Migratory birds are visitors to Newport Harbor. The project site provides only limited opportunity (i.e., presence of limited southern coastal bluff scrub and existing dock) for migratory birds to roost and forage. Some marine fish species move into and out of the harbor for spawning or for nursery areas. Wetlands A jurisdictional determination was prepared by GtA to determine whether wetlands are present on the subject property. No blue line drainages (as depicted on the Newport Beach U.S.G.S. topography map) existing on the project site. Based on the survey conducted in December 2008, a limited area of African umbrella sedge (Cyperus involucratus, FACW), covering approximately 190 square feet (0.004 ac) occurs on the slope adjacent to the proposed building site. The African umbrella sedge begins approximately two feet below the point where a 30 -inch drainage pipe discharges onto the steeply sloping (i.e., 1:1 horizontal to vertical) bluff. The area supporting the African umbrella sedge is surrounded by ornamental vegetation, including Victorian box (Pittosporum undulatum), tobira (Pittosporum tobira), and two species of privit (Ligustrum spp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), which also dominates the irrigated slope immediately above the umbrella sedge. The determination of the presence or absence of wetlands is based on three criteria: (1) vegetation; (2) soils; and (3) hydrology. Within the area occupied by the African umbrella sedge, it was estimated to account for 80 percent of the total cover with Victorian box and privit accounting for about 10 percent each. Based on the criteria utilized to establish (vegetation) dominance (refer to the Jurisdiction Determination prepared by GLA in Appendix J, only the African umbrella sedge is considered dominant. However, in this instance, the presence of a species with an indicator status of FACW (i.e., up to one -third of occurrences of this species is in upland areas) is not sufficient to make a positive determination for the presence of wetlands. African umbrella sedge is a common landscape plant that is highly adaptable, as indicated in the Sunset Western Garden Book: Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources "Grows in or out of water. Effective near pools, in pots or planters, or in dry streambeds or rock gardens. Self sows. Can become weedy..." The second factor considered in the determination of wetlands is soils. Soils on the slope are thin, overlying bedrock. The soils that support the African umbrella sedge are upland soils. Because of the 1:1 slope and the sandy character of the soils, the soils drain quickly and do not have the ability to become saturated. No evidence of hydric soils development was detected and it is not expected due to the steepness of the slope and ability of the sandy soils to drain quickly. In addressing the presence of wetland hydrology, the determination considered two factors: (1) the hydrological indicators set forth in the Arid West Supplement; and (2) the definition in the Coastal Act, which includes area "which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water." Based on the latter criterion, the steepness of the existing slope and well- drained character of the sandy soils indicate that there is no potential for the area to be "covered" periodically or permanently with shallow water. Storm flows would drain quickly through the sandy soils precluding saturation for sufficient duration to be consistent with the presence of "wetland hydrology' (i.e., saturation for periods sufficient to promote anaerobic conditions in the upper 12 inches). Given the lack of wetland hydrology, as confirmed by the strong upland characteristics of the soils, it appears that the African umbrella sedge is supported by regular irrigation water, which was observed during the site visit by GLA and documented in the determination (refer to Appendix _). Based on the field survey conducted by GLA, the African umbrella sedge area lacks indicators for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and, therefore, is not considered to be a wetland under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject property. Similarly, the African umbrella sedge area is not associated with a stream or lake and is not subject to jurisdiction under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game). Although the African umbrella sedge area exhibits a predominance of wetland indicator species (the African umbrella sedge being the sole such species), it lacks evidence for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology and, therefore, would not be considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because the 190 square foot area is not covered permanently or periodically with shallow water. Rather, the area is supported primarily by intermittent artificial water sources, including landscape irrigation from the adjacent slope and existing storm drain. While that fact alone does not preclude the area from being a wetland, the specific area is not considered a wetland under the Coastal Act because it does not meet the Act's definition of a wetland for the following reasons. Irrespective of any "parameter" test (e.g., vegetation, soils, and hydrology), the area under consideration as a wetland must be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water. As previously indicated, the area in question comprises a steep slope, which precludes it from being covered by shallow water except during very brief periods of intense rainfall. Furthermore the lack of hydric soils (confirmed during the field investigation) indicates that water does not cover or saturate the soil for sufficient duration necessary to promote development of hydric soils and the growth of hydrophytes, which are present due to the artificial irrigation that is applied to the adjacent vegetation. In accordance with Coastal Commission Regulations (i.e., Section 13577 of Title 14, Division 5.5 of the California Code of Regulations), the Coastal Commission has interpreted the regulation consistent with what is often referred to as the "One Parameter Definition." While the Coastal Commission takes the position that the presence of a single wetland indicator establishes a presumption that a wetland is present, that presumption can be "... rebutted by strong, independent evidence of upland conditions. "2 Furthermore, Coastal Commission 'Dr. John Dixon, Staff Ecologist, California Coastal Commission (November 5, 2003). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolooical Resources staff also concluded in a staff report the following opinion: "In recognition of the fact that a proportion of wetland indicator plants occur in uplands, the wetland presumption may be falsified where there is strong, positive evidence of upland conditions.n3 As a result, once the Commission establishes the presumption, the burden shifts to the applicant, who must then prove that one or both of the other indicators does not exist, which is a critical distinction because it allows for an in -depth biological analysis to determine if the area is not a wetland despite the presence of a single wetland indicator. Given the clear and demonstrable lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils based on the jurisdictional determination conducted for the proposed project, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrae sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of occurrences, the 190 square foot area occupied by that species is not a wetland as defined by the Coastal Act. Marine Biological Resources Eelgrass /Eelgrass Habitat Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a marine flowering plant that grows in soft sediments in coastal bays and estuaries and occasionally offshore to depths of 50 feet. Eelgrass canopy (consisting of shoots and leaves approximately two to three feet long) attracts many marine invertebrates and fishes and the added vegetation and the vertical relief it provides enhances the abundance and the diversity of the marine life compared to areas where the sediments are barren. The vegetation also serves a nursery function for many juvenile fishes, including species of commercial and /or sports fish values (e.g., California halibut and barred sand bass). A diverse community of bottom - dwelling invertebrates (e.g., clams, crabs and worms) lives within the soft sediments that cover the root and rhizome mass system. Eelgrass meadows are critical foraging centers for seabirds (such as the endangered California least tern) that seek out baitfish (i.e., juvenile topsmelt) attracted to the eelgrass cover. Eelgrass is also in important contributor to the detrital (decaying organic) food web of bays as the decaying plant material is consumed by many benthic (i.e., lowest levels of a water body) invertebrates such as polycheate worms and reduced to primary nutrients by bacteria. As indicated in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and CLUP, the City has identified eelgrass beds as an important biological resource. Eelgrass beds, which are illustrated in Figure NR1 of the Natural Resources Element, are located within the Newport Harbor entrance channel, including in the vicinity of the subject property, as well as along the Balboa Peninsula, Linda Isle, Harbor Island and Balboa Island west of the project site. Although the eelgrass beds are recognized as an important biological resource, they are not included in the environmental study areas (ESAs) illustrated in Figure NR2. Nonetheless, the Natural Resources Element includes specific policies intended to avoid impacts to eelgrass. Eelgrass habitat in the project environs was mapped in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, a total of 10,155.4 square feet (0.233 acre) of eelgrass existed in the project vicinity. The majority of the eelgrass (0.231 acre) occurred south of the existing boat dock; one small patch occurred outside the project boundary, approximately 42 feet north of the existing boat dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 feet south of the existing dock and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef condominium complex. The epifaunal (i.e., animals that live on the sea floor or attached to other animals or objects under water) snail Alia carinata, was present in low to moderate densities living on the eelgrass blades. The eelgrass distribution based on the 2007 survey was generally similar to that mapped in 2005 with some minor boundary differences. The total of 10,062 square feet (0.231 acre) was mapped in 2007. This amount represents a decline of about one percent of the eelgrass mapped in 2005. The slight decline in eelgrass cover was associated with the bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed during the same period (i.e., 2005 to 2007). Staff Ecoloaist. California Coastal Commission. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Eelgrass turion (i.e., the part of the plant consisting of the emerging shoot and leaves) density was not determined during the 2007 survey. However, based on a comparative analysis of the densities estimated in 2004 and 2005, eelgrass turion density in the region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable and the turion density for the project area is expected to be similar to that noted during the 2004 and 2005 surveys. Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolfa (invasive algae) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out compete other algae and seagrasses. This species grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non - native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. No invasive species of algae, including Caulerpa taxifolia, in the general vicinity of the project site were found during either the 2005 or 2007 surveys. Carnation Cove Marine Life Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its location near the Harbor Entrance Channel and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands to silt substrates. This region of Newport Harbor share many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine sandy tidal flat that displays features that while once present and common, no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005 and between 115 and 325 per square meter in 2007. However, the Department of Fish and Game prohibits the taking of marine organisms within 1,000 feet of high tide, sand dollars are not a protected or "sensitive" species. The occurrence of sand dollars is not unusual for nearshore southern California sandy habitats at depths; between 10 and 25 feet mean lower low water (MLLW); however, the occurrence of intertidal populations of the species within Newport Bay is unique and rare. The population survives in this location because wave motion /wave energy is moderate, sediments are sandy to silty sand, and tidal exchange is excellent. The population represents a condition that was once common on Newport Bay tidal sand flats. The channel nassa snail (Nassarius fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. The marine biological community living on the low intertidal rocky substrate surrounding Carnation Cove is dominated by high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and secondary, lower biological cover of barnacles (Balanus spp.), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), green algae (Enferomopha/Ulva complex), and brown algae (Sargassum muticum, and Codium fragile). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia kellefll), ochre sea star (Pisasfer ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis), and lobster (Panilurus interruptus). At depths seaward of the eelgrass beds, the sandy silt bay floor in the Harbor Entrance Channel was colonized by sea pens (Stylatula elongata), sheep crab (Loxorhynchus grandis), Kellet's whelk, and the tube - dwelling polycheate Diopatra omafa. Nine species of fish were observed during the 2005 and 2007 surveys, including the mullet (Mugil cepahlus), topsmelt (Atherinops afnis), senorita (Halichores semicintus), California garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus), black perch (Embiotoca jacksonl), kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus), barred sand bass (P. nebulifer), unidentified turbot (Pleuronichthys sp.), and round sting ray (Urolophus hallen). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Marine Mammals Section 4.7— Biological Resources Pinnipeds (sea lions and seals) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have been recorded inside and outside of Newport Harbor, including California sea lion (Salophus californica), Pacific bottle -nose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). The most common marine mammal occurring in the harbor is the California sea lion, which prefer to haul out near the Pavilion. Harbor seals are les common that sea lions but individuals can be found sporadically throughout the year. Dolphins are seen occasionally and sightings of whales are rare. No marine mammal species breed in Newport harbor. None of the pinnipeds found within the harbor are endangered and none were observed at the project site. Special Status Marine Species Because Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. The project occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species. In addition, other sensitive species of plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals are known to inhabit and /or utilize eelgrass habitat. These species, and their potential to occupy the project site and environs, are identified in Table 4.7 -2. Table 4.7 -2 Special Status Marine Species Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFWS' /NMFS Status' CDFG Status' Occur Plants NMFS — HAPC Phyllospadix torreyi FMP Species under the Surfgrass Magnuson- Stevens Fishery — Low Potential Conservation and Manage ant Act NMFS — HAPC Zostera marina FMP Species under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery -- High Potential; Observed on- Eelgrass Conservation and site Management Act Invertebrates Extremely low to no potential Haliotis cracherodii FE __ to occur on rocky areas in Black abalone front of the cove; very rare in southern California Fishes Eucyclogobius newberryi FE __ No Potential; Extirpated from Tidewater goby Orange County Low Potential; May spawn on Leuresthes tenuls Big Corona Beach and the California Grunion` _ open coastal beaches of Newport Beach Two individuals observed associated with rocky reef habitat in front of cove in Hypsypops rubicundus Protected under commercial California State vicinity of proposed dock California garibaldi and sport fish regulations Marine Fish — AB77 structure. Most common (1995) within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on aayside Drive compared to other areas of the harbor Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFWS' /NMFS Status' CDFG Status' Occur Reptiles Chelonia mydas FE — Rare Visitor Green turtle Eretmochelys imbricate FE — Rare Visitor Hawksbill sea turtle Birds Pe/ecanus occidentalis FE' SE Forages and rests in project Brown pelican area Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mouth; will Sterna antillarum browni FE CE forage on juvenile baitfish in California least tern the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 miles of nesting sites Charadrius alexanddnus No nesting habitat present on Western snowy plover FT SSC site; no potential for individuals to occur on -site Mammals Zalophus calitomianus MMA __ Not abundant, but individuals California sea lion are present in Newport Harbor Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA -- Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robustus MMA -- Rare visitor to Newport Harbor California gray whale 'FE — Federal Endangered; FT — Federal Threatened; MMA Protected under the Marine Mammal Act. 'HPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EEH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; however, federally - permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. 'CE— Califomia Endangered; SSC — Species of Special Concern °Although the California halibut does not have a formal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of Its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. 5Currently (10/2008) proposed for federal delisting (FPD). SOURCE: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (May 9, 2008) 4.7.2 Significance Criteria Appendix G of the State CECA guidelines indicate that a project may be deemed to have a significant effect on the environment if the project is likely to: 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. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -10 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.). Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.7.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.7 -1 The project shall comply with California Code Title 14 (Natural Resources), Section 29.05, which prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line without a sportfishing license. SC 4.7 -2 Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 4.7.4 Potential Impacts 4.7.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands. As indicated in Section 4.6 (Drainage and Hydrology), a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) is required as standard practice (refer to SC 4.6 -1). The SWPPP will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional pollution and erosion. The plans include best management practices to ensure that short-term construction occurring on the site will not impact Newport Bay. Terrestrial Habitat/Species Noise levels at the project site due to construction activities would increase temporarily over existing ambient levels during the development of the proposed project. During construction, temporary noise has some potential to affect foraging and roosting activities, specifically for avian species. Although this is a temporary impact to such species, it is considered to be less than significant since noise levels would return to pre - construction levels at the completion of the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -11 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Project - related construction activities associated with the new dock would not result in significant short- or long -term effects on the brown pelican, which does not nest in the harbor. This species feeds throughout the harbor and often rests on pilings, boat floats, floating docks, and docks. Even if pelicans were temporarily disturbed by construction activities, including dredging operations, the potential effect represents an insignificant amount of available feeding area in the harbor. Pelicans have many alternative areas for undisturbed roosting within the harbor. Temporary impacts to the brown pelican would, therefore, be considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is not designated as a critical habitat for any wildlife species and is not located within an NCCP area. Marine Habitat/Species Impacts to Eelgrass No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction project. Nonetheless, post- construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel - related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel- related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an eelgrass mitigation program (refer to MM 4.7 -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. 4.7.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts Terrestrial Habitat/Species Vegetation Impacts Current project design features avoid the coastal bluff face and rocky outcrop located along the north side of the project site that extends into Newport Harbor. However, within the current development footprint there is a potentially suitable habitat for the nine special status plants listed in Table 4.7 -1. It is possible that future redevelopment of the subject property as proposed could adversely affect one or more special status plant species, should they exist on the site. The CMP includes several measures that will be implemented as part of the project to ensure that potential impacts to sensitive plant species and other terrestrial biological resources are avoided. If one or more of the species exist on the subject property and it is determined that project implementation would result in impacts, an incident take permit under Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code must be obtained. The measures prescribed in the CMP include: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for active nests of covered species at least seven (7) days prior to any habitat disturbance that occurs during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31). If no active nests are round, no further actions are required. However, if nesting activity is observed during the pre- construction survey, the nest site must be protected until nesting activity has ended or as otherwise directed Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -12 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources by a qualified biologist in order to ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. A qualified botanist shall perform focused surveys to determine the presence /absence for the nine sensitive plant species. The focused surveys shall be performed during the appropriate blooming window identified for each species. Survey methods shall follow CDFG guidelines. If any State - listed threatened or endangered plant species are impacted by project development, an incident take permit pursuant to Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code shall be obtained prior to issuance of a grading permit. As indicated above, implementation of these project features will ensure that the coastal bluff habitat is enhanced with native plant species and that potentially significant impacts to sensitive plant species as well as introduced non - native species of trees that may support avian species and nests will not occur. Wildlife Impacts Potential impacts to common wildlife species were evaluated by considering the habitat loss for each species occurring or potentially occurring at the project site. Development of the project would not result in significant impacts to common wildlife species currently or potentially utilizing the project site. Temporary disturbance impacts, as previously described, would occur for roosting birds (e.g., cormorants, gulls, pelicans) on t he existing dock until the new dock is built. Birds utilizing the bay directly adjacent to the project site may also experience temporary indirect disturbance while the new dock is being built. Terns, skimmers, and rails are located in Upper Newport Bay and will not be affected by the proposed project. Night lighting could degrade adjacent natural open space areas for wildlife by increasing predation and deterring animals from using an area. Lighting of the proposed project would result in an indirect effect on the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (i.e., active at down and dusk) avian species in the vicinity of the project site. Of greatest concern is the effect on birds that roost at the existing dock and on owls that are specialized night foragers. These impacts, while adverse, would not be expected to reduce any current wildlife population below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the project - related impacts associated with night lighting would be considered less than significant. Increased human disturbance resulting from project implementation is not expected to significantly disrupt normal foraging behavior of wildlife (e.g., birds) utilizing Newport Bay. The project site is currently occupied and human activity currently occurs along the small beach located at the project site. Development of the project would increase the human activity by increasing the number of people residing at the site when compared to the present; however, this increase in human activity would not be expected to result in the reduction of any current wildlife population in the project environs and, in particular, to below self- sustaining levels. Therefore, the potential impacts anticipated as a result of the long -term human occupation of the site would be less than significant. Wetlands The 190 square foot area identified on the bluff below the building pad does not meet the criteria for either U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code). Further, given the clear and demonstrable lack Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -13 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources of wetland hydrology and hydric soils, combined with the characteristics of the African umbrella sedge, a highly adaptable common landscape plant that occurs in upland areas for one -third of its occurrences, no portion of the site is considered a wetland under the California Coastal Act. Therefore, project implementation will not result in any potential impacts to wetlands. Shade /Shadow Study A shade /shadow study was undertaken to illustrate the potential effects of shading that may occur under the proposed deck at the first floor level of the proposed multiple - family residential structure. The study determined that the angle of the sun at the summer solstice on June 21 (i.e., the day of the year when the angle of the sun compared to the site would be the greatest) would be 78 degrees. On the December 21 winter solstice (i.e., when the sun's angle is the lowest), the sun's angle is only 33 degrees. As illustrated in Exhibit 4.7 -1, the potential shading effect caused by the extension of the deck over the bluff would be the greatest; it would be least during the winter, when the sun's angle is lower, which allows sunlight to reach farther under the proposed deck. The potential shading created by the deck could affect the plants that exist on the bluff at the present time. However, the project will result only in the removal of introduced, non- native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff. Nonetheless, in order to ensure that no significant impacts occur to the vegetation, only species that can tolerate the sunlight/shade conditions that would be anticipated as a result of project implementation are proposed to be planted in that area. Marine Habitat/Species Impacts to Eelgrass There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat are evaluated in the following analysis. Project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat. However, two piles on the dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are located within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. As a result, there is a slight potential for the placement of these piles to disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the piles as they are drilled into the rock. Implementing turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., silt curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -14 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources SUMMER SOLSTICE (JUNE 21) WINTER SOLSTICE (DEC 21) NEWBPPORT SECTION A NOTTOSCALE SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture (50.7') Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -15 RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNIT T.O.SLAB= 53.50' COMMON REC. POOL Exhibit 4.7 -1 Potential Shadow Effects Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post- construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts stipulated in the CMP, which will be undertaken as part of the proposed project. Specifically, the following measures will be undertaken as identified in the CMP (refer to Section 7.3 — Environmental Protection) to ensure that potential impacts to eelgrass are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. An updated pre- construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock /gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa taxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. A post- construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre- construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active - growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two -year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any construction activities. • The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass presently exists. • Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. • Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -16 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Eelgrass Impacts Related to Sand Transport The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Orange County Sheriff Harbor patrol Beach along Bayside Drive. Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and /or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities, including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. However, sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock piles will not result in the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alteration in local sand transport mechanisms. Impacts to Invertebrates There are no federally or state - listed sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. Sand dollar populations in the cove are considered to be unique intertidal populations. Although no level of protection is afforded sand dollars, the population in the cove is unique in that it represents a "throwback" to conditions that previously existed in the bay. Sand dollars do not exist in large numbers elsewhere in the bay. The sand grain size and wave action in the intertidal area below the bluff create conditions that are conducive to the persistence of this species in that location. If the sand dollar population that exists in the cove is removed, it is unlikely that it would reestablish itself at another site because similar conditions do not exist elsewhere in the bay.° The channel nassa snail (Nassarlus fossatus) and the purple olive snail (Olivella biplicata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sand dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site marine resources. However, as prescribed in SC 4.7 -1, the restriction prescribed by the CDFG that prohibits the taking of any marine organisms within 1,000 feet of the high tide line is intended to protect marine life, including the sand dollar. In addition, in order to further avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment and future residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to ensure its long -term protection. As a result, potentially significant impacts to the sand dollar colony can be avoided. To ensure that project - related impacts to these and other intertidal marine resources will be avoided, the CMP specifies several project elements /measures to be implemented, including: Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertidal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Carnation Cove by, among other things, (a) posting signage at key access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway stating that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction; (b) using yellow tape to prevent access to rocky intertidal habitat, eelgrass beds, and sand dollar habitat; and (c) prohibiting access to the water and rocky shoreline within the cove.. Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. ° Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Telephone conversation on October 2 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -17 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biolovical Resources Signage shall be posted at access points in front of the beach and on the elevated walkway, which state that access is limited to the elevated walkway during construction. In addition, yellow tape shall be used to prevent access. Access shall not be permitted to the water or rocky shorelines within the cove. A silt curtain will be placed around all water -side construction activity during the construction of the dock system to limit the spread of turbidity. If prolonged turbidity is observed outside the silt curtain then the silt curtain shall be re- deployed and re- positioned in a manner to correct the problem. Removal and emplacement of the piles will be conducted using Best Available Technology (BAT) that limits the re- suspension of sediments and the creation of turbidity plumes. Silt curtains will be emplaced and maintained in working condition throughout the period of construction by the marine contractor. If turbidity plumes are observed in the vicinity of the cove in front of the development, an additional silt curtain will be immediately placed in front of the cove's entrance until the turbidity plume has dissipated. Debris bins will be placed at the project site. Material collected will be removed on a daily basis. The amount, type, and location of any large debris (e.g., piles, dock parts, concrete, etc.) that is deposited on the seafloor will be documented and removed prior to the completion of the project. The project marine biologist shall also inspect the seafloor following the completion of construction to ensure that all debris has been removed. The project marine biologist will perform weekly on -site inspections to ensure that BMPs and mitigation measures are being implemented during construction. Post - construction marine biological surveys (per permit conditions) shall be performed to map eelgrass cover in the project area using the same methodology as the pre - construction survey and also to document the condition and density of the sand dollar beds within the cove. Impacts to Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibaldi that are present in the rock habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short-term effects of drilling into the bedrock that is required for pile emplacement related to increased noise and turbidity impacts; however, the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to fishes will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Reptiles Sea turtles are not expected to occur within the local project area. Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, no impacts to sea turtles will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -18 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.7— Biological Resources Marine Mammals The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event. Drilling and pile emplacement activity will not adversely affect California sea lions, which have adapted to harbor conditions, including vessels, ambient noise, and other disturbance. As a result, no significant impacts to marine mammals are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Birds Implementation of the proposed project will result in modifications to both terrestrial and marine environments. The upland construction would not result in any significant impacts to marine birds. The State and federally - listed California least tern is a spring and summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. This species does not breed or nest near the project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Road Bridge. The brown pelican is found in Newport Bay year- around but does not breed locally. This species utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat. The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These birds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. As a result, project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to these sensitive bird species and no mitigation measures are required. Migration Corridors The project site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, the project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. Regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Programs There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPCs are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat have been evaluated. Where potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are identified and prescribed below. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -19 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Consistency with Natural Resources Element section 4.7— Biolooical Resources As acknowledged in the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, Newport harbor is home to valuable habitat such as eelgrass and mudflats that support a wide range of species and also provides the public with recreational boating opportunities. Therefore, the City has placed a high priority on the protection of the biological resources, including both habitat and species and to continue to serve the needs of the recreational boating community by ensuring compatibility between the uses within Newport Harbor. The City adopted several policies that apply to future development within the City. Table 4.1 -1 In Section 4.1 (Land Use and Planning) summarizes the relationship of the proposed project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element. In addition, Table 4.1 -2 in Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the proposed project with the relevant policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. 4.7.5 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the project elements prescribed in the Construction Management Plan will ensure that potentially significant impacts to both terrestrial and marine resources are avoided. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation As indicated above, implementation of the measures cited in the CMP will ensure that the impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will remain if these measures are implemented. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005-196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.7 -20 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Section 4.8 — Public Health and A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. In addition, a Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey was conducted by AEI Consultants in December 2007 to evaluate, categorize, and quantify suspect asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paints (LBP) at the subject property prior to demolition. The assessment presented in this section of the document summarizes the findings and recommendation of those documents. These documents are on file with the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions On -Site Conditions Records Search The Phase I ESA included a summary of the review of records maintained by local, state and federal agencies as well as an on -site inspection. Based on information obtained for the Phase I ESA, the subject site and adjacent properties were not found on the Standard Environmental Record sources required to be reviewed under ASTM Standard E1527 -00, including but not limited to the those identified in Table 4.8 -1 Table 4.8 -1 Standard Environmental Records Sources Database Reviewed Responsible Ageney Search Radius (Miles) National Priorities List (NPL) U.S. EPA 1.0 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CERCLIS U.S. EPA 0.5 Sate-equivalent CERCLIS Cal EPA 1.0 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA U.S. EPA Adjacent Properties Emergency Response Notification System ERNS U.S. EPA Subject Site Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program LUST SWRCB /RWQCB 0.5 Underground Storage Tank UST Cal EPA Adjacent Properties Solid Waste Information System SWIS CIWMB 0.5 SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005 Based on the records review, it was determined that the property was a vacant lot until approximately 1949 when the apartment building at 201 and 205 Carnation Avenue was constructed. The building originally had 13 units; however, it was expanded to 14 units. The residence at 207 Carnation Avenue was constructed in 1955. Evidence of hazardous materials usage, or of practices or conditions of environmental concern were not discovered. Further, the Orange County Health Care Agency, which is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the project site, did not have records indicating that hazardous materials had been stored on the property nor that events of environmental concern had affected the site. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Asbestos - Containing Materials (ACM) Section 4.8 — Public Health and A total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. Based on the analytical results of that survey, the materials listed in Table 4.8 -2 contain detectable amounts of asbestos and are considered to be ACM. Table 4.8 -2 ACM Summary The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level. Lead -Based Paint (LBP) As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg /cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead - based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -2 Material Location of Quantity Friable Percent Building Description Suspect Materials (YIN) Asbestos Throughout all 4 % -12% Various 9 "x9" Vinyl floors under carpet Chrysotile in Floor Tile and and flooring, 8,000 SF N tile Associated Mastic excluding ° 0% 2/° 201 -207 bathrooms Chrysotile in Carnation Avenue mastic Throughout <1% Window Putty storage window 200 LF N exteriors Chrysotile Roof Patch Throughout roof Not N 5% Penetration Mastic penetrations Quantified Chrysotile 'Quantities listed are approximate values SF — Square Feet LF — Linear Feet SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health risks are reduced to an acceptable level. Lead -Based Paint (LBP) As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildin�q components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg /cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 4.8 -3 summarizes the lead - based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.8 -3 LBP Summary Section 4.8 — Public Health and Structure Location Member Paint Condition Substrate Paint Color Lead Concentration m /cmZ Doors Exterior Jambs F-1 Wood White and Beige 1.0-2.2 Doors Interior Jambs I Wood White and Beige 1.0 -6.1 Windows Exterior Trim Casing and Sill I —P Wood White 1.0 -3.9 Walls Kitchens Tiles I Ceramic Beige 7.3 -9.9 Porch 207 Exterior Tiles I Ceramic White 4.7 Wall 207 Bath Tiles I Ceramic Green 9.9 Column Courtyard N/A I — F Metal White 5.1-6.7 Wall 207 Exterior N/A I Concrete Gray 1.8 Porch 207 Exterior Frame F Wood Gray 2.0 Roof Exterior Overhang F Wood White 3.4 I — Intact (i.e., surface does not appear to be deteriorated) F — Fair (i.e., 10% or less of total surface has deteriorated paint) P — Poor (i.e., greater than 10% of total surface has deteriorated paint) SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact. The LBP survey concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. However, a contractor performing paint removal work should follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and work protection measures must be taken. Similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. Off -Site Conditions Several properties located within one -half mile of the subject site appear on one or more of the lists provided by various government agencies. As indicated in Table 4.8 -4, five commercial establishments exist within one -half mile of the subject property that utilize hazardous materials Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Table 4.8-4 Results of Database Review Section 4.8— Public Health and Property Name Distance And Address feet Database(s) Comments North Beach Coastal 2,100 feet northeast/ Release of gasoline to soil 1901 Bayside Drive downgradient LUST only; closed 1998; low risk to property. Release of gasoline that Shell Service Station 2,100 feet northeast/ LUST affected groundwater; 2801 Coast Highway upgradient closed 1991; low risk to property. Doud Commercial Office 2,200 feet east) LUST Release of gasoline to unstated media; closed 3100 Coast Highway upgradient to crossgradient 1985; low risk to property. Chevron Service Station 2,500 feet northeast/ Haznet, LUST, Release of gasoline to soil only closed 1996; low risk 2546 Coast Highway upgradient Cortese to property. SOURCE: P &D Consultants (May 26, 2005 4.8.2 Significance Criteria Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.6-4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8 - Public Health and Safety 4.8.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.8 -1 The City of Newport Beach will require all plans for proposed uses within the project site to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, storage, use and /or disposal of hazardous materials on the site. 4.8.4 Potential Impacts 4.8.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and /or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. As indicated in Table 4.8 -2, a total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. These materials, which contain detectable amounts of ACM that could be potentially hazardous if not properly removed, must be properly removed by a licensed and Cal /OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. The LBP survey (refer to Table 4.8 -3) concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Nonetheless, similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health risk would be avoided. 4.8.4.2 Long -Term Operational Impacts Create a sign cant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials Project implementation includes the activities associated with site preparation and construction of a structure that contains eight condominium units and the continued long -term use of the site for residential development, which does not typically involve the use and /or transport of hazardous materials and other substances that would represent a hazard in the community. Although some fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides would be utilized on -site, such materials are of the household variety and do not pose a significant health hazard or risk. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.8— Public Health and Safety 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 As indicated above, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and although they do not pose a significant health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state, they must be properly removed prior to demolition of the existing structures. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted /finished surfaces was observed to be intact; no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and other regulatory agencies. As a result, any potentially significant health hazard to either the public or environment would reduced to a less than significant level as a result of the proper removal of those contaminants. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school The closest school to the project site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the project site by a residential community and East Coast Highway (SR -1) and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the site. Although the proposed condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP; however, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies, as noted in the response to the discussion presented in Section Vll.a. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment As indicated in Section 4.8.1, P &D Consultants conducted a Phase I ESA on the site, including both records and literature searches as well as a site survey conducted on the property. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites. Further, there is no evidence of either on -site or off -site environmental conditions that would adversely affect site development. No historical recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the property. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport The subject property is located approximately five miles southeast of John Wayne Airport. As such, the site is not located within the limits of the JWA land use plan or other public airport or private landing strip. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport or private aviation facility is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 4.8 — Public Health and Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Preparedness Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. The plan identifies resources available for emergency response and establishes coordinated action plans for specific emergency situations and disasters, including earthquakes, fires, major rail and roadway accidents, flooding, hazardous materials incidents, civil disturbance, and nuclear disasters and attack. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The primary concern of the Safety Element and the City Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to potentially severe seismic shaking or fires, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The proposed development is not located within a flood hazard area. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency preparedness planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, project implementation will not physically interfere with the City's emergency planning program. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8.5 Mitigation Measures Impact 4.8 -1 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential structures occupying the site, which would affect materials that contain detectable amounts of ACM. MM 4.8 -1 Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. Impact 4.8 -2 Project implementation would result in the demolition of the existing residential structures occupying the site. Several building components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm, which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. MM 4.8 -2 A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measures shall be implemented throughout the removal process. 4.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard condition and mitigation measures prescribed by the City and other regulatory agencies having jurisdiction will ensure that potential hazardous conditions would be avoided or would be reduced to a less than significant level. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.8 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10— Cultural Resources 4.10 CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), conducted a records search for both cultural and paleontological resources associated with the subject property. The 2005 report, entitled, 'Results of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Search for the Carnation Villas Project, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California,' was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., is available for review at the City of Newport Beach. 4.10.1 Existing Conditions Historical Resources The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure containing 14 dwelling units. The existing building was constructed in 1949. In addition, a single - family residence constructed in 1955 also exists on the subject property. The records search conducted by LSA included a review of the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory to determine if either of these structures has been identified in those databases and /or if other historic resources are located within one mile of the subject property. Neither structure is listed on a Federal, State or local historical resource inventory. Archaeological Resources A cultural resources records search was conducted through the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, located at California State University Fullerton. The records search included a one -mile radius from the project site. In addition to the records, LSA completed an archaeological survey of the site . Based on that survey, no archaeological sites were identified; the survey concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Paleontological Resources The project site is located along the eastern margin of the entrance channel to Newport Bay. Review of the topography of the project area, a historic soils map, and current geological mapping of the area demonstrate that the project area is located on the Monterey Formation (Miocene, Marine), topped by flat terraces at about 100 feet above mean sea level, carved by the Terrace 1 stage sea (i.e., 80,000 years before present). Terrace 1 sediments are known to contain Rancholabrean terrestrial and marine vertebrates within the project vicinity. The Monterey Formation, which forms the bluff sediments, is known to contain abundant marine invertebrates and vertebrates (primarily fish). There are many recorded fossil localities in similar sediments in the immediate vicinity of the project area. As such, the project area should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. 4.10.2 Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) §15064.5. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 W1031 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to PRC §15064.5. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 4.10.3 Standard Conditions SC 4.10 -1 If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. SC 4.10 -2 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground- disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. 4.10.4 Potential Impacts 4.10.4.1 Short-Term Construction Impacts Although potential impacts to cultural and /or scientific (i.e., paleontological) resources may occur during the construction phase of the proposed project, potential impacts are evaluated as potential 'long- term" effects. Therefore, the potential impacts of project implementation are discussed and evaluated in Section 4.10.4.2. 4.10.4.2 Long - Operational Impacts Historical Resources Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the site; however, because neither structure is recognized either by the City of Newport Beach or the State of California as an important historic resource, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.10 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmenta Archaeological Resources Section 4.10— Cultural Resources As indicated in Section 4.10.1, a cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed and no sides were identified on the subject property. Although project implementation includes extensive excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed residential structure, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the past development of existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the property or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. Because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representatives requesting consultation within the 90 -day statutory period. A record of the applicable correspondence is included in Appendix _. As discussed in Section 4.10.1, the project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. The NAHC and Native American representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SB 18. Therefore, based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and, further, no request for consultation by the Native American community, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains. Nonetheless, SC 4.10 -1, which is mandated by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will ensure that any human remains that may be encountered during construction will be adequate mitigated. Paleontological Resources The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the proposed project indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, the site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. As previously indicated, the survey concluded that the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. It is likely that sediments containing fossils will be encountered during construction. Therefore, implementation of SC 4.10 -2 in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 will ensure that potential significant impacts to fossils encountered during grading /excavation activities can be avoided through measures prescribed by the paleontological monitor. As a result, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. The project site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rock outcropping that forms a small cove at the base of the project site. Although project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly alter the physical characteristics of the cove. The project will not impact the rock outcropping as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the rock outcropping. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4,10 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 4.10.5 Mitigation Measures Section 4.10 — Cultural Resources No significant impacts to cultural or historic resources will occur as a result of project implementation. Although the Monterey Formation may yield fossils, paleontological monitoring as required by SC 4.10 -2 will ensure that potential impacts to fossils encountered during grading can be avoided. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 4.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of the standard conditions prescribed in Section 4.10 -2 will ensure that the potential impacts cultural and paleontological resources are avoided. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts will remain as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 4.10 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant CHAPTER 5.0 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT The environmental process requires the Lead Agency for a proposed project, in this case the City of Newport Beach, to prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which describes the proposed project and summarizes the potential environmental impacts which could result from the implementation of a proposed project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to assess certain potential impacts associated with this project. The Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the supporting documentation for the proposed Aerie residential project are provided in Appendix A of this EIR. This section summarizes those potential impacts of the proposed Aerie project that were determined to be below a level of significance. 5.1 Agriculture No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Multiple -Unit Residential (RM)" and "Two Unit Residential (RT) "; the zone designation for the site is "Multiple Family Residential" and "Two Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. As indicated above, the subject property and the area surrounding the site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 5.2 Population and Housing The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to eight; therefore, project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City of Newport Beach. Further, the project site could accommodate up to 9 dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, site development would result in a decrease in both the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site and that could be constructed. The project will result in the demolition of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the subject property. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing site development. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach because the existing total vacancy rate in the City is estimated to be 10.91 percent. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and residents of the two apartment units that are currently occupied, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is necessary. As indicated above, the subject property currently supports a 14 -unit apartment and single - family residence, which are occupied by only one tenant (and the caretaker for the property) residing in the single - family residence and occupants in two of the 14 apartment units. Although these residents would be displaced by the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequate replacement housing exists Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5-1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0— Impacts Found Not to be Significant elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of project implementation. 5.3 Recreation The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and, as a result, a reduction in the number of residents that would be generated when compared to the 15 existing dwelling units and the 28 units that would be permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, as well as direct access to the beach area, most residents of the proposed project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The project includes private common amenities that will help offset the need for recreational facilities. Although the project will increase the number of occupied units on the site, the increase in residents associated with the project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construct new or expand existing recreational amenities in the City. Furthermore, the project's eight dwelling units represent a nearly 50 percent decrease when compared to the number of dwelling units that exist on the property. This reduction in density and resulting potential decrease in population, supports the conclusion that no new facilities would be required to accommodate future residents of the proposed project. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Section 19.52) requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4 Mineral Resources The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment structure and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of a new 8 -unit condominium structure) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.5 Public Services Fire Protection Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The project will result in a decrease of seven residential dwelling units. Although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site, there will not be a significant increase in structures and persons requiring emergency services. The Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5-2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant project includes all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A preliminary code compliance analysis was conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building complies, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, which will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe, which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level, which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. Police Protection The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in a reduction in the development intensity of site development, which would result in the demolition of an existing apartment building and single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartment units and one single - family residence with eight luxury condominium homes would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and two of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. When this project is completed, the development and occupancy of the eight condominiums might result in the generation of school age children. It is estimated that fewer than 20 students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the proposed project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, as indicated below, the project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development, including the proposed project. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other Public Facilities Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -195 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 5.0 — Impacts Found Not to be Significant 5.6 Utilities Wastewater generated by the proposed new 8 -unit residential structure would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the site when compared to the existing number of occupied dwelling units. The project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the project site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the proposed project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of six, implementation of the project may result in a minor if any additional water demand associated with the increased size of the dwelling units, and the pool and spa areas. The project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 5 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts CHAPTER 6.0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) This Section summarizes the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the approval of the Aerie residential project. Specifically, Section 15126(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): "Describe any significant impacts, including those which can be mitigated, but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described." 6.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Although the project will comply with the City's Noise Control Ordinance and will incorporate project features included in the Construction Management Plan, including the preparation of a construction schedule that minimizes potential construction noise impacts, which have been prescribed to further reduce construction noise during the length construction phase, the short -term noise impacts identified below will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.4 -1 Noise levels associated with construction equipment will result in periodic substantial increases above ambient noise levels during the construction phase anticipated for the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 6 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 7.0 — Irretreivable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources CHAPTER 7.0 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Approval and implementation of the proposed Aerie project that would allow for the conversion of the existing single- and multiple - family residential development on the 1.4 -acre site to an 8 -unit condominium development will require the commitment of a relatively small amount of additional energy resources (e.g., oil, gas, diesel and related petroleum products) on a daily basis since the nature of the project does not encompass construction activities that result in the commitment of building supplies. Further, no development is proposed that would significantly affect biological, cultural /scientific, mineral, or other valuable resources. Therefore, there would only be an irretrievable commitment of energy resources such as gasoline and diesel fuel for the operation of landfill equipment. Because these types of resources are available in sufficient quantities in this region and the proposed projects encompass a very limited scope, these impacts are not considered significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 7 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0— Growth - Inducing Impacts CHAPTER 8.0 GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS 8.1 Definition of Growth - Inducing Impacts Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe the potential growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(d) states: "Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic development or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.... Also discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could substantially affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental or of little significance to the environment." Normally to assess whether the proposed project may foster spatial, economic or population growth, several questions are considered: Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? 8.2 Analysis of Growth - Inducing Impacts Potential project - related growth- inducing impacts related to each of the questions cited above are discussed below. Would the proposed residential project result in the removal of an impediment to growth such as the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area? As indicated previously, the proposed project is located in an area of the City where all of the essential public service and /or utilities and other features exist. Further, the existing public facilities and services, including police and fire protection services, sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities (as mitigated), and parks and recreational facilities, are adequate to serve the proposed Aerie project. Although the project includes the upsizing of the catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard, that facility is currently deficient and the upsizing is intended only to accommodate the existing development (including the proposed Aerie project) in the drainage area. This is due largely to the fact that the proposed use of the site will remain virtually the same (i.e., multiple - family residential). As a result, there would not be any Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 - 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 6.0 — Growth- Inducing Impacts significant new demands that would result in the necessity to expand an existing service or create a new service, which would eliminate an existing impediment to growth. Would the proposed residential project result in economic expansion or growth such as changes in the revenue base or employment expansion? Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant economic growth or expansion in either the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange or larger southern California region. Although a number of short-term, construction- related jobs would be created by the demolition of the existing structures and the demolition and construction of the proposed 8 -unit project and docks, project implementation would not result in the creation of any long -term employment opportunities. The proposed project constitutes "in fill" development or redevelopment of a site that is currently developed. The proposed residential development would replace the existing uses at a lower density. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts of the proposed project are anticipated. Would the proposed residential project result in the establishment of a precedent setting action such as an innovation, a radical change in zoning or a General Plan amendment approval? The applicant proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a matching amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation so the entire site will have consistent designations. The designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). The City's General Plan was updated in 2006. Although a change to the land use adopted for the site is proposed, that change would affect only 584 square feet of the property. Moreover, the project applicant is proposing a reduction in the intensity of development that is permitted on the site from approximately 9 residential dwelling units to only eight dwelling units. The proposed project is, therefore, consistent with the land use and intensity of development permitted by the long - range plans adopted for the project by the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, approval of the proposed amendments and other related discretionary actions that comprise project approval will not set a precedent in the use of the site. Would the proposed residential project result in development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space, as opposed to an infill type of project in an area that is already largely developed? Generally, growth- inducing projects possess such characteristics as being located in isolated, undeveloped or under developed areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure (e.g., sewer and water facilities, roadways, etc.) or those that could encourage the "premature" or unplanned growth in an area not planned for development (i.e., "leap frog" development). The subject property is a developed site located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach (Corona del Mar). As such, it is important to note that the proposed development will not remove an obstacle to population growth since the project site is located in an area that is urbanized. As indicated above, all of the essential infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drainage facilities (with mitigation), electricity and natural gas, and related utilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion, which will not result in significant increases in demands on the infrastructure. Therefore, no significant growth - inducing impacts are anticipated 8.3 Conclusion The answer to each of the questions cited above as they relate to the proposed Aerie residential project is "no." The proposed project includes only the conversion of an existing higher intensity residential development to a less intensively development residential property. The proposed project is not characterized by features that attract or facilitate new, unanticipated development, which would ordinarily be considered growth inducing. Conventionally, growth inducement is measured by the potential of a project or a Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 8.0 — Growth - Inducing Impacts project's secondary effects (i.e. provision of new infrastructure which supports housing or creation of jobs) to facilitate development of housing. Since the proposed conversion of the site to a less dense residential development that facilitates the efficient use of the subject site through the incorporation of "green" technology, the standard variables associated with the development of housing, commercial or industrial land uses do not apply very well. Further, with only one exception, all of the infrastructure that exists in the project area is adequate to provide an adequate level of service, including sewer, and water. However, as previously indicated, one catch basin that is currently deficient must be upgraded to adequately accommodate the existing surface runoff. Project implementation will not result in any significant direct or indirect addition of residential development that would generate new residents or employment that would be an "attractor" of residents to the area that are not already anticipated in the General Plan. The site is not located in an isolated area that is constrained by the absence of infrastructure where the provision of infrastructure would promote further development. None of the accepted standards that distinguish growth- inducing projects characterize the proposed project; therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 8 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts CHAPTER 9.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 9.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as: "...two or more individual effects which when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" Section 15355 further describes potential cumulative impacts as: "(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual impacts which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or from a number of projects. A cumulative impact refers to the degree of change in the environment resulting from a particular project, plus the incremental impacts created by other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts may reveal that relatively minor impacts associated with a particular project may contribute to more significant impacts when considered collectively with other projects taking place over a period of time. 9.2 Cumulative Projects Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides two options for considering potentially significant cumulative adverse impacts. This analysis can be based on either: "(A) A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency." For the cumulative analysis presented below, with the exception of air quality impacts, which are based upon development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, the potential environmental effects of the proposed Aerie project were considered in conjunction with the potential environmental effects of the development of other closely related past, present, and probable future projects in the City, which are listed in Table 9 -1. Although there may be other projects occurring within the City, those identified in Table 9 -1 reflect the projects with similar potential impacts as the proposed project. This geographic limitation is appropriate because the proposed project is small in size and is not likely to have significant regional environmental Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts consequences. Furthermore, the project site is located in the center of the Newport Beach and not near the border of a neighboring jurisdiction. Therefore, Table 9 -1 reflects a geographic limitation to projects located within the City of Newport Beach. Finally, the related projects list is not limited to multiple- family residential projects like the proposed project; it includes a variety of approved and proposed land uses, including institutional, commercial, municipal, and mixed -use projects that vary in size. Table 9 -1 Related Projects List Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -2 Potential Cumulative Name /Address Permit No. Status Description Impacts Approved Projects w /Environmental Clearance General Plan Amendment, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Hoag Hospital Master Plan PA2007 -073 ApprovedlMay 2008 Amendment to reallocate up to Air Quality 225,000 gross square feet of unbuilt, permitted floor area from the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus Use permit for a full- service, high - Paninl CafB PA2007 -063 MND tumover eating and drinking Traffic 2421 Coast highway Approved June 2008 establishment, including a 160 square Air Quality foot outdoor dining area. Installation of 37 new square, concrete plies to provide 33 slips of various Lido Anchorage PA 2007 -121 Approved September sizes. The floating docks, fingers, and Biological 151 Shipyard Way 2008 gangways will result in approximately Resources 24,043 square feet of overwater coverage. MND Construction of a new 42,230 square Oasis PA2008 -109 Approved December feet Oasis Senior Center facility on the Traffic 800 Marguerite Avenue 2008 current site located on the comer of Air Quality Marguerite Avenue and Fifty Avenue. Pending Projects that R uire Review Planned Community Text Adoption for PC-47 (Newport Country Club), Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the Newport Beach Country development of 5 semi-custom single - Club PA2005 -140 Applied 2005 family residential units, 27 hotel units Traffic 1600 East Coast Highway Pending with a 2,048 - square foot concierge and Air Quality guest center, a new 3,523 square foot tennis club with a 6,718 square foot spa, a 41,086 square foot golf club with accessory facilities, 8 tennis courts, and a swimming pool. Expansion of the existing Hyatt Regency Hotel by adding 88 new timeshare units, a timeshare clubhouse, a new 800 -seat ballroom, a Hyatt Regency PA2005 -212 Applied 2005 new spa facility, a new housekeeping Traffic 1107 Jamboree Road Pending EIR and engineering buildings, and a new Air Quality two-level parking garage. Project implementation requires a Use Permit, Development Agreement, parcel Map, and Modification Permit. Applied 2007 Megonigal Residence PA 2007 -133 Pending EIR Three -story single - family residence Aesthetics 2333 Pacific Drive Preparation with attached garage. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental 9.0 — Cumulative Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -3 Potential Cumulative Name /Address Permit No. Status Description Impacts Proposed Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Conexant Conceptual Plan Plan which would include a total of up 4311/4321 Jamboree Road Applied 2007 to 974 new residential units, 714 on Kell Conceptual Plan PA2007 -170 CC Hearing February the Conexant site and the remaining Air Quality 4343 Von Kerman Avenue 2009 260 on the Koll property. The City has not yet approved the Airport Business Area Integrated Conceptual Development Plan. Proposed 1.9 -acre subdivision to crate Big Canyon Applied 2007 a large lot for one residential dwelling 1 Big Canyon Drive PA2007 -210 CC Headng February unit. Parcel Map, General Plan None 2009 Amendment, and Big Canyon Planned Community text amendment. A public park and beach with recreation facilities, restrooms and a new Girl Scout House, a public short- Marina Park PA2008 -040 Applied 2008 term visiting vessel marina with a Biological 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard public dock and a sailing center and a Resources new community center with classrooms, boat storage space and ancillary offices ace. A 402.3 -acre planned community development plan consisting of a maximum of 1,375 dwelling units, Newport Banning Ranch PA2008 -114 Applied 2008 75,000 square feet of commercial Traffic 5200 West Coast Highway retail, 75 room boutique hoteirbed- Air Quality and - breakfast' or other overnight accommodation, parks and open space. Use Permit and Modification Permit to Silk Residence Remodel PA2008 -180 Zoning Administrator allow 50 % -70% structural alterations to None 1800 Bay Front Street Hearing January 2009 a non - conforming structure and multiple setback encroachments. Harbor Resources Division Replacement of Bay Island bridge, replacement of bulkhead walls on the Bay Island northern, western and southern sides, Biological and installation of a small submerged Resources sand retention wall on the west side for beach stabilization. Construction of new 8' x 100' floating guest dock at the terminus of Rhine Biological Rhine Wharf Guest Dock Wharf adjacent to Lido Park Drive, Resources including a 4' x 80' ramp and emplacement of several guide piles. Replacement of existing bulkhead along approximately 485 feet of waterfront, reconfiguration of the Biological Etco Properties existing 21 -boat slip marine, and Resources remediation of contaminants located in sediment near and within the boat slipways. Addition of extensions to floats at the 1 e Street Public Pier 15" Street public pier to accommodate Biological the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the Resources area. Addition of extensions to floats at the 19" Street Public Pier le Street public pier to accommodate Biological the demand for dinghy tie -ups in the Resources area. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -3 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly, cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor. It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR. 9.3.1 Land Use and Planning The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8- unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -4 Potential Cumulative NamefAddress Permit No. Status Description Impacts Addition of extensions to floats at the Fernando Street Public Pier Fernando Street public pier to Biological accommodate the demand for dinghy Resources be-ups in the area. Projects Submitted for Plan Check Common addition and remodel Traffic 2300 West Coast Highway 1580 -2008 (29,199 square feet existing, 10,390 Air Quality square feet new) Holiday Inn. 606 Marigold Avenue 1731 -2006 New duplex (2,946 square feet with None attached 309 square foot garage). 901 Newport Center Drive 1733 -2008 New Retail (140,745 square feet Traffic Nordstrom shell). Air Quality New single- family residence (2,941 1506 South Bay Front 1773 -2008 square feet with 407 square foot None attached garage). New single - family residence (2,679 1708 South Bay Front 1981 -2008 square feet with 400 square foot None garage and 671 square foot deck). New single - family residence (2,864 824 West Bay Avenue 2114 -2008 square feet with 499 square foot None garage). SOURCE: City of Newport Beach 9.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The impact analysis that follows provides a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts that might occur as a result of project implementation. Potential cumulative impacts associated with some environmental issues are evaluated based on a particular geographic area or other appropriate level. For example, unlike the other impact areas discussed in Chapter 9.0 that are base don Table 9 -1, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed based on development within the South Coast Air Basin, a geographic area that spans several counties. Conversely, cumulative noise impacts are evaluated within the context of a smaller geographic area. Construction noise and some operational noise impacts are limited to the project site and adjacent and nearby areas; however, depending on the contribution of project - related traffic, mobile- source noise impacts may occur beyond the immediate limits of the subject site along heavily traveled arterials. Similarly, cumulative biological impacts are evaluated based on similar habitat and species within a particular geographic area. For instance, in the case of the proposed project, the discussion of potential cumulative marine biology impacts (e.g., eelgrass) is limited to Newport Harbor. It is also important to note that cumulative impact analyses are guided by standards o reasonableness and practicality. As a result, the following analysis is less extensive than that provided in Chapter 4.0 of this Draft EIR. 9.3.1 Land Use and Planning The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence with an 8- unit condominium structure. The area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. As a result, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the subject property is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although some native species exist on the bluff property, neither CSS habitat nor the coastal California gnatcatcher exists on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -4 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts site. Therefore, no impacts wither to CSS habitat or to the coastal California gnatcatcher would occur as a result of project implementation. The proposed project is currently developed and is also identified for development in the adopted long -range plans for the property. As indicated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies and objectives articulated in the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other elements as well as the CLUP. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.2 Population and Housing Although implementation of the proposed project will result in a net reduction in the number of existing residential dwelling units currently occupying the site and would displace the tenants residing in three dwelling units, the net reduction in dwelling units would not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City of Newport Beach. The 14 -unit apartment building occupying one of the parcels exceeds the permitted development density based on currently regulatory requirements, which would permit only 9 dwelling units on the combined project site. Together with the approved and planned development identified in Table 9 -1, a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Megonigal residence and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, a potentially significant cumulative reduction of housing within the City would not occur as a result of project implementation. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing; no low- and /or moderate- income households occupy the site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of project implementation. Further, once the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are adopted by the City of Newport Beach, the decrease in the number of dwelling units on the site will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. 9.3.3 Geology and Soils The site is currently developed with 15 single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units on the 1.4 -acre property. The site and existing development are currently exposed to potential groundshaking associated with seismic activities occurring on one of the active regional faults. Unlike any of the projects identified in Table 9 -1, the subject property is located on a bluff in Corona del Mar, which requires the consideration of unique geologic and seismic characteristics. Although the proposed project will consist of residential development, the potential exposure to the effects of seismic activity, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil conditions will not increase and project implementation will not result in potential cumulative impacts because the new residential development will be required to meet applicable structural design requirements. Furthermore, none of the projects identified in Table 9 -1 would contribute cumulatively to bluff instability and /or erosion because they are not located on the same bluff as the subject property. In addition, these other developments must also comply with the specific building design parameters prescribed in the applicable regulations to ensure that potential loss of life and structural damage is minimized. The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to adverse soils conditions, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. Finally, no the site does not support "prime" and /or "important' agricultural soils. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative seismic, slope failure, bluff erosion, and /or soil condition impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. With a small amount (i.e., approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage areas resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to the sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant. In addition, because the project is located in the down -drift direction of neighboring Channel Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -5 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts Reef, its potential impact on sedimentation at the up -drift location such as Channel Reef is inconsequential. Under extreme conditions, up to 2.5 -foot waves could be experienced at the project site, impacting 30 to 35 boats residing in Newport Harbor, including those proposed for the proposed Aerie project. However, the City maintains between 80 and 100 mooring cans in the harbor, which are available to the public at any given time on a "first come, first served" basis. Because the severe conditions that would result in the need to utilize the mooring cans are infrequent and, further, because up to the City of Newport has indicated that up to 100 mooring cans are available for temporary mooring within the harbor during these infrequent periods, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur. 9.3.4 Hydrology and Water Quality As described in Section 4.6, although project implementation would result in a small increase in impervious area, the post - development peak flow would be reduced when compared to the existing surface runoff conditions. Specifically, the 1.95 cfs emanating from the site will be detained in a vault, treated, and discharged into the existing storm drain at a rate of 0.50 cis, which is slightly less than the 0.51 cfs currently being discharged. Potential cumulative impacts would be those resulting from other development within the watershed sub -area; however, no other projects are proposed within the area affected by the proposed project. Nonetheless, project implementation will result in upgrading the existing deficient catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard to ensure that adequate capacity is provided to accommodate not only the proposed project but also existing stormwater runoff. In addition, the applicant will be required to implement Best Management Practices and related measures in accordance with the NPDES requirements to ensure that both storm water runoff and quality meet the requisite criteria. All of the other projects identified in this section are located outside the immediate project area. Each of the approved or proposed projects, should they be implemented, will be required to implement similar stormwater collection and conveyance facilities and water quality structural and non - structural measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce and avoid water quality impacts. Implementation of these measures, which would be prescribed in the WQMP prepared for the proposed project (and other projects in the City and watershed), must comply with the requirements established by the City and County of Orange in the Drainage Area Master Plan, which have been developed to address the cumulative impacts of development in the watershed. These measures are intended to ensure that water quality objectives are achieved and /or maintained. Therefore, project implementation will result in an overall improvement to hydrology and water quality by upgrading the stormwater collection facilities that serve the drainage area. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to either hydrology or water quality. 9.3.5 Air Quality As indicated above, cumulative air quality impacts are those associated with development occurring within the South Coast Air Basin, a five -county region in southern California. As a result, it is anticipated that a significant number of development projects throughout the City and the five -county region would contribute to the cumulative degradation of the air basin. Although the proposed project will result in the generation of both short-term (i.e., those occurring during the 32 -month construction phase) and long -term operational emissions (i.e., those resulting from the operation of automobiles and stationary sources), which will be emitted into the air basin, the vast majority of those emissions would be short-term and temporary in nature. Although the project's contribution of construction emissions (primarily fugitive dust) is short-term and because the Construction Management Plan will be implemented, these impacts will not be significant on a cumulative basis when considered with the other projects in the City and in the air basin. Once construction is completed, a nominal fraction of the total mobile- source emissions within the basin would be attributed to the proposed project. The long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project are the result of the incremental increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project and on demands for natural gas and electricity. Because these incremental operational emissions would not exceed significance thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and identified in Section 4.3.2, the incremental addition of the project's mobile- source emissions, when combined with other emissions resulting from the development of the other projects within the City and larger air basin, will be less than significant on a cumulative basis. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -6 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts 9.3.6 Traffic and Circulation Cumulative traffic impacts are those occurring within the immediate vicinity of the project site and beyond the Corona del Mar area along Coast Highway and other arterials in the City based on the distribution of construction traffic associated with the proposed project. As indicated in Table 9 -1, the proposed project and several of the projects within the City would contribute traffic, both during construction and as a result of their development, which could affect the existing circulation system, including Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Newport Boulevard. As indicated in Section 4.2 (Traffic and Circulation), project implementation will result in the generation of construction traffic (i.e., short-term) as well as an increase in the number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips when compared to the existing baseline (i.e., occupancy of three units). The short-term vehicle trips are those associated with heavy trucks (i.e., dirt hauling, equipment and materials deliveries, etc.) and construction works commuting to the site. However, these will be short-term in nature and would be minimized through the implementation of the Construction Management Program which, among other tings, prescribes a haul route and is designed to inhibit on -site queuing. Although other projects in the City could also contribute construction traffic that could affect roadway and intersection operations, the contribution of these short-term trips would not represent a potentially significant cumulative impact because potential impacts would be avoided through specific provisions prescribed in the Construction Management Plan, including the identification of a haul route plan, adherence to a traffic control plan, limitations on haul truck arrival /departure, use of flag persons during the construction phases, etc. Implementation of these measures will ensure that potential cumulative construction impacts would be minimized. Although post - development project - related vehicle trips would be greater than those generated by the existing residential development on the site, they would not result in any potentially significant cumulative impacts in the Corona del Mar community or outlying areas because when added to the local circulation system, they would constitute a very small fraction of the total trips generated by the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1. When added to the Citys arterial roadway system, the small increase in both construction- related and operational vehicle trips would, therefore, not result in potentially significant cumulative traffic and circulation impacts. 9.3.7 Biological Resources For the purposes of determining potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, the harbor area was identified as the geographic "area of potential effect' due to the potential for adversely affecting coastal biological resources, including eelgrass. Project implementation could result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in Section 4.7. These impacts include the potential to create both direct impacts, particularly during construction, and indirect impacts that may include the creation of shadows that could adversely affect the existing eelgrass bed in the vicinity of the project. However, the proposed project and other projects proposed within the harbor area listed in Table 9 -1 that have the potential to affect eelgrass are required by the City to mitigate any potential loss at a ratio of 1.2:1. As indicated in Section 4.7.5, if it is determined as a result of the pre- and post - construction surveys that eelgrass is impacted, the applicant will be required to replace it at the specified mitigation ratio. The same or similar measures would be prescribed for projects located within Newport Bay that have the potential to adversely affect eelgrass as a result of dredging or other construction and development activities. Similar to the proposed project, other projects in the harbor that have the potential to impact eelgrass would be subject to the same mitigation measures prescribed for the proposed project to adequately offset the potentially significant impacts, including pre- and post - construction surveys, potential replacement of eelgrass, avoidance of the rocky intertidal habitat, use of silt curtains during construction, and limiting construction to optimal tide conditions. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to marine biology would occur. Other potential impacts to biological resources include effects on the intertidal area as a result of increased activity in the small cove and potential effects on sensitive plant species that may exist on the site. For example, important resources (e.g., sand dollars) have been identified in the intertidal area below the bluff that could be affected by construction activities associated with the construction of the dock. However, in Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -7 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts each case, mitigation measures have been proposed (e.g., signage, avoidance of the intertidal area during construction, etc.) that will either eliminate the potentially significant impacts to biological resources or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. In the same way, potential impacts to terrestrial species of plants and /or animals are also addressed through mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.7.5, including the use of native plant species, which will effectively reduce the impacts to a less than significant level as prescribed by the Coastal Land Use Plan policies. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial biology would occur. 9.3.8 Mineral Resources As indicated above, the site and surrounding areas have been developed. No mineral resources exist on the subject property that would be adversely impacted by developed of the site as proposed. Further, project implementation would not directly impact any existing mineral resource areas either in the City of Newport Beach, region, or State of California. Similarly, the other approved and /or proposed projects in the City of Newport Beach listed in Table 9 -1 would not adversely affect mineral resources. With the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not posses mineral resources. Because project implementation would not result in any impacts to mineral resources, it would not contribute to the cumulative loss of such resources in either the City, region, or State of California. Although the proposed project would require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Therefore, when compared to other projects in the area, no potentially significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources will occur. 9.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials As indicated in Section 4.8, the site has been altered and currently supports urban development (i.e., 15 residential dwelling units), which does not involve the use of hazardous materials in the daily operations beyond household variety fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. As previously evaluated, demolition of the existing residential structures in order to construct the proposed 8 -unit condominium on the site could yield some asbestos containing materials or lead -based paint. However, demolition will not only comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements for abating these components, but appropriate measures have also been identified to ensure that no significant emissions of potentially hazardous materials occurs. Similarly, those projects listed in Table 9 -1 characterized by ACM and LBP would also be required to comply with AQMD and regulatory agency requirements so that no significant emissions occur. If determined necessary as a result of the environmental analysis conducted for them, each of the projects would be required to remediate an existing or potential source of contamination. Finally, like the existing residential development, the proposed project would only use household variety hazardous materials such as fertilizers, herbicides, cleaning solvents, paints, and /or pesticides. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur when compared to other projects that have been approved or proposed in the City of Newport Beach or surrounding areas. 9.3.10 Noise Cumulative noise impacts are those that would occur within the immediate project environs, particularly during the construction phase. The greatest increase in ambient noise would occur during the construction phases; however, no other development is proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project (refer to Table 9 -1) that would contribute to the cumulative increase in noise in the area. As indicated in Section 4.4, the construction activities resulting from project implementation will result in significant impacts in the neighborhood. Once construction ceases and the project is completed and occupied, the cumulative noise environment could also extend beyond the immediate area to outlying areas, depending on the nature and extent of project - related traffic. The proposed project - related traffic would contribute to small increases in the ambient noise levels in the nearby residential area within Corona del Mar and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -8 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts along arterial roadways in the City. However, project - related long -term noise associated with vehicle trips generated by future residents would be minimal and would not contribute significantly to the cumulative increase in long -term noise levels because the project would add only 47 vehicles per day onto the circulation network. While project - related traffic, when added to existing and traffic utilizing the neighborhood streets could contribute to an increase in ambient noise levels along the streets, the increase would not result in significant cumulative long -term noise impacts because none of the local streets within the project area are characterized by noise levels that current exceed, or are forecast to exceed, 65 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element, which evaluated future noise levels based on buildout of the General Plan. It is anticipated that the resulting gradual incremental increase in project - related traffic onto the neighborhood circulation system would be less than 1 dBA and would, therefore, generally not be audible. Therefore, no significant long -term cumulative noise impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.11 Public Services The project site is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is adequately served by public services and facilities, including police and fire protection. The replacement of the existing 15 residential dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium will not significantly affect the existing public service levels of service. Specifically, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the proposed project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department or Fire Department from providing an adequate level of service to the site, even when considering the potential development listed in Table 9 -1, because the site is currently provided police and fire service. The potential development of the projects listed in Table 9 -1 would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police and Fire Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Because the proposed project and the Megonigal property are residential in nature, project implementation would result in the potential to generate some school -age children, which would necessitate the payment of the requisite developer fees that offset potential impacts to schools. In addition, the potential increase in residents generated by these projects could also result in an increased demand for recreational facilities; however, in the case of the proposed project, on -site recreational amenities are incorporated into the design of the project to offset the direct demands on such facilities. In addition, the project applicant will be required to pay in -lieu park fees to further offset any direct or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. As a result, no potentially significant cumulative impacts will occur to public facilities and services. 9.3.12 Utilities and Service Systems The site and surrounding area are adequately served by utilities (i.e., sewer and water facilities, solid waste disposal, electricity and natural gas). At the present time, the existing catch basin located in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing storm runoff within the drainage area; however, project implementation includes the replacementlupsizing of that facility, which would provide adequate capacity not only to accommodate storm runoff associated with the proposed project but also runoff associated with the existing development within the drainage area. Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to reduce the post - development surface flows emanating from the site to a level that is less than under existing conditions. The incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of replacing the older (i.e., 1949 -era) multiple - family apartment building to a "state -of- the -art" energy efficient development is intended to minimize demands for energy resources. For instance, the project includes extensive use of "green" technology intended to reduce demands for energy resources; including gray water retention for property irrigation, natural ventilation systems that capitalize on prevailing ocean breezes and thermal convection dynamics, and Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -9 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0 — Cumulative Impacts the use of high - thermal mass for capturing and retaining heat through solar heat gain apertures. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative utilities impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 9.3.13 Aesthetics As discussed in Section 4.5 (Aesthetics), the project site is located in an area of Corona del Mar that is characterized by important visual resources and /or amenities (e.g., coastal bluff and cove, rock outcroppings, etc.). In addition, a "Public View Point' is located at the southern property limits on Ocean Boulevard, which is designated a "Coastal View Road:' The site is also within the viewshed of a Public View Point identified in the vicinity of Begonia Park. Potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project were evaluated based on views from both public vantages on or near the site and views to the subject property, including the proposed dock facility, from the harbor. Of the cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1, only one project, the proposed Megonigal residence, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the proposed project area. The visual simulations prepared for the proposed project revealed that no significant project - related impacts would be anticipated, either from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard or from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of site development as proposed. The potential visual impacts of the proposed project were also evaluated from four Newport Harbor vantages that include the proposed Megonigal residence to determine the extent of project - related cumulative visual impacts. As indicated in Exhibit 4.5 -12, construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the project site, from this vantage. As a result, the proposed Aerie project would not contribute to the cumulative visual impact from this public view location. Three other visual simulations were also prepared to illustrate the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed project and the Megonigal residence on Pacific Avenue. Exhibit 5 -1 (Begonia Park Upper Bench), Exhibit 5 -2 (Begonia Park Lower Bench), and Exhibit 5 -3 (Begonia Park) illustrate views of the proposed project, including the proposed development of the Megonigal residence at 2333 Pacific Avenue. As illustrated in each of these simulations, the introduction of the Megonigal residence would affect views from each of the vantages in the three exhibits. In particular, the Megonigal residence would block a portion of the harbor area north of the subject property. Although portions of the harbor are visible, views to this area are "filtered" by intervening landscaping and development. While the views to the harbor from these vantages would be changed with the development of the Megonigal residence and the proposed project, encroachment of the proposed project into the viewshed would not be significant on a cumulative basis when viewed from those locations because the effect on the view in the vicinity of the proposed project, even with the introduction of the proposed Megonigal residence, would not change significantly. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. None of the related projects identified in Table 9 -1, including the proposed Megonigal residence, would affect views from the harbor to the existing coastal bluff. Potential visual impacts are not significant from the harbor area because views from those vantages would be only momentarily affected; none of the visual amenities in the intertidal area would be destroyed as a result of project implementation. Furthermore, based on the visual analysis conducted for the proposed project, no potentially significant visual impacts would occur either to the character of the bluff or the intertidal area, which is characterized by rock outcroppings and a small cove are located where the dock is proposed, would adversely affect the harbor views to the site. While the coastal bluff would be altered, the proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing topographic features and character to minimize visual impacts. Therefore, no potentially significant cumulative visual impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -10 A PROJECT SITE I 49 PROJECT SITE I a D � , PROJECT SITE PROJECT SITE tr R <1 4 Exhibit 9 -2 Begonia Park - Lover Bench J � rU •` . r- Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 9.0— Cumulative Impacts 9.3.14 Cultural /Scientific Resources The site is currently developed and no significant cultural, historic or scientific resources are known to be located on the subject property. Although it is possible that other proposed and approved development could result in impacts to cultural, historical or scientific resources, appropriate mitigation will be required to ensure that such impacts are less than significant. While grading and excavation are required to prepare portions of the site for construction, no cultural or historical resources would be affected and no impacts would occur to such resources. Although paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) may be encountered during construction of the proposed project based on the geologic formation underlying the site, monitoring will ensure that any such potential resources that may exist on the property would be identified during the grading phase by the paleontological monitor. Adequate measures would be implemented to ensure that potentially significant impacts would be avoided. This would also be true for other projects where encountering such resources is possible or likely, as prescribed in environmental analysis undertaken for such projects listed in Table 9 -1. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts, either individually or on a cumulative basis. 9.3.15 Recreation As indicated previously, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing single- and multiple - family dwelling units with an 8 -unit condominium. Although the generation of additional residents associated with the projects listed in Table 9 -1 could result in a demand for recreational amenities, project implementation would not contribute significantly to the cumulative demands crated by those projects due to the small -scale nature of the project. Furthermore, the proposed project includes private recreational amenities on -site to accommodate project residents. Nonetheless, the project will be required to comply with the City's park in -lieu fee requirements as stipulated in the Section 19.52 of the Municipal Code (Park Dedications and Fees) to ensure that no project - related impacts to recreational facilities occurs. As a result, no additional significant demands for recreational facilities would be generated by the project that would be added to the cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of other projects proposed and approved in the City. Other cumulative projects identified in Table 9 -1 (e.g., Banning Ranch, Conexant/Koll, etc.) that would result in significant numbers of new residential dwelling units would also be required by the City to provide public park dedications and /or payment of park dedication fees to offset any potential demands for recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no potentially significant project - related or cumulative impacts to recreational facilities would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 9 -14 Aerie PA 2005496 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0— Aftematives SECTION 10.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 Purpose and Scope CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of "reasonable" alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(c) directs that the alternatives analyzed by an EIR should be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant adverse environmental effects of a proposed project. The discussion of alternatives in this Draft EIR reviews a range of alternatives, including the "No Project' alternative as prescribed by the State CEQA Guidelines, which satisfies these requirements. This section analyzes several potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including • No ProjecUNo Development • Alternative Site • Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences • Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project • Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading 10.1.2 Criteria for Selecting Alternatives Alternatives were selected by the City in consultation with the applicant and the City's environmental consultant. A range of reasonable alternatives was selected based upon their ability to avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the project and to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. With the exception of the No Project alternative, which is required to be included in the evaluation by the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Alternative Site alternative, each of the alternatives identified above reflects these criteria and were considered in the EIR. The project objectives are: To develop a state -of- the -art multi - family residential condominium project, with a sufficient number and size of units to justify (a) the incorporation of advanced design which reflects the architectural diversity of the community and adds distinction to the harbor and the neighborhood, (b) the use of energy- conserving technology described in Project Objective 3, and (c) the inclusion of common amenities reflected in Project Objective 4. 2. To enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating 60 -year old structure with a high - quality residential project utilizing unique modern design principles and featuring (a) the elimination of conventional garage doors for all units, (b) the concealing of all parking from street view, (c) significant landscape and streetscape enhancements, (d) the removal of two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, and (e) replacing these features by undergrounding the new wiring. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Section 10.0 — Alternatives 3. To replace an energy inefficient structure typical of mid -20th Century development with an advanced, highly efficient structure designed to incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, water quality treatment elements, and other features designed to conserve energy and/or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations. 4. To provide amenities commensurate with most new residential development in comparable baytront locations in the City. Such amenities generally include a dock for each residence, ample storage space, and common recreational and health facilities, such as a swimming pool and fitness center. 5. To enhance public access to the coast by increasing the number of available public street parking spaces through the use of new technology and creative design which will limit project entry and exit points, thereby minimizing curb cuts and exceeding on -site the number of resident and guest parking required for the project. 6. To protect and enhance scenic views to the harbor and the ocean from designated public vantage points in the immediate neighborhood by (a) significantly expanding the existing public view corridor at the southern end of project site, (b) creating a new public view corridor at the northern end of the project site, (c) removing two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently obstruct the view from certain perspectives, (d) replacing the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, and (e) providing a public bench and drinking fountain at the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard to enhance the public viewing experience. To enhance public views of the project site from the harbor by (a) maintaining all visible development above the predominant line of existing development (PLOED), (b) incorporating into the project the property at 207 Carnation Avenue, which presently is within the Categorical Exclusion Zone and, if not part of the project, would not be subject to the PLOED, (c) replacing the existing outdated apartment building with modern, organic architecture with articulated facades to conform to the topography of the bluff, and (d) removing the unsightly cement and pipes and the non - native vegetation on the bluff face and replacing it with an extensive planting of native vegetation. 6. To minimize encroachment into private views by maintaining a maximum building height on average four feet below the zoning district's development standards. 10.1.3 Evaluation of Project Alternatives According to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[a]), an EIR must "... describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The Guidelines go on to indicate that alternatives that are capable of substantially lessening any significant effects of the Project must be examined, "... even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." The Guidelines further indicate "... that the range of potential alternatives to a proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). Thus the ability of an alternative to attain most of the basic oroiect objectives is central to the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 - 196 —Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -2 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0—Alternatives For each alternative, the analysis presented in this section: Describes the alternative; Discusses the impacts of the alternative and evaluates the significance of those impacts; and, Evaluates the alternative relative to proposed project, specifically addressing project objectives and the elimination or reduction of potentially significant impacts. 10.1.4 Identification of Impacts After describing the alternative, this Draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the alternative. The major resource areas included in the detailed impact analysis in Section 4.0 are included in this section. The potential environmental consequences are identified and described in the analysis for each of the alternatives identified in Section 10.1.1. 10.2 Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration 10.2.1 Alternative Site As required by the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), only alternative locations that would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant impacts resulting from project implementation must be included in the analysis of alternatives. Because the project proposes a multiple - family residential development with direct access to the harbor on a coastal bluff, a similarly designated site with bay frontage located on a bluff would be required to accommodate such a project. However, a review of the City's General Plan revealed that no other similarly situated site that is designated for multiple - family residential development exists in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, there is no feasible alternative location for this project that would satisfy the most fundamental of the project objectives, much less most of the project objectives. 10.3 Analysis of Alternatives 10.3.1 No Project/No Development Alternative The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuance of the development currently existing on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, .. as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, this alternative assumes full occupancy of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and one single - family residence, which represents an increase in occupancy of 12 units over the baseline condition (i.e., three occupied units). This alternative also includes the implementation of any deferred maintenance activities (if any). Because the City has requested that the applicant repair or remove the existing dock due to its present (deteriorated) condition, the No Project Alternative also includes the replacement of the existing (3 -slip) dock with a new dock in an identical configuration. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-3 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.1 Land Use and Planning Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although this alternative would result in the continuation of the existing single- and multiple - family residential use of the subject property, the existing 14 -unit apartment exceeds the maximum density provisions of the zoning, which limits development to a maximum of 9 dwelling units. The zoning code would permit the non- conforming density to continue indefinitely unless the owner were to allow the building to become dilapidated, necessitating the City to declare it a public nuisance and ordering it demolished. The existing project would continue to conflict with the current development standards related to density and parking, as the building does not provide parking sufficient to meet current standards. In addition, several components of the foundation of the existing apartment building extend below the existing 50.7 feet NAVD88 established for the site by the Newport Beach City Council. Furthermore, the existing development would conflict with many of the policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan for the Corona del Mar community, which seek to enhance the character of the area through innovative design and architecture. As a result, the No Project alternative would result in a "status quo" condition and would not achieve the desired General Plan objectives. 10.3.1.2 Traffic and Circulation Implementation of the No Project alternative would virtually eliminate the construction - related impacts associated with the proposed project and other alternatives evaluated in this section. Specifically, grading and landform alteration would be eliminated as well as several thousand heavy truck trips and construction worker trips related to construction of new homes on the subject property. Only nominal construction- related trips resulting from structural and /or cosmetic improvements would be generated by this altemative. As a result, the Construction Management Plan developed for the proposed project would not be necessary to avoid potential impacts anticipated during construction. Long -term project - related trips would be increased from the existing 23 trips per day from the three occupied units to 104 trips per day when the 15 homes are occupied. This figure is more than twice the number of daily trips that would be generated by the proposed project (i.e., 47 trips per day for the 8 proposed condominium units). 10.3.1.3 Air Quality Although construction - related air emissions would be virtually eliminated when compared to the project - related construction emissions, mobile source and other operational emissions would exceed those generated by the proposed project. Although they would remains less than significant, the mobile source emissions would more than double the emissions resulting from project implementation. In addition, without the incorporation of "green" technology, including energy- efficient heating and cooling systems, etc., potential air emissions would also exceed those of the proposed project as energy consumption of the existing 15 units would exceed that of the proposed 8 -unit project because of the state -of -the art energy- conservation features that have been incorporated into the proposed project when compared to the older energy - inefficient systems that currently exist. 10.3.1.4 Noise Although some construction noise would be generated as a result of structural modifications and cosmetic upgrades that would be required to implement this alternative, the construction noise levels resulting from project implementation would be almost entirely eliminated by the No Project alternative. This potentially significant unavoidable project - related impact would be largely avoided as a result of the No Project alternative. The increase in long -term, operational noise resulting from increased vehicle trips would be greater than the proposed project as a result of the increase in daily trips from 47 to 104. However, the increase would not be significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-4 Aerie PA 2005196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.5 Aesthetics Section 10.0 — Altematives Potential aesthetics impacts associated with this alternative include those related to the age character of the existing structures. When viewed from locations within Newport Harbor, some foundation elements of the existing multiple - family structure extend below the PLOED established by the City Council; furthermore, it does not conform to the existing topographic character of the bluff. When compared to the proposed project, this alternative would not result in additional encroachment into the viewshed when viewed from either the harbor or from Begonia Park; however, the aesthetic character of the existing structure(s) and bluff, when viewed from those vantages (particularly from the harbor), does not reflect the character desired by the City as articulated in the relevant land use and community design policies articulated in the General Plan. The repaired or replaced 3 -slip dock would be smaller than that proposed by the applicant. As a result, the area(s) within the viewshed potentially affected by the dock facility, when viewed from the harbor, would be reduced when compared to the areas affected by the proposed dock. Similar to the proposed project, momentary loss of views to aesthetic elements within the cove and bluff area would also occur with the No Project alternative; however, these potential effects on the aesthetic character of the area, like those associated with the proposed project, would be less than significant. This alternative would also not result in enhanced views from the existing Public Viewpoint on Ocean Boulevard or improved views to the north by creating a view "window" along the northerly property boundary. Finally, the aesthetic benefits to the neighborhood of undergrounding the overhead utilities would not be achieved. 10.3.1.6 Drainage and Hydrology As indicated in Section 4.6, an existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing pre - project storm flows emanating within the drainage area. Although implementation of this alternative would not result in an increase in surface runoff when compared to the proposed project, an integral component of the existing stormwater collection system would continue to be inadequate to accommodate future storm flows. In addition, this alternative would not include water quality treatment systems like the proposed project, resulting in no improvement to the surface water quality before discharging into the municipal collection system and, ultimately, into Newport Bay. 10.3.1.7 Biological Resources Although no potential impacts would occur to the terrestrial biological resources on the site as a result of the No Project alternative, enhancement of the existing plants and habitat would not occur. Specifically, no native plant materials would be incorporated into this alternative and, therefore, no potential benefits of enhanced habitat would be realized. The reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed, would result in similar impacts within the harbor and intertidal areas and would necessitate the implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to avoid eelgrass with a smaller dock, due to the proximity of the dock to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post- construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. 10.3.1.8 Public Health and Safety Although some remodeling and cosmetic upgrading of the structures would occur in the No Project alternative, abatement of the asbestos and lead -based paint detected in the existing buildings may not be necessary or required because those activities are contingent upon the nature and extent of specific remodeling that were to occur. In order to avoid LBP and ACM impacts, similar to the proposed project, it would be necessary to abate the LBP and ACM identified during the investigations conducted for the No Project alternative. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -5 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.3.1.9 Soils and Geology Section 10.0— Altematives Because the subject property is located within the seismically active Southern California region, the existing structures would be subject to moderate to strong seismic groundshaking, similar to the proposed project; however, because the structures were built in 1949 and in the 1960s, they do not meet current building code requirements and, therefore, the buildings may not withstand moderate to strong seismic events as well as the proposed project. This, in turn, may result in significant structural damage and /or loss of life unless the existing structures are structurally retrofitted to meet current seismic standards. It is anticipated that grading and /or landform alteration would not occur. Replacement of the 3 -slip dock facility would be exposed to storm - generated wave conditions; however, like the proposed project, the dock would be constructed based on the extreme wave conditions forecast for the area. 10.3.1.10 Cultural Resources No site grading /excavation would be necessary in order to implement the No Project alternative. As a result, potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project would be avoided, eliminating the need for mitigation. Summary of No Project/No Development Alternative Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of the No Project alternative would not achieve any of the eight objectives identified for the proposed project. Most importantly, the No Project alternative would not allow for a state -of- the -art multiple - family residential project and the existing structures will not enhance the aesthetic character of the community as articulated in several of the General Plan policies. Furthermore, no private recreational amenities would be provided and it is anticipated that the existing, energy inefficient structures would continue to consume greater quantities of energy resources when compared to the proposed project, which has been designed to incorporate state -of- the -art energy efficient energy systems. Finally, existing views from the important public vantages would not be enhanced. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impact and potential impacts to paleontological resources identified for the proposed project. It would also substantially reduce construction traffic and related air emissions when compared to the proposed project. However, it would not substantially reduce other potential effects, including hydrology /water quality, biological resources, and operational traffic. The existing catch basin near the comer of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard would not be upgraded, resulting in the continuation of the stormwater collection deficiency. In addition, without seismic retrofitting necessary to improve the structural integrity of the existing structures, the buildings and future residents would be exposed to potential seismic hazards. Finally, abatement of the LBP and ACM would not be required so future residents could also be exposed to ACM and LBP unless remediated during the remodeling process. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -6 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Comparative Merits Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although this alternative does eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impacts and reduce other potential project- related impacts, several benefits resulting from the proposed project would not be realized, including the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not provide improved aesthetic character within the Corona del Mar community as a result of the modem design and architectural character of the project, and the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities, enhanced public access through the creation of new on- street public parking spaces, and improved drainage and water quality as a result of the upgrading of the existing catch basin. In addition, this alternative does not include enhanced view corridors along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue and the No Project alternative does not achieve objectives of the Newport Beach General Plan and other long -range plans adopted by the City intended improve the quality of the neighborhood and environment (e.g., improvement stormwater quality, implementation of .'green" technologies, etc.). 10.3.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units) This alternative would result in the subdivision of the existing property into three single - family lots, each of which would be occupied by one custom residence (refer to Exhibit 10 -1). Each of the three homes would consist of two above -grade living levels as well as a basement level and a roof deck. The two residences facing Carnation Avenue might have garages fronting on that street, while the third residence would likely have subterranean parking accessible via a driveway from Carnation Avenue. Similar to the proposed project, basement levels of the homes are assumed to "daylight' at 50.7 feet NAVD88, the City Council- approved predominant line of existing development. Each residence would encompass approximately 6,900 square feet of living space and a total structural floor area of about 7,700 square feet (including living space, garages, mechanical spaces, etc.) for a total structural floor area of approximately 23,200 square feet. Although this reduced intensity alternative would reduce the amount of grading necessary to accommodate the three homes (i.e., 10,000 cubic yards of excavation versus 25,200 cubic yards for the proposed project), up to 75 caissons would be required to provide the structural integrity of the three homes. The existing dock would be replaced with a new 3 -slip dock that would accommodate a 40- to 60 -foot boat for each of the three residences. For this alternative, there is no requirement for implementation of the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. 10.3.2.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would not require an amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of three single - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. The single - family residential dwelling units proposed in this alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with three homes would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. However, as identified below, the construction of three homes would likely require individual curb cuts for vehicular access, resulting in no additional public parking at the curb. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 WIN r d r � s d W U �( � LL cn M a LO 0 U U L.I. d U z d c c d O C m W D 0 co U r� � m m � t y 1 U C � w° �a o¢ O OI IT Ga[cio ilva i:W��IDIA�Y.YI T51dG FG'1T'YNHItlG KKfn > »s 6V�YJ V2il2otvAr NOW .on.al snow a�ari�ox� 32VLL�311H'JL'V 3113NNd3i' NOR18 G n °m WOI oar 1 m 5iw .trAt n�Oa� nl I 4 g•o -I 1 Iu 1 "n HO-AI SL_= .t__V1_SJ JJ ��/� /� /}yn 1I 1 z — - -II _iL_ —Sd dg Ljjj�y, U Q pop � 1 ( .\ 0 P 8 n�oV Q 1 W kn m 10 1 �Q.�Q' c1 I a J ` ��FF �JQx �S o` FF 0W �^ c. Ho P MR q aO�m�, J i r d r � s d W U �( � LL cn M a LO 0 U U L.I. d U z d c c d O C m W D 0 co U r� � m m � t y 1 U C � w° �a o¢ O OI IT Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.2.2 Traffic and Circulation Development of the subject property with three single - family homes would result in potentially greater construction traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. Although this alternative would necessitate the removal of only 10,000 cubic yards of earth materials (i.e., approximately 3,333 cubic yards for each home), the construction schedule may likely extend over a substantially longer period of time. Based on current economic conditions, it is anticipated that each residence would not be constructed until it has been sold, resulting in a total construction duration of approximately six years (i.e., two years for each residence), assuming each is built one after the other. During that overall construction schedule, heavy truck and related vehicle trips would enter and exit the neighborhood similarly to that anticipated by the proposed project. Although the amount of export materials would be less than the proposed project, resulting in fewer overall haul truck trips (i.e., approximately 825 trips associated with each home), the potential disruption in the neighborhood resulting from the construction vehicles entering and exiting the site would occur over a longer period of time. Once completed, the three dwelling units would generate fewer than 30 vehicular trips per day and only about three morning and afternoon peak hour trips, which would not significantly affect traffic either in the neighborhood or on arterial roadways in the area. 10.3.2.3 Air Quality Potential air quality impacts would be less than significant as a result of the reduction in the amount of grading that would be necessary to accommodate the three homes. The total number of days, combined with fewer heavy truck trips (i.e., 1,194 haul trucks and cement trucks) and less export material (10,000 cubic yards) would account for the reduction in daily emissions associated with the grading operation (i.e., Phase 1) of this alternative. Although overall construction of this alternative would take approximately six years (i.e., two years for each home), the potential air quality impacts associated with subsequent phases (i.e., concrete construction, framing, and finish) would utilize similar types and numbers of construction equipment as the proposed project. Therefore, daily construction emissions would be about the same as those estimated for the proposed project and would be less than significant. Operational emissions, including mobile source emissions, would also be less than significant due to the reduction in dwelling units that generate fewer trips when compared to the proposed project. However, the homes in this alternative are less likely to be designed to be as energy efficient as the proposed project because the three custom homes would not necessarily be constructed by the applicant. The off -site emissions associated with natural gas and electrical consumption could be greater than the proposed project emissions when compared on a unit -to -unit basis. Nonetheless, long -term air emissions would be less than the project - related emissions, which are less than significant. 10.3.2.4 Noise Noise resulting in the demolition of the existing structures would be similar to that described in Section 4.4. Because grading would not extend below 50 feet NAVD88, potential noise associated with grading required for each of the homes would be limited to the area identified in Exhibit 4.4 -3. Other noise levels resulting from concrete pouring, metal stud framing and concrete form work would be similar to the proposed project; however, because construction of these homes would likely occur consecutively rather than concurrently, the overall construction phase would be substantially longer when compared to the proposed project. Based on a two -year construction schedule for each home, construction noise would fluctuate based on the particular phase and would extend over a six year period compared to a 32 -month construction phase for the proposed project. Therefore, potential construction noise impacts would also be significant and unavoidable. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -9 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental 10.2.2.5 Aesthetics Section 10.0 — Alternatives Although it is anticipated that this alternative would comply with the relevant policies related to aesthetics and visual resources articulated in the General Pan and CLUP, development of the site with three single- family dwelling units (and a three -slip dock) could adversely affect public views from the Public View Point on Ocean Boulevard. Although subdivision of the property, which would result in the creation of three individual lots and the placement of a home on each lot, could provide a degree of enhancement as desired in the relevant General Plan policies, it is possible that the view enhancement may not be as significant as that resulting from project implementation (i.e., 75 percent increase) in the view angle from the Public View Point. As a result, enhancement of the public view from Ocean Boulevard that would occur from the implementation of the proposed project may not be realized. Similarly, the view corridor along the northern property boundary created by the proposed project would likely be eliminated in this alternative. This alternative will improve the aesthetic character of the site (when compared to the existing older, deteriorating residences that currently exist) and achieve architectural diversity as articulated in the relevant General Plan policies. When viewed from the harbor, three structures would be seen, including basement levels that "daylight" at the PLOED, which has been established at 50.7 feet NAVD88. Although the dock would be smaller (i.e., 3 slips versus 8 slips and a guest side tie), the effect on the aesthetic character of the bluff and rock outcroppings would be similar to the proposed project. While portions of the small cove and rock outcroppings may be obscured from view by the boats and docks associated with this alternative, the effect on those views would be temporary; none of the visual amenities would be permanently altered or destroyed as a result of implementing this alternative. 10.3.2.6 Drainage and Hydrology Although the impervious area of the site may be reduced with such an alternative, the existing catch basin in Carnation Avenue near Ocean Boulevard is deficient and cannot adequately accommodate existing surface flows within the drainage area. Despite this alternative likely reducing flows to the existing catch basin, the catch basin would remain deficient. If storm runoff does not exceed existing volumes, this alternative could not be conditioned to upgrade the catch basin from existing conditions. In addition, the potential for water quality impacts would be similar to the proposed project and could exacerbate the existing "impaired" status of Newport Bay if surface flows are not properly treated prior to being discharged. 10.3.2.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified in Section 4.6. Specifically, this alternative, like the proposed project, would result in the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site. In addition, it is possible that one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site, could be affected. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction surveys for sensitive plant species and nesting birds would also be imposed on this project alternative. In addition to these potential effects, the reconstruction of a 3 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed in connection with the project, would result in similar impacts within the intertidal area, and would necessitate the implementation of similar mitigation measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to better avoid eelgrass with this alternative given that it is a smaller dock (e.g., a larger buffer could be implemented), due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post - construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -10 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.2.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e., potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project, this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP. 10.3.2.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions on the property are suitable to accommodate the development of the site with three single - family homes. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required, grading would not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with three slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.2.10 Cultural Resources Although the grading anticipated to accommodate the three single - family residential dwelling units would be less than that proposed in connection with the project, impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project due to the nature of the underlying Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. As indicated for the proposed project, no existing archaeological or historical resources are known to exist on the site; therefore, implementation of this alternative would not result in any impacts to such resources. Summary of Reduced Intensity Alternative (3 Single - Family Residential Dwelling Units) Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of this alternative would achieve only portions of Objectives 1 (i.e., enhance the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood by replacing a deteriorating structure), 2 (i.e., incorporate a design that reflects the architectural diversity of the neighborhood), 3 (i.e., provide a dock for each residence), and 7 (enhance scenic views from the harbor). However, this alternative would not result in the construction of a multiple - family residential condominium project of sufficient size (Objective 1) to provide range of recreational and health amenities or ample storage space (Objective 4), enhance aesthetics of the neighborhood to the degree of the proposed project, and remove two existing overhead power poles (Objective 2), incorporate energy- saving, sustainable, and environmentally sensitive technology, construction techniques, and other features designed to conserve energy and /or improve the existing environment to a greater degree than required by current applicable regulations (Objective 3), enhance public access by increasing public street parking (Objective 5), or remove two existing power poles on Carnation Avenue, as well as the associated overhead wires, all of which presently affect the view from certain perspectives or replace the existing poles and overhead wiring by undergrounding the new wiring, all in order to enhance scenic views to the harbor and ocean from designated vantage points (Objective 6). In addition, if the homes in this alternative were built to the maximum building height, this alternative would not minimize encroachment into private views when compared to the proposed project (Objective 8). Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -11 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Section 10.0 — Alternatives This alternative would decrease the amount of grading required to construct the three single - family residential dwelling units, construction of the three homes would extend over a six year period (i.e., two years for each home) because they which would be constructed consecutively rather than concurrently due to market conditions. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not avoid or substantially reduce the potential construction noise impact associated with project implementation. Depending on market conditions, the construction noise impacts could extend for a greater period of time than would be the case for the proposed project or the multi- family project alternatives. Implementation of this alternative would also result in reduced construction and mobile- source air emissions and construction traffic, which were determined to be less than significant with the proposed project as well. Comparative Merits As indicated above, this alternative does not eliminate the significant unavoidable adverse construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project. Due to the manner in which construction would occur (i.e., consecutively), the actual construction duration and, therefore, short-term impacts associated with construction (e.g., air quality, noise, and traffic), would be extended beyond any of the alternatives evaluated. In addition, several benefits resulting from the proposed project might not be realized to the extent that would occur with the proposed project, including the provision of enhanced view corridors along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue, the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring. 10.3.3 Reduced Intensity/5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project This alternative includes the elimination of the proposed project's Sub - Basement Level and the entire Basement Level. The location and basic design of levels above the Basement level are assumed to be similar as the proposed project. Twenty -five (25) caissons below the building perimeter along Bayside Place and Newport Bay are eliminated due to the change in basement and foundation design. Due to the elimination of parking located on the Sub - Basement and Basement levels, required parking spaces have been reallocated among the proposed parking areas within the First and Second levels. The resulting parking plan would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements for the development of 5 units. If vehicle spaces on vehicle lifts were considered adequate to satisfy required parking, the number of units could be higher assuming no reduction in building area devoted to residential uses would occur to increase the size and capacity of the garage areas. The interior layout of the proposed residential building areas would be reallocated and /or redesigned for a reduced number of units (5). The applicant would have the ability to increase the size of units, provide area for common amenities or mechanical spaces for energy independent systems. Compared to the proposed project, this multiple - family alternative has three (3) fewer units and the extra guest parking including golf cart and motorcycle parking spaces would be eliminated. Elimination of 2 levels (Sub- basement and Basement Levels) Decrease in number of units from S to 5 Elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place Total reduction of 12,240 cubic yards of excavation Reduction of 1,021 dump trucks and 126 cement trucks Reduction of approximately 9 months of construction time compared to the proposed project Reduction or possible elimination of mechanical spaces impacting the ability to provide energy independent systems such as photovoltaic and gray water storages Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -12 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — A/tematives • Reduction or possible elimination of common amenities for all units including fitness center, less private storage • Proposed dock design would be reduced; 5 slips for 5 units plus 1 guest side -tie For this alternative, state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project, would not be required. Therefore, this alternative will not provide those benefits. 10.3.3.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The construction of five (5) multiple - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This less intense alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City s General Plan and CLUP, similar to the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 5 multiple - family dwelling units in a similar configuration as the proposed project would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. 10.3.3.2 Traffic Circulation Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar (i.e., addition of heavy truck trips onto the residential streets in the area) to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site would be reduced by 1,021 truck trips. Nonetheless, the nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would occur for a shorter period of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of a Construction Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. As for long -term impacts, the 5 -unit alternative would yield approximately 30 trips per day, compared to 47 for the proposed project. Similarly, peak hour vehicle trips would also be reduced. As with the proposed project, no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative would occur. 10.3.3.3 Air Quality As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill and the reduction in the number of dwelling units. As indicated in Section 4.3, potential less than significant short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for the proposed project would be further reduced by the implementation of this alternative. 10.3.3.4 Noise This alternative, which eliminates the sub - basement level, basement levels, and three dwelling units, would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 25 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity. In addition, the quantity of earth material excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a result, this alternative would require approximately 23 months of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise impacts for demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the same as with the proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the construction phase of the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28- foot elevation would be eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above, construction noise levels anticipated as a result of this 5 -unit alternative would be virtually the same as those Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 1043 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives identified for the proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 50 feet in elevation and 25 caissons, the duration of the excessive construction noise would be significantly reduced by approximately 9 months. Although this alternative would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential excessive noise, the potential construction- related noise impacts would remain significant even with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4. 10.3.3.5 Aesthetics Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is aesthetically similar to the proposed project, no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The effect of this project design alternative on aesthetics would be virtually the same as identified and described in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point identified in the Citys General Plan would be expanded. In addition, the view window along the northern property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design. However, with the exception of the existing overhead wires that would be extended to serve the site, the overhead utility poles in the neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would not be undergrounded. 10.3.3.6 Drainage and Hydrology Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan are those occurring below the finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels). Therefore, like the proposed project, this alternative would be expected to decrease flows to the existing deficient catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, although the catch basin would remain deficient. Nonetheless, this alternative would not be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin. As a result, this alternative would not improve the drainage condition in the area. 10.3.3.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of this alternative on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre- construction sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly, the reconstruction of a 5 -slip dock, which would be smaller than that proposed, would also result in similar effects within the harbor and intertidal areas as the proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the implementation of similar measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Although it may be possible to avoid eelgrass with the smaller dock, due to the proximity of the facility to the existing eelgrass bed in the harbor, pre- and post - construction surveys would still be required to document avoidance of, or potential impacts to, eelgrass. 10.3.3.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would necessitate the demolition of the existing residential structures that occupy the site. As a result, the potential impacts identified for the proposed project would also occur (i.e., potential to release ACM and LBP if not properly abated). However, as prescribed for the proposed project, this alternative would include the same standard conditions to ensure that any ACM and LBP that may exist in the structures are abated in accordance with existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize issues associated with ACM and /or LBP. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -14 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 - Altematives 10.3.3.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the 5 -unit multiple - family residential project. Although similar structural reinforcement would be required as with the proposed project, grading would not extend below the 50 -foot elevation. Potential impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with five slips (i.e., exposure to stone waves). Implementation of this altemative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.3.10 Cultural Resources Although grading would be reduced by eliminating the two basement levels and the need to excavate as much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be the same as those identified in Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to historic and cultural and archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the site, grading necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would result in similar potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the Monterey formation, which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. Summary of Reduced Intensity /5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project Ability to Achieve Project Objectives It is not clear whether this alternative could feasibly accomplish most of the project objectives. In most cases, the degree to which the objectives would be achieved would be less than that occurring with the proposed project. This alternative might not be expected to contain a sufficient number and size of units to justify the same level of advanced design and architecture which would reflect the architectural diversity of the community and add distinction to the harbor and neighborhood, use energy - conserving technology in excess of that which is legally required, or include significant common amenities (Objective 1, Objective 3, Objective 4). While this alternative would improve the aesthetic character of the site and neighborhood by replacing the existing structure with a more modern structure, it would not remove overhead power poles (Objective 2). Additionally, the significantly reduced scale of the project may also reduce the extent of landscape and streetscape enhancements (Objective 2) compared to the proposed project. Further, the provision of energy efficient systems (Objective No. 3) likely would be limited or precluded by the elimination of electrical and storage areas allocated for the proposed project. Similarly, the ability to provide storage and community amenities would be severely constrained (Objective No. 4). Objective Nos. 5, 7, and S likely could be achieved in a similar fashion as the proposed project. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts Implementation of this alternative would result in generally similar (e.g., soils and geology, drainage and hydrology, cultural resources, aesthetics, public health and safety, etc.) or slightly reduced (e.g., traffic and circulation, air quality, etc.) effects as those identified for the proposed project. Although this alternative would reduce the overall duration of construction by approximately 9 months, the reduction in the duration of excessive noise would be significantly reduces. Therefore, of construction - related noise anticipated for this alternative would remain significant. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 - Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -15 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives Comparative Merits As indicated above, the 5 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project would reduce the duration of construction noise by 9 months and significantly reduce construction - related noise, but the construction - related noise would remain significant. Although some (less than significant) project - related effects would be reduced further with this alternative, the reductions would occur at the expense of the reduction and /or elimination of project components, including storage space, common amenities, upgrading of the existing catch basin, removal of utility poles, and undergrounding of wiring, and mechanical spaces, which affect the ability to provide energy independent systems. 10.3.4 Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Two 8 -unit alternatives that include 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units on the site reflect an alternative design have been identified for the "existing zoning" alternative. While they reflect the same number of dwelling units and less grading, each is characterized by specific parameters, including a reduction in grading, which are described below. 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading F-111M 1. i1 -X-11 This 8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project alternative (refer to Exhibits 10 -2 through 10 -6) includes the elimination of the sub - basement included in the proposed project, and a reduction of 1,259 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a reduction of 7,804 cubic yards of excavation when compared to the proposed project. Building perimeter walls along Bayside Place and Newport Bay have been modified to accommodate the distance required for a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) cut slope in order to eliminate the need for 25 caissons along that side. As a result, the perimeter walls are pulled back from the PLOED of 50.7 feet NAVD88. In addition, common facilities and amenities have also been reduced in an effort to minimize grading and potential impacts. The resulting parking plan complies with the City's off - street parking requirements; however, due to the elimination of the sub - basement parking, parking spaces have been reallocated in this alternative to the first, second and basement levels of the structure. This alternative has 3 fewer guest parking spaces and does not include the golf cart and motorcycle parking. The proposed dock design in this alternative, which includes eight slips for the eight dwelling units as well as one guest "side tie,' would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative A, the applicant has indicated that it would provide state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, and undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring to the same extent as provided for the proposed project. These improvements would be voluntarily provided even though there is no basis to require the implementation of these improvements. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -16 9JbIL0 y1V0 M!'d W101d h�iLM-G 1"I'/'WMVIq Y.Y. tfPMY 499CY VJ'BN'QAIi IMOdGN QG dy 0' +••9u' 'aw�z aimvumox+ 32tfLL'A11H7L"a' 3ll3NNV3I' NOI>J9 1IpIr/I 11 6� 1 AN i �z N C O N ra y_ y C L cl) X W w R m LL LL 2 00 Cl) a) N C L d y Q R 'L^ V d V 7 W N @ U _W G yU 4 @ L' @ C C @ C O c Q] W I 9 Q U C - o c N R Wm U L.. @ O E 3 0 .^- r O W� N A d Q Cl) O - r Y x x W � U N t U Q O N C C N d C O C co U1 U K 0 O y Q U Y _ of m m �m �Y ip2N � P�� a So W N W o� d � C O � �a 0 L O X LL W C L) ci cn cn 0 LL au m M C t6 Q Cl) N w f6 C L Y Q -a d U 7 a m d 5 U _N L U Q d d C C t0 d C O cc co IlJ U K 7 Q y U C O L O O N � O N Z N d ,Ra g W N �a o� m a LO c oa 0 t O X Il w a LLL_ LL 00 Cl) a M L Q » c v d U 3 a d d U v a d 0 .0 m U K 0 O rn U �W m vY O E 3 0 �°, Z N � ��g a WN om Q a Alm MA LO c oa 0 t O X Il w a LLL_ LL 00 Cl) a M L Q » c v d U 3 a d d U v a d 0 .0 m U K 0 O rn U �W m vY O E 3 0 �°, Z N � ��g a WN om Q (D C oa R Y_ L O t O X LL W c e d c m 0 m U K O rn U m m U t.. � O E3o �ZN C I L WN C m 0¢ d a _ _.. _ . _. .. ..... . . ... .... . ® �I �\ ♦ =111 iii��� • II II (D C oa R Y_ L O t O X LL W c e d c m 0 m U K O rn U m m U t.. � O E3o �ZN C I L WN C m 0¢ d a Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Alternative B Section 10.0 — Alternatives This alternative is similar to the 8 -unit alternative described in the previous section (i.e., no sub - basement level). However, implementation of this alternative would also result in a reduction of 5,419 square feet at the basement level from the proposed project. Only the garage "core" and a small portion of circulation, mechanical, and storage space would remain at the basement level (refer to Exhibit 10 -7 and Exhibits 10- 3 through 10 -6). In addition, common facilities such as the recreation room and most of the storage areas have been eliminated. A reduction in the mechanical spaces would also result in the elimination of some energy- independent systems such as the photovoltaic and gray water storage features; however, the applicant would retain the ability to modify the plans to incorporate these facilities within other areas. A small portion of excavation beyond the basement perimeter is necessary for the pool on the first floor. This alternative would result in the elimination of 25 caissons along the building perimeter facing Newport Bay and Bayside Place and would require 9,229 cubic yards less of excavation to accommodate the proposed structure. The first and second floor plans are the same as the other 8 -unit alternative previously identified and the required parking would also be reallocated to the first, second, and basement levels of the structure. Although the extra guest parking spaces would be eliminated in this alternative, the design would comply with the City's off - street parking requirements. Also, the proposed dock design would be the same as the proposed project. For Alternative B, there is no requirement for incorporating the state -of -the art energy features, upgrading of the existing catch basin, or undergrounding of existing power poles and wiring, which are included within the proposed project. The applicant has indicated it would not be able to provide these improvements for Alternative B. 10.3.4.1 Land Use and Planning Implementation of this alternative would require the same amendment to the City's General Plan as proposed by the applicant for the proposed project. The development intensity of this altemative is the same as the proposed project; the construction of eight (8) multiple - family residential dwelling units on the consolidated property would be consistent with the intensity of development in the project environs, which is characterized by both single- and multiple - family residential dwelling units. This alternative could be designed to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and CLOP, in the same fashion as the proposed project. As indicated above, development of the site with 8 multiple - family dwelling units in a similar configuration, albeit without the storage and amenities included in the proposed project, would not extend below the PLOED established by the City Council. 10.3.4.2 Traffic Circulation Potential construction traffic impacts would be similar to the proposed project, although the number of heavy truck trips resulting from the reduction in grading and requirement to export earth materials from the site would be reduced as a result of the reduction of grading associated with these alternatives (i.e., 1,881 and 2,055 heavy truck and cement truck trips versus 2,727 total trips for the proposed project). Nonetheless, the nature and extent of the construction vehicles /traffic would be the same but would occur for a shorter period of time. These potential effects would be addressed through the implementation of a Construction Management Plan with the same restrictions on parking, ingress /egress of vehicles, etc. as the Construction Management Plan proposed in connection with the project. As for long -term impacts, the 8 -unit alternatives (with reduced grading as indicated above) would yield the same number of trips (i.e., 47 trips per day) as the proposed project. Off - street parking would comply with the City's parking code requirements and the number of on- street parking spaces would also be increased as reflected in the proposed project. Similarly, peak hour vehicle trips would also be the same with the implementation of either of these reduced grading alternatives; however, like the proposed project, no potential long -term traffic impacts from this alternative would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -22 n 0 Y_ x W m r U Q N z m c c c 0 m IL U K 7 0 co U C _ oz � m m � 0 �3o N r Z N G ^� R eh >o WN O m Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives 10.3.4.3 Air Quality As with traffic impacts, the potential less than significant air emissions associated with the proposed project during both construction and operation would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in the amount of soil material excavated from the site and transported to the Olinda Alpha Landfill. As indicated in Section 4.3, potential less than significant short-term (construction) and long -term (operational) air emissions estimated for the proposed project would be further reduced by the implementation of either of these reduced grading alternatives that would also yield 8 multiple - family residential dwelling units. 10.3.4.4 Noise These reduced grading alternatives (i.e., Alternative A would eliminate the sub - basement level and 1,259 square feet in the basement level and Alternative B would eliminate the sub - basement level and 5,419 square feet in the basement level) would also eliminate several noise - generating components associated with construction, including the elimination of 23 caissons that would not be necessary for structural integrity. In addition, the quantity of earth material excavated and hauled from the site would also be reduced. As a result, these alternatives would require only 27 months to construction Alternative A and 26 months for Alternative B of construction, compared to 32 months for the proposed project. Potential noise impacts for demolition would be the same. Although the noise associated with caisson drilling would be the same for the proposed project, fewer caissons are required and the duration of that noise over the construction phase of the project would be reduced. In addition, noise associated with excavation to the 28 -foot elevation would be eliminated with the elimination of the sub - basement level. As indicated above, construction noise levels anticipated as a result of these 8 -unit alternatives would be virtually the same as those identified for the proposed project; however, with the elimination of excavation below 40 feet in elevation and 23 caissons, the duration of construction would be reduced by five months for Alternative A and six months for Alternative B, although the duration of the reduction in excessive construction noise would be less. While these alternatives would reduce the duration of construction and, therefore, potential excessive noise, the reduction in noise would constitute a significant reduction in potential construction noise impacts; however it would remain significant even with the incorporation of the mitigation measures prescribed in Section 4.4. 10.3.4.5 Aesthetics Because the proposed exterior building design above the basement floor is identical to the proposed project, no potential aesthetic impacts would occur as a result of implementing this alternative. The effect of these 8- unit, reduced grading project design alternatives on aesthetics would be the same as identified and described in Section 4.5 for the proposed project. The view corridor on Ocean Boulevard at the Public View Point identified in the City s General Plan would be expanded and enhanced to provide a wider view. In addition, the view corridor along the northern property line would also be "opened" as a result of the project design and the overhead utilities in the neighborhood on Carnation Avenue would also be undergrounded, resulting in the improvement of the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Finally, the aesthetic character of the bluff and cove below when viewed from the harbor would not be adversely impacted by the proposed dock facility, which would be the same as the proposed project. As indicated in Section 4.5, views from the harbor would be momentarily interrupted by the proposed dock; however, no significant aesthetic impacts would occur. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -24 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives 10.3.4.6 Drainage and Hydrology Similar to the proposed project, the only physical changes to the site plan as a result of these 8 -unit alternatives are those occurring below the finished pad elevation (i.e., elimination of two basement levels). Although neither reduced grading alternative would be required to upgrade the existing deficient catch basin near the corner of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard, the applicant would implement that improvement for Alternative A, which would eliminate the existing catch basin deficiency. These reduced grading design alternatives would also include the same or similar BMPs and features to treat stormwater before it is discharged into the bay. 10.3.4.7 Biological Resources The potential effects of these reduced grading alternatives on terrestrial biological resources would be the same as identified for the proposed project, including the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff, which could result in impacts to nesting bird species that may reside on the site and the possible adverse effect to one or more sensitive plant species, if found to occupy the site. As a result, the same provisions for construction scheduling and pre - construction sensitive plant species would also be imposed on this project alternative. Similarly, the reconstruction of a 8 -slip dock would also result in the same effects within the intertidal area as the proposed project and other alternatives and would, therefore, necessitate the implementation of the measures during the construction phase to ensure that turbidity is minimized and impacts to the marine resources are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. 10.3.4.8 Public Health and Safety Implementation of this alternative would require the demolition of the two residential structures that exist on the subject property. The potential impacts associated with the 8 -unit multiple - family residential project with reduced grading would be the same as described in Section 4.8. Therefore, it will be necessary to abate the ACM and LBP in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. 10.3.4.9 Soils and Geology The soils and geologic conditions are suitable to accommodate the development of the site either of the 8- unit multiple - family residential projects that reduce the grading. Similar structural reinforcement would be required to accommodate either design alternative. Potential impacts associated with these reduced grading alternatives would be similar to the proposed project, including those potential effects associated with the construction of the dock with eight slips (i.e., exposure to storm waves). Implementation of this alternative does not significantly reduce or minimize potentially significant impacts associated with soils and geology. 10.3.4.10 Cultural Resources Although the amount of grading would be reduced by eliminating all or portions of the two basement levels and the need to excavate as much as 20 feet lower, the potential effects of this project would be the same as those identified in Section 4.10. Although no potentially significant effects would occur to historic and cultural /archaeological resources based on the site and records surveys conducted for the site, grading necessary to accommodate the structural components identified in this alternative would result in similar potential effects on paleontological resources because grading would extend into the Monterey formation, which is capable of producing such resources. Therefore, this alternative would be required to implement the same mitigation measure as prescribed for the proposed project (i.e., preparation of a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program) to ensure that fossils that may be encountered are adequately addressed. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10-25 Aerie PA 2006196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Alternatives Summary of Existing Zoning /Alternative Design Ability to Achieve Project Objectives Implementation of Alternative A will, to some extent, achieve all project objectives. Given the reduced building area with the basement level eliminated and sub - basement level reduced in size, there would be less area to accommodate the mechanical /electrical spaces for the energy - efficient features that go beyond the minimum Title 24 code compliance. The common amenities proposed would be significantly reduced, with the exception of the pool itself, and the private storage areas would be also be reduced in size. The proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. Implementation of Alternative B also achieves, to some degree, most of the project objectives. The ability to incorporate the use of energy- conserving technology would be constrained, as would the inclusion of common amenities (Objective 1). Achievement of Objectives No. 2 and No. 4 is compromised to a degree because, as with Objective 1, the reduced scale of the project will eliminate the requirement to remove the existing power poles. Alternative B has reduced areas available for mechanical /electrical spaces, common amenities and storage areas relative to Alternative A. As with Alternative A, the proposed docks would remain the same as that included in the proposed project. Elimination /Reduction of Significant Impacts With the exception of reducing the duration of construction by five or six months, which would reduce the number of heavy truck trips entering the roadway system and the daily air emissions (both of which were determined to be less than significant), the reduced grading alternatives described above would result in generally similar impacts as those described for the proposed project. Potential construction - related noise impacts would be significantly be reduced but the remaining impact will remain significant. Comparative Merits As indicated above, both of the reduced grading alternatives could achieve a significant reduction in construction- related noise due to the reduced construction duration and some reduction in the degree of other environmental effects (truck traffic and air quality); however, these reductions would not be substantial and would not completely avoid the potentially significant construction - related noise impacts. Furthermore, the reductions in less than significant impacts would cause the elimination of components of the proposed project that are intended to achieve specific project objectives (e.g., provision of energy efficient systems, on -site recreational amenities, etc.). Specifically with respect to Alternative B, the project would not include the high -level of energy - saving technology, remove the existing power poles and overhead wiring, or upgrade the existing catch basin, as would both the proposed project and Alternative A. 10.4 Summary of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative An EIR is required to identify the "environmentally superior' alternative among those evaluated from the reasonable range of alternatives analyzed. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines mandates that in the event "... the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2006196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 F10111.1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 10.0 — Altematives As indicated in Table 10 -1, the No Project/No Development alternative would avoid the two potentially significant project - related impacts (construction noise and paleontology) identified in Chapter 4.0. The remaining alternatives would reduce to some extent, the degree of traffic and air quality impacts, which were determined to be less than significant for the proposed project. In addition, although the duration of construction noise would be significantly reduced as a result of reduced grading in the 3, 5, and 8 -unit alternatives, the construction noise associated with each alternative could not be mitigated and would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, with the possible exception of Alternative 3A, the other alternatives would not result in the benefits derived form project implementation (e.g., underground overhead power poles creating an improved aesthetic character on Carnation Avenue and upsizing of the existing deficient catch basin). Finally, all or portions of several project objectives would not be realized, including state -of- the -art energy saving conservation features and the provision of recreation amenities. Based on the potential environmental effects and the ability to meet the project objectives, existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple Family Alternative A is considered the "environmentally superior' alternative of the alternatives considered as a result of improvements that ameliorate existing undesirable environmental conditions (e.g., provision of adequate capacity in the existing deficient storm drain, removal of the unsightly overhead utility poles, etc.). Although Alternative B further reduces grading and, to some degree, the duration of construction noise, the potential impact would remain significant and unavoidable as with all of the alternatives and project objectives would not be achieved to the same degree as compared to Alternative A. Furthermore, none of the improvements to drainage, aesthetics and /or energy conservation systems would be included in the single - family (i.e., 3 dwelling units), or 5 -unt and 8 -unit Alternative B design alternatives; thus, the environmental benefits would not accrue to those alternatives. Table 10 -1 Summary of Project Alternatives Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -27 Significant Reduced Impacts Avoided Alternative Project or Substantially Environmentally Meets Effects Reduced Other Effects Superior? Project Objectives' No Project/No Traffic Noise 4.5 Yes None Development Air Qualfiy2 5 Paleontology Reduced Intensity 3 Single Family Units Trafficz.e Air Quality5 None Noise r Drainage /Hydrology No 1 2, 3, and 7 , Aesthefics (Partial) Reduced Intensity 5 Multiple Family Units Traffic Air Quality 5 None > Drainage/Hydrology' 5 No° 5,7, and 8 Reduced Grading Noises Aesthetics s8 (Partial) Existing Zoning Troffio ze 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualityz ,e None Drainage/Hydrology' 8 Yes All Reduced Grading g Noises Aesthetics (Partial) Alternative A Existing Zoning roffio ze TDrainage 8 Multiple Family Units Air Qualilyz ,e None /Hydrology' a No All Reduced Grading g Noises Aesthetics (Partial) Alternative B 'Numbers refer to Project Objectives Identified in Section 10.5. 2During the construction phase. 'Substantially reduces or eliminates a significant unavoidable adverse impact. °Does not achieve City goals and objectives and /or inconsistent with adopted land use policies. 5Does not result in improved surface water quality and continuation of catch basin deficiency in Carnation Avenue /Ocean Boulevard. SProject effects less than significant; reduced project effects is the result of reduced grading required for the alternatives. 'Does not upgrade existing deficient catch basin. °Does not underground existing power poles and wiring. 9Duration of construction phase reduced; however, alternative will not significantly reduce construction noise levels. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005- 196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 10 -27 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted CHAPTER 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department David Lepo, Director James Campbell, Principal Planner Public Works Department Tony Brine, Transportation and Development Services Manager Dave Keely, Associate Traffic Engineer Building Department Faisal Jurdi, Deputy Building Officer Steve Hook, Chief Building Inspector Fire Department Steve Buntin, Fire Marshal Kim Reitman, Fire Prevention Specialist Harbor Resources Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager KEETON KREITZER CONSULTING Keeton K. Kreitzer, Principal AUSTIN -FOUST ASSOCIATES Joe Foust, Principal Terry Austin, Principal ICF /JONES & STOKES Kim Svitenko, Senior Biologist SYNECTECOLOGY Todd Brody, Principal DraftEnvimnmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 11 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 11.0 — Organizations and Persons Consulted GMU GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Lisa L. Bates - Seabold, CEG, Senior Engineering Geoloigst COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC. Rick Ware, President/Senior Marine Biologist SOFTMIRAGE, INC. Steve Pollack, Principal Howard Ouellette BRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE Brion Jeannette, Principal Wun Sze Li Amy Creager HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES INRVINE, INC. Ted Frattone Philip D. Dowty, P.E. THE PLANNING CENTER Tin Cheung GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES Glenn Lukos NOBLE CONSULTANTS, INC. Jon T. Moore, P.E. NEBLETT & ASSOCIATES Sidney S. Neblett, R.G., C.E.G. Daniel J. Morikwa, P.E., G.E. David H. Ginter, G.G. DraftEnvironmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 11 -2 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0— References CHAPTER 12.0 REFERENCES The following documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. 1. Newport Beach General Plan, including all elements; City of Newport Beach (Adopted July 25, 2006). 2. Local Coastal Program — Coastal Land Use Plan; City of Newport Beach (Adopted December 13, 2005). 3. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan; City of Newport Beach. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The following documents have been prepared to evaluate the proposed project and are the basis of the analysis presented in specific sections of the Draft EIR. 1. AEI Consultants; Pre - Demolition Asbestos /Lead -Based Paint Survey, 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue; December 13, 2007. 2. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; Aerie Corona del Mar Condominium Project Traffic Assessment; March 4, 2009. 3. Coastal Resource Management, Inc.; Eelgrass (Zosfera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove; May 12, 2008 (Revised March 4, 2009). 4. GeoSoils, Inc; Coastal Hazard Study; October 5, 2006. 5. GeoSoils, Inc.; Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar; June 11, 2007. 6. GMU Geotechnical, Inc.; Summary Letter of Third Party Geotechnical Review, Proposed Condominium Project; October 29, 2008. 7. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882; February 2, 2009. 8. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc; Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan; December 30, 2007, Revised January 28, 2009. 9. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; March 17, 2007; (Revised January 20, 2009). 10. Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc.; Elevation Certification; April 12, 2007. 11. ICF /Jones & Stokes; Biological Impact Report for Aerie Residential Project; December 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 12 -1 Aerie PA2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 12.0 — References 12. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Preliminary Construction Management Plan; October 30, 2008 (Revised December 23, 2008). 13. Brion Jeannette Architecture; Aerie Project Overview; May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007). 14. Leighton & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis for the Proposed Aerie Dock Replacement; August 25, 2008 (Revised September 19, 2008). 15. LSA Associates, Inc.; Results of Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches for the Carnation Villas Project; July 12, 2005. 16. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Revised Plan Review and Response to Comments Aerie — 8 Unit Condominium Project; December 19, 2008. 17. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Condominium Project, TTM 16882; September 30, 2008. 18. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report; August 5, 2005. 19. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Preliminary Geologic / Geotechnical Investigation Report — Condominium Project 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue; March 28, 2003. 20. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; 2007 CBC Seismic Design parameters (Update Letter Report); May 12, 2008. 21. Neblett & Associates, Inc.; Review of Architectural Plan; November 27 and December 17, 2007. 22. Noble Consultants; Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project (Letter Report); May 9, 2008. 23. P &D Consultants; Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; May 26, 2006. 24. P &D Consultants; Biological Constraints Analysis for Aerie Residential Project; June 10, 2005. 25. The Planning Center; Construction Noise and Vibration Study for: Aerie Residential Development; March 2009 26. Robert Mitchell & Associates; Existing Vegetation Map (Sheets L -1 and L -2); April 25, 2008. 27. Synectecology; Aerie Residential Development Air Quality Focused Analysis; December 22, 2008. 28. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach; March 12, 2009. 29. Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; Evaluation of Subsurface Profile for AcousticNibration Study, Proposed Dock Replacement at Carnation Cove; May 6, 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 12 -2 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms CHAPTER 13.0 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard /Standards ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BACT Best Available Control Technology BMP Best Management Practices CAA Federal Clean Air Act CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2E Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CWA Federal Clean Water Act DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan dB Decibel dBA A- weighted decibel EA Environmental Assessment EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency F Fahrenheit ft Feet FTA Federal Transit Administration HCM Highway Capacity Manual ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent noise level Lmax Maximum noise level Lmin Minimum noise level LOS Level of service MCLs Maximum content levels MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPAH Master Plan of Arterial Highways MSL Mean Sea Level Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196— Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 13 -1 Aerie PA 2005 -196 Draft Environmental Impact Report Chapter 13.0— Glossary of Acronyms NAVD88 North American Vertical Datum 1988 NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES Nation Pollution Discharge and Elimination System 03 Ozone PA Planning Application PRC Public Resources Code PM2.5 Particulates 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM10 Particulates ten microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million PPV Peak Particle Velocity RAP Remedial Action Plan ROC Reactive Organic Compounds ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District sf Square feet S02 Sulfur Dioxide SWPPP Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program Sox Sulfur oxides TDM Transportation Demand Management TDS Total Dissolved Solids TPD Trips per Day USGS United State Geological Survey V/C Volume /Capacity VdB Velocity decibels VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VPD Vehicles per Day WQMP Water Quality Management Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Aerie PA 2005 -196 — Newport Beach, CA March 2009 Page 13 -2 Appendix A Notice of Preparation/ NOP Comments Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal For Hand Delivery /Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 958 t4 Project Title: Aerie (PA2005 -196) 445 -0613 SCH # 2006051082 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach ❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD Contact Person: James Campbell, Senior Planner Mailing Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: (949) 644 -3210 ❑ Mining: Mineral City: Newport Beach Zip: 926585 County: Orange ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ❑ Recreational — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Location: County: Orange — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — City/Nearest Community: Newport Beach — — — — — — — — — Cross Streets: Ocean BoulevardlCamation Avenue Zip Code: 92658 Lat./Lung.: 33037'00"N/ 117053'51"W Total Acres: 1.4 Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp.: Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: SR -1 Waterways: Pacific Ocean Airports: Railways: Schools: — — — — — — — — — — — — — Document Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CEQA: ® NOP ❑ Draft EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document ❑ Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) 2006051082 ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Mit Neg Dec Other ❑ FONSI — — — — — — — — — — — — — Local Action Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation ® General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ® Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ® Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) ® Other Mod. Permit Development Type ® Residential: Units 8 Acres 1.4 _ ❑ Water Facilities: Type MOD ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial: Sq.ft Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power. Type MW ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type ® C ter: Dock replacement/reconfiguralion — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Issues Discussed in Document: ® Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ® Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Flood Plain /Flooding ❑ Schools /Universities ® Water Quality ® Air Quality ❑ Forest Land /Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply /Groundwater ❑ Archeological/Historical ® Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ® Biological Resources ❑ Minerals to Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ® Wildlife ® Coastal Zone ® Noise ❑ Solid Waste ® Growth Inducing ® Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population /Housing Balance ® Toxic /Hazardous ® Land Use ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facitities ® Traffic/Circulation ® Cumulative Effects ❑ Other — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Present Land UselZoning /General Plan Designation: Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units): Existing Zoning: 'R -2' (Two Family Residential) and'MFR (2178)' (Multiple family Residential, 2,178 sq. ft. land/unit): General Plan: 'RT (Two-Unit Residential)' and RM (Multiple Unit Residential — 20 du /ac)' Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8-unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8) replacement slips and a guest side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006), Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change (CA2005-009), Tract Map (NT2005-004/TT16882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -M7), and Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). Note: The state Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a January 2008 protect (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please till in. Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X ". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S ". _ Air Resources Board _ Boating & Waterways, Department of California Highway Patrol CalFire S Caltrans District # 12 _ Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Caltrans Planning (Headquarters) Central Valley Flood Protection Board _ Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy S Coastal Commission _ Colorado River Board Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of _ Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission S Fish & Game Region # Food & Agriculture, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board S Native American Heritage Commission Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Office of Emergency Services S Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction Parks & Recreation Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission S Regional WQCB # Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers and Mms Conservancy _ San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy State Lands Commission _ SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency S Toxic Substances Control, Department of Water Resources, Department of Other Other Starting Date September 10, 2008 Ending Date October 9, 2008 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Keeton Kreiher Consulting Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Address: 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Address: 23792 Rockfield Boulevard, Suite 100 City/State /Zip: Tustin, CA 92780 City/State /Zip: Lake Forest, CA N2 30 Contact: Keeton K. Kre tzar. Principal Phone: (949) 5955900 Phone: (714) 6655509 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .r Signature of Lead Agency Representative:. Date: September 8. 2008 i Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resour Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 -= � ;:Z: Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 '1F11N��` NOTICE OF PREPARATION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project Location: 201 - 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) 8 101 Bayside Place Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Pursuant to Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach (City) will be the lead agency and will prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project described below. The City needs to know your agency's views as to the scope and content of the environmental information related to your agency's statutory authority with respect to the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering any applicable permits for the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project will require the preparation of an EIR and, as authorized by Section 15060(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an initial study has not been prepared. Potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR include: Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Noise Transportation/Traffic Unless specific comments are received during the NOP public comment period that indicate a potential for the project to result in significant impacts, the following issues will not be addressed in the EIR: Agricultural Resources Mineral Resources Recreation Public Services and Facilities Utilities Population and Housing Pursuant to Section 15103 of the CEQA Guidelines, your response must be sent at the earliest date but received by our agency no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. Should you have any questions regarding the project or this NOP, please call Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner, at (949) 644 -3210. Please mail your written response including any comments you may have on this project to: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Applicant: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Description: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is the applicant for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) (Project). The Project consists of (a) the demolition of the existing residential structures on the 1.4 -acre site (the Site); (b) the development of eight (8) residential condominium units; and (c) the replacement, reconfiguration, and expansion of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities on the Site. Existing Conditions The Site is currently occupied by a 14 -unit apartment building, one single - family residence, as well as a deteriorating gangway platform, pier walkway, and dock facilities. In addition, an on -grade staircase (built prior to 1961) presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building atop the bluff with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad located at the base of the bluff. The existing apartment structure has a total of three levels, including two split levels that are visible above the existing grade from the street. All three levels of the existing building are visible from Newport Bay. Parking for the existing apartments consists of open carports at grade along Carnation Avenue. The single - family home on the Site and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. The Site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west- facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The following aerial photograph shows the Site's setting. Aerial Photograph The westerly portion of the Site is partly submerged and rocky, and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The westerly extent of the existing foundation of the existing apartment building is located on the face of the coastal bluff. An on -grade staircase built prior to 1961 presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, inegulady shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Vegetation and exposed rock formations comprise the bluff face below the existing buildings. West of the Site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the Site are single family and multi - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff which is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the Site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands. South and east of the Site are a mix of single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. Proposed Residential Structures The Project will consist of a total of six levels, including: (a) four above grade floors consisting primarily of living space, but with some parking areas on the first and second floors; and (b) two subterranean common recreation areas, storage and parking levels (the "basement" and, at the lowest level, the "sub- basement'). Three residential levels will be visible from Carnation Avenue above the existing street grade. Four residential levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. In total, the Project will encompass 61,709 square feet and includes living areas, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas as reflected in Table 1. Table 1 Development Area Breakdown Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Use Area (Square Feet Living 29,426 Storage Areas 5,943 Parking 13,234 Common Area, Circulation and Mechanical 13,106 Total 61,709 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture The City Council has established a predominant line of existing bluff face development for the Site ( PLOED) at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. New development on the bluff face is proposed to be more than two feet higher than the PLOED at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88, except for an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 that will be screened from public view. The basement and sub - basement levels are subterranean and will not be visible from either the street or the bay. Outdoor patios, decks, spas, and firepits are proposed at each above grade level. The Project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the Site. The eight condominium units are further described in Table 2. Table 2 Unit Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area (S q. Ft. Garage (S q. Ft. Storage (S q. Ft. Total (S q. Ft. 1 1 3,716 416 471 4,603 2 1 3,204 410 705 4,319 3 1 2,662 397 648 3,707 4 1 2,916 418 709 4,043 5 2 4,990 483 1,143 6616 6 2 4,130 436 889 5,455 7 1 3,745 399 674 4,818 8 1 4 063 552 704 5,319 Totals 29 426 3,511 5,943 38.880 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture Conceptual Site Plan , / CARNATION AVE. Idl da AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1 r /r EXISTING CONCRETE PAD L � DECK BAYSIDE PL � STEPS ON GRADE TO REMAI N � PATIO r � PROPOSED DOCK DESIGN - - EMERGENCY EXIT/ DOCK ACCESS -- I UNDER DECK AT ELEV. 40.5' r DECK r � POW. :I J / CARNATION AVE. Idl da AERIE - SITE PLkR --- / ° 1 Cross Section B SECTION B NOT TO SCALE -' As indicated in Table 2, each condominium unit will have a private storage room located in the subterranean levels. Common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. At least two parking spaces are provided and designated for each unit, with an additional eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces spread throughout the sub - basement, the basement, and the First and Second Floors. The Second Floor is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Camation Avenue and will house residential units, one (1) two-car garage, and five (5) guest parking spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. Below street grade parking is hidden from public view and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the on -grade stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing on -grade stairs (built prior to 1961), which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by an on -grade stair at the Basement Level. The Docks The structural elements of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway, and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the applicant to remove or rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks can accommodate four (4) small boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips and one (1) guest side -tie dock are proposed. The new dock layout will accommodate boats in the 40 to 60- foot class and the proposed layout is depicted on the Dock Replacement Plan, below. The new docks will consist of timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to an existing rock outcropping as possible. The six (6) steel dock guidepiles that support the existing docks will be removed and replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter). All guidepiles will be pre- stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled, augered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot long gangway. As illustrated in the Dock Replacement Plan below, the pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing concrete pad, will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber- framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing concrete piles supporting the walkway will be repaired in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform replacement will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. The existing concrete pad, concrete steps, and railing will be repaired and patched as necessary. a) [40 T¢ X155 ll) (N) . UM Dock Replacement Plan J• J � \I t [nmiq�[�[ITNl� \ i Z�, .. AWN f1] I 1 City of Newport Beach Discretionary Approvals The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 004rrT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The following discretionary approvals are required by other agencies. Coastal Land Use Program Amendment — California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission Vicinity Map Crystal Cive J 1a3 eri � —i skm uorar! an m ioD Of h D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi ana n.nn�n,�. ame P.'- stminzter claw ryc,naa - », -r „s. oee raw u Jran9e Beach BeachD °xw -., i Tom Area ud x,4, 'w ., em: tam sj CHunflh toi\seaeh The oah4a 'a ,s �. Santa Ana Tusti Ind., / d, bona - CNleral OeIMM CM'. '- Dana Grant o F Can 01 Ennnu . s E- ouer•prt C ramnp _ W.,C m 6&mau— a,dans Sena Ana Dane ,n. Nrzo 0.V nc. bM1lmd MaRe.• Warne A' s... EPF nP \J er Ae w4Mnhurp � W \Arta, anew err - sarans:c Fountain Valley m_ 'TaMrt I,iI.Y - EIIn AV.., K ^�r1Rwv Jn D �� agsati.fl PVC O a� .. i ' 4alfielC PVe Qp a 11p14]f:.' Ia ado O. i.Vin U p e,v Eartlyin to Q ? costa Mesa _ Newport Beach E.. - _ i e1 ` lib Y} Project S aDel y O1 Ta ,. a. Crystal Cive J 1a3 eri � —i skm uorar! an m ioD Of h D MG6 YahpetlM. r DiIL ®AJ06 wr1e0 TeleMhi Location Map Project Site -' a L� EA', nVE E r .trlM«E c' �o „rpm A m otz A 0�8GAfl Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations 0 1-- ac 0 LU Z Proposed Zoning CITY OF ArEll"PORT PP"ACH APN 052-M3-21 PF 1'1-opo5('d Lot Litic, Area subject to land use designation changes MFR Existing R-2 Proposed do 0, Off, �- Legend MFR - Multi-Family Residential R•2 - Two-Family Residential oTA "Il np l'al.itl!NJiI— lil'vt�t`,S12 \Cyr ': \r1�7 =,y�y H(Il :�I \L.ttjt.'�.57_____....._. ,j lj_\ jl 't IR,tHZF f:.i_/fR f�_os.Yjxq DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BY District 12 N ANNING f1EPARTIVI-ENT 3337 Michelson Drive. Suite 390 Irvine. C'.4 92612 -8894 7 ^ Tel: 19.391735 -2,67 �E• Fax: (9491724-259" 1 ?rs sn�r pn..rr' He rnnyr a /frdrmi September 18, 2008 UY OF NEWPORT Bcpr�, Mr. James Cambell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Dear Mr. Cambell, File: IGR/CEQA SCHP: 2007021054 Log A: 1833F. PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Aerie (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact Report. The project applicant is proposing to develop the 1.4 acre site lvith an 8 -unit condominium complex. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes reconfiguration of pier and dock facilities. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The Cali fornia Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Deparnnent's' right -of -way, an encroachment pennit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sincerely,., 11- -rati Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Developmentflntergoverinnental Review C: Tern Roberts. Office of Planning and Research "C a trans fmprmros rnobilln cross C'nliJarnirr'• Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: .James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613. Sit errly, ✓ �I As S Nlnrgan Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse Auachments cc: Lead Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV STATE OF CALIFORNIA v p 'L GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH ' STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT rFOFCAL\ AANnt.n Bt^.i WAtI'I.FNRCCiaR CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DraxcmR Notice of Preparation RECEIVED By September 10, 2008 pIANNINC DEPARTMENT SEE• x., n To: Reviewing Agencies fp�y�y BEACH CRY OF NEWPORT Re: Aerie (PA2005 -196) SCII0 2007021054 Attached for your review and commnent is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Aeric (PA2005 -196) draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: .James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 wium a ropy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCII number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613. Sit errly, ✓ �I As S Nlnrgan Project Analyst. State ('Iearinghouse Auachments cc: Lead Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 wvnv.opr.ca.goV Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2007021054 Project Title Aerie (PA2005 -196) Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,709 square feet and includes living area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas. In addition, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement and reconfiguration of the existing gangway platform, pier walkway and dock facilities on the site. Eight (8) replacement slips and a guest side -tie dock are proposed. Project implementation wil necessitate the approval of a General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006), Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002), Zone Change (CA2005 -009), Tract Map (NT2005- 004/7716882), Modification Permit (MD2005 -087), and Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002). Lead Agency Contact Name James Campbell Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949) 644 -3210 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue Lat /Long 33° 37' 00" N / 117° 53' 51" W Parcel No. Township Proximity to: Highways 1 Airports Railways Waterways Pacific Ocean Schools Range Section Base Land Use Existing Land Use: Residential (15 dwelling units) Existing Zoning: R -2 (Two - family Residential) and MFR (Multiple- family Residential, 2,178 sq ft land /unit) General Plan: RT (Two -unit Residential) and RM (Multiple Residential - 20 du /ac) Project issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Soil Erosion /CompactioniGrading; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wildlife: Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; California Highway Patrol; State Lands Commission; Caltrans, District 12; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 09/10/2008 Start of Review 09/10/2008 End of Review 1010912008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ulsSrioution LIST Resources Agent; Resources Agency y7� Nadell Gayou 1111 Dept. of Boating & Waterways David Johnson California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs ❑ Colorado River Board Gerald R. Zimmerman ❑ Dept. of Conservation Sharon Howell ❑ California Energy Commission Dale Edwards ❑ Cal Fire DAllen Robertson 'mil Office of Historic Preservation Wayne Donaldson Dept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ Central Valley Flood Protection Board Mark Herald ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam pU Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou J ___ Conservancy :ish and Game Depart. of Fish & Game Scott Flint Environmental Services Division Fish & Game Region 1 Donald Koch 7 Fish & Game Region 1E Laude Hamsberger ❑ Fish & Game Region 2 Jeff Drongesen ❑ Fish & Game Region 3 Robert Floorke ❑ Fish & Game Region 4 Juile Vance Fish & Game Region 5 Don Chadwick Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 6 Gabrina Galchel Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 61 /M Gabrina Getchel Inyo /Mono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept. of Fish & Game M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Steve Shaffer Dept, of Food and Agriculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept. of General Services Anna Garbeff Environmental Services Section ❑ Dept. of Public Health Veronica Malloy Dept. of Health/Drinking Water Independent Corn missions, Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Debby Eddy ❑ Office of Emergency Services Dennis Cashillo ❑ Governors Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway County: yY Lk 1 Caltrans, District 1 ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 0 Ken Lewis Dan Kopulsky ❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration ❑ Caltrans, District 9 Guangyu Wang Gayle Rosander ® State Lands Commission ❑ Caltrans, District 10 Marina Brand Tom Dumas ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning ❑ Caltrans, District 11 Agency (TRPA) Jacob Armstrong Cherry Jacques David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 12 R P Ct b I ' Business. Trans & Housin ❑ Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnanl ❑ Caltrans - Planning Terri Pencovic California Highway Patrol Shirley Kelly Office of Special Projects ❑ Housing & Community Development CEQA Coordinator Housing Policy Division Dept. of Transportation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District Marceline Gonzalez ❑ Caltrans, District 3 Bruce de Terra ❑ Caltrans, District Lisa Carboni ❑ Caltrans, District David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 6 Michael Navarro ❑ Caltrans, District Elmer Alvarez yen . ram e r a in Cal EPA Air Resources Board ❑ Airport Projects y7y Jim Lemer 16rJ Transportation Projects Ravi Ramalingarn ❑ Industrial Projects Mike Tollstrup SICH# 20070210,54 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ❑ California Integrated Waste Management Board Sue O'Leary ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student Intent, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality ❑ Stale Water Resouces Control Board Steven Herrera Division of Water Rights ❑ Dept. of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation CEQA Coordinator ❑ RWQCB 1 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) ❑ RWQCB 2 Environmental Document Coordinator Son Francisco Bey Region (2) ❑ RWQCB 3 Central Coast Region (3) ❑ RWQCB 4 Teresa Rodgers Los Angeles Region (4) ❑ RWQCB SS Central Valley Region (5) ❑ RWQCB 5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 5R Central Valley Region (5) Redding Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 6 Lahontan Region (6) ❑ RWQCB 6V Lahontan Region (6) Viclorville Branch Office ❑ RWQCB7 Colorado River Basin Region (7) RWQCB S Santa Ana Region (8) ❑ RWQCB9 San Diego Region (9) ❑ Other Last Updated an 0811312008 SANDRA GENIS, PLANNING RESOURCES 1586 MYRTLEWOOD COSTA MESA, CA. 92626 PHONE /FAX (714) 754 -0814 October 10, 2008 James Campbell Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92685 -8915 Subject: NOP, Aerie Residential Project (PA 2005 -196) Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -196) located at 201 -207 Carnation Avenue in Newport Beach, Orange County, California. These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) and myself. The project will entail demolition of an existing residential uses to construct an 8 -unit condominium building with subterranean parking. The project also includes the demolition, reconstruction and expansion of dock structures on the site. The NOP No Initial Study (IS) accompanies the NOP. Inclusion of an Initial study with a NOP is optional. However, in accordance with Section 15082 (a) of the Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), at a minimum, a notice of preparation shall include: (A) Description of the project, (B) Location of the project, and (C) Probable environmental effects of the project. An IS is often utilized to fulfill the function of (C) above. While the NOP includes a lengthy project description and location map, any discussion of probable environmental effects of the project is lacking. The NOP merely indicates that the following broad subject areas are proposed to be examined in the EIR: • Aesthetics • Air quality • Biological resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and soils Page I of 5 • Hazards/hazardous materials • Hydrology /water quality • Land uselplanning • Noise • Transportation/traffic and that the following areas are not: • Agricultural resources • Mineral resources • Population and Housing • Public Services and facilities • Utilities • Recreation The description of the existing conditions in the NOP focuses on man -made development on the site, failing to mention either land or marine resources such as eelgrass habitat or sand dollar beds. Thus, agencies receiving the NOP would have no knowledge of the potential for impacts to such resources. Because project tracking and degree of scrutiny by the agencies may be established at the NOP stage, this omission is significant. The NOP must be revised to include a description of probable environmental effects of the proposed project consistent with Guidelines Section 15082(a) and re- circulated. Proiect Alternatives The applicant's representative has asserted that staff will be making a particular recommendation for approval for the proposed project. The City is reminded that the EIR is to be an integral part of the decision making process, not an after - the -fact bureaucratic exercise. It is the purpose of CEQA "not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind ". (Bozung v. LAFCO (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263). The EIR must include a meaningful, good -faith analysis of alternatives. Alternatives to be examined include: 1. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, commensurate with a land area excluding areas submerged at high tide. This must be based on real, physical conditions for the site as it currently exists. 2. An entitlement, in terms of both dwelling unit count and floor area ratio, based only on buildable acreage, excluding steep slopes in excess of 2:1 slope and excluding areas submerged at high tide. This must be based on real, physical conditions for the site as it currently exists. 3. The elimination of all penetrations below the PLOED including but not limited to any exit tunnel cut through the bluff face. 4. Provision of an adequate and reasonable setback from the PLOED. 5. Project LEED certified at the Platinum level. 6. No project. Page 2 of 5 7. Open space. Potential Impacts Concerns regarding specific impacts which must be examined in the EIR include the following: Aesthetics 1. Aesthetic analyses must include impacts from public waterways as well as from land based viewing areas. 2. The analysis must address impacts to the visual quality of the shoreline as well as the bluff. 3. Potential for light and glare must be addressed, with special attention given to the large expanses of glass proposed for the portion of the project facing the water. Air Quality 1. The analysis must address localized emissions, particularly during construction. This includes fugitive dust and diesel emissions from on -site construction equipment as well as any hot spots along haul routes or those created due to construction congestion or detours. 2. Greenhouse gases must be addressed. 3. Emissions from boats, including generators, must be addressed. To the extent feasible, vessel equipment should be powered by connection to the electric utility system when vessels are docked. 4. The analysis must address venting of below grade parking, particularly any areas where concentrations of garage exhaust may vent toward neighbors. Biological Resources 1. Impacts on eelgrass beds must be addressed, including ongoing impacts from dock utilization. Avoidance is the preferred option. 2. Impacts on sand dollar beds must be addressed. Avoidance is the preferred option. 3. Adequate buffers must be identified and provided. 4. The EIR must address reduction of sunlight to the marine habitat resulting from the expanded docks and the larger vessels to be accommodated. 5. Land resources, including vegetation, must also be examined. 6. Impacts on avifauna due to reflective surfaces must be examined. 7. Impacts due to noise and night lighting must be examined. This includes impacts on marine life. 8. Biological impacts due to impacts on water quality must be addressed. Geology and soils 1. This section must address any instability in surrounding areas due to excavation on the subject property. This must include any impacts on public infrastructure or utilities. 2. The EIR must include grading plans and cross sections. Hazards/hazardous materials 1. The EIR must address materials which may be released into the air or water during Page 3 of 5 demolition, including asbestos and lead based paints. 2. The EIR must examine the effect of construction activities on evacuation routes and emergency response. Of greatest concern is continued access to all homes on Carnation Avenue. Hydrology/Water Quality 1. The analysis must address impacts during construction and demolition of on -site facilities on water quality, including disturbance of existing sediments. 2. The analysis must address any heavy metals, pesticides or other materials in on -site sediments which may be disturbed during dock construction/demolition. 3. Long term impacts on water quality associated with the docks must be addressed. 4. Impacts due to urban runoff must be addressed. 5. Any impacts on sand transport/shoreline processes must be addressed. This includes impacts on and off the project site. Land Use/Planning 1. It is not clear what portion of the site consists of tidelands and is thus subject to the tidelands trust doctrine. Appropriate use of tidelands must be addressed. Residential uses are not normally considered appropriate uses of tidelands and thus any tidelands areas must be excluded when calculating allowable density. 2. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15125(d) the EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and existing planning programs. 3. Public access to the shoreline, both from land and water, must be addressed. Noise I. SENELs as well as CNELs must be addressed. 2. Noise must be addressed in terms disturbance or discomfort to humans, not just conformance with ordinances that may exempt certain types of noise from regulation. 3. Potential for noise to carry across the water must be addressed. 4. Temporary relocation of sensitive receptors must be considered as mitigation. Transportation/Traffic 1. Impacts on haul routes must be addressed. 2. Impacts on emergency response and evacuation routes must be addressed. 3. Public rights of way must not be used as storage areas or staging areas. 4. Mitigation strategies must provide for at least one lane of traffic to be available for access to Carnation Avenue at all times. Population and Housing 1. The project must be evaluated in light of city policies regarding inclusionary housing. 2. The project must be evaluated in light of housing requirements in the coastal zone stipulated in Section 65590 of the California Government Code. Public Services and Utilities 1. Impacts on utilities and public services, including but not limited to police protection, fire Page 4 of 5 protection, and the Harbor Patrol, must be examined. 2. Potential disruption to navigation or Harbor Patrol services must be examined. 3. Any potential for disruption of public services and utilities during construction must be examined. Of particular concern are impacts due to excavation. 4. Examination of impacts associated with energy consumption must include unique project features which will consume energy, including automobile elevators and any need for mechanical ventilation of below ground parking. Recreation The EIR must examine how the greatly expanded dock area and larger vessels may block off the shoreline and discourage access to the existing, open cove. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR when it becomes available. Yours truly, Sandra L. Genis Page 5 of 5 James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Project: Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Dear Mr. Campbell, Having received a copy of your notice on September 12, 2008 stating that the City of Newport Beach has determined the proposed project will require the preparation of an EIR (sent to us by Keeton Kreitzer); this letter represents our response and comments within the thirty day time period. In reviewing the potentially significant environmental effects that will be evaluated in the EIR, we would like to bring to your attention several issues that were overlooked and must be included in the study. One issue in particular that will obviously create significant impacts by substantially increasing the mass of the project to its current proposed size of approximately 62,282 square feet is the unreasonable calculation used in determining the buildable area of the property. The site is 61,284 square feet (1.4 acres). What has never been addressed by the City in response to the public's outcry over the massive size of the proposed structure is that approximately 66% of the property is either submerged land (28,414 square feet or 46% of the site), or unbuildable slope greater than 50% (11,926 square feet or 20% of the site). The City uses two different calculations to determine "buildable area ", the Density Calculation and the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In the density calculation the submerged land and slope in excess of 50% "are removed" from the land area before calculating density, but in the FAR calculation the submerged lands and slope "are not" removed before calculating build -able area. While the inclusion of the slope in excess of 50% in the buildable area is arguable, the inclusion of the submerged land in the buildable area is ridiculous. If the maximum square footage calculation removed the land area within the front and side yard setbacks and the submerged land area (and it should because the submerged land area is NOT buildable) and allowed the slope in excess of 50% to be included, the buildable area would be approximately 29,300 square feet. Multiplying this buildable area by the FAR factor of 1.5, which is the norm for the area, would result in a maximum square footage of approximately 44,000 square feet, a whopping 30% smaller building than currently proposed. Further, this reasonable calculation would result in a project that provides a per unit square footage of approximately 5,500 square feet, a per unit size that still exceeds the size and scale of residential structures in the area, whether single family or multi family. Conversely, the city is recommending approval of a project that provides 8 units in 62,000 square feet or 7,750 square feet per unit. (It is important to note that the existing structures total approximately 16,498 square feet in 13 units or roughly 1,270 square feet per unit.) The fact that there are no other condominiums or single family homes in the neighborhood that even come close to 7,750 square feet has been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission multiple times, as has the massive size of the project. The inclusion of the submerged land in the buildable area calculations results in a humongous mass of a structure that is completely out of scale and character with the existing neighborhood and surrounding area to the point of dwarfing other structures and therefore in violation of the General Plan and LCP bluff protection policies. This is NOT the norm for other properties in the City or for other properties located on sensitive coastal bluffs in Corona del Mar. The McIntosh home adjacent to the subject property did not include submerged lands in their buildable area. The question remains, why has this not been addressed before, and how can it be acceptable to allow land that is unusable and unlivable to ever be considered as buildable area in the proposal of such an unreasonable building mass? 2. Another important issue per your notice that was NOT going to be addressed in the EIR is "Recreation ". This study must be included since the proposed addition of eight boat docks plus a guest dock in this new configuration will project much further into the harbor than the existing dock, and will significantly limit the recreational use of Carnation Cove and this part of the harbor by restricting access. This area is frequently used for recreation by kayakers, paddlers and small boats. Relevant to the EIR, it is important to note that at a preliminary Harbor Commission meeting on the proposed dock system the majority of Commissioners expressed concern that the docks and large vessels would project so far into the harbor that it would interfere with the flow of boat traffic and the public right -of -way. According to the most recent plans submitted to the Harbor Commission the docks would project approximately 61' beyond the bulkhead line with two 60' boats in their slips. This is much further out than the existing dock, and the docks on either side of the subject property, the McIntosh dock to the East and the Sprague dock to the west. In addition to the proposed dock system a 155' wave attenuator wall is proposed which would further limit public access to the cove and could cause "major shoaling problems ", as could the construction of such a large marina, which was also of concern to the Harbor Commission. Furthermore, any environmental evaluation should study the possibility that the wave attenuator may redirect a swell to impact other areas of the harbor, such as across the bay on the Peninsula, since for years the existing cove has acted as a natural buffer. 3. Attention must be given in the EIR to the importance of Carnation Cove and its existence as "an important marine relic habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay" as stated in the most recent MND, which was the first MND to include any mention of the dock expansion plan. The scenic rock formations would be obscured from public view by the boats in the proposed marina, and possibly damaged during construction. The MND also states that "in addition to eelgrass, the study determined that Carnation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its locality near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of the harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del mar ". It was laughable that in a discussion on mitigating impacts to the sand dollar population in the cove at the City Council meeting on July 22, 2008 it was suggested that construction workers be told to "avoid them by going around the areas where there are sand dollars ". The importance of Carnation Cove should be noted, and that it is the last existing natural cove in Newport Harbor other than Pirate's Cove. 4. The proposed excavation will reshape the bluff edge, remove substantial mass from the natural landform, and create a hazardous condition that will either result in an increased vulnerability to bluff erosion, or to rockfall and block failure of the portion of the bluff that is below the established Predominant Line of Existing Development ( PLOED). This raises public safety concerns that will require railings and/or other protection devices since the massive excavation will result in a sheer drop -off as it cuts 40 -50 feet straight down from the curb. As this is a designated Public View Corridor, the City should be aware of the potential for injury that could occur, and also that the necessary protection devices are prohibited by the CLUP. These protection devices will also have negative aesthetic impacts on the view from this area. As stated in the Staff Report of June 19, 2008, "Guardrails are necessary to protect pedestrians from falling from the public sidewalk along Carnation Avenue over the proposed retaining wall located at the back of the sidewalk ". 5. Another important issue that must be evaluated is the excavation required for the emergency exit "tunnel" cut through the bluff face at 40.5 feet, which is well below the PLOED of 50.7 feet given to the applicant by the City Council, and in clear violation of CLUP and LCP policies. The excavation for this "cut- through" or "tunnel" will have a tremendous impact on the bluff face, most likely causing failure of the thin portion of bluff that would remain as a fagade (see expert testimony and public record correspondence from Moote Group, John Martin and Associates, David H. Lee and Associates, respected architects and other well - known builders and developers, and from the environmental group SPON). That this is likely has been publicly acknowledged by Brion Jeanette, the project's architect, both in his plans and presentation, that "fake rock" will be needed to replace a part or possibly all of the bluff face damaged by this excavation. This is in violation of the City's own codes and GP, to damage or destroy the coastal bluff by attempting to go below the 50.7 foot PLOED. The PLOED average for Carnation Avenue properties is 53.7 feet. 6. Also, as stated in the Notice of Preparation of EM we can only question "a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area ". It is unclear how a pool will be excavated at the subterranean level, again, well below the PLOED of 50.7 feet, without damage to the bluff face. Or perhaps it is also an access tunnel/doorway to the pool or beach? Although labeled an "emergency exit" on the plans it appears it is clearly intended to be used on a regular basis by the occupants of the building and others, and has been offered as such to the Harbor Resources Department for the use of their employees whenever they are in the area, despite having their own facilities just a few blocks from the proposed site. But regardless of how it is presented, it is obvious that the use of hoe rams and other heavy excavation equipment necessary for the proposed "tunnel" and "pool ", as well as the subterranean portion of the project will severely impact the bluff and bluff face, potentially causing bluff failure, as well as damage to surrounding properties and streets. (See above referenced expert testimony from paragraph 5). Other issues that must be included when evaluating "Aesthetics" are the proposed multiple cantilevered decks and overhangs which would project out 10 -15 feet and violate several CLUP and General Plan policies that are supposed to protect scenic and visual resources such as coastal views and scenic vistas. These include CLUP Policies 4.4 and 4.4.1 -1, among others, Policy NR 23. 1, as well as Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. There are also other bluff protection policies and bluff set -back policies that must be considered. "Outdoor patios, decks, spas and firenits are proposed at each above grade level ", with the firepits being a new addition that could affect air quality in the neighborhood, harbor and surrounding area. The visual impact of this hotel -like structure, including decks with umbrellas and awnings, must be considered as it will impact public views from the Ocean Boulevard view corridor and Begonia Park, and be visible from Balboa Island, the Balboa Peninsula and Newport Harbor. 8. In the study of "Noise ", it must be taken into account the noise impacts on the residents "across the bay ", on the Balboa Peninsula, as well as in the immediate neighborhood. In a previous correspondence to the City we cited an instance where the police were called with a noise complaint at the Vallejo home, but the noise was actually from a party at a home" across" the harbor. Due to the proposed massive excavation and the equipment involved in that excavation (hoe rams, pile drivers etc.), it should be noted that any construction work done across the bay on the Balboa Peninsula can be heard in this area of Corona del Mar, and that there has been nothing constructed across from here that is on a comparable scale to the proposed project, and with the potential for such extreme noise impact. Another example of how sound travels, and is magnified across the water, is that children can be heard playing on the public beach on the peninsula. 9. We expect that the impacts from the vibrations and the potential damage to surrounding properties and streets will be thoroughly studied for a proposed excavation of this size, and that the impacts from the use of hoe rams, pile drivers and other heavy equipment will be examined thoroughly. 10. Another issue that was not studied sufficiently but was mentioned in past staff reports due to possible code violations is the impact to the neighborhood of the highly inconvenient parking configuration. It appears there will be approximately 30 subterranean parking spaces accessed by two car elevators, with one elevator that must remain at the subterranean level at all times for emergencies. This parking configuration is a direct result of trying to put such a large building mass on such a constrained property and creates many potential problems including blocking of the public right -of -way if the elevators are in use and there is queuing into the street. This could result in a potentially hazardous situation on what is already a blind corner, as cars in the public right -of -way may attempt to go around those queuing in the street. This is especially true on weekends and during the summer, when the streets are congested with beachgoers looking for on- street parking. This is addressed in Policy 2.9.3 -1 of the CLUP, as well as two Circulation Element Policies including policy CE 71.1, which are in place to protect our neighborhoods from this kind of negative impact. It should be noted that the use of a subterranean parking garage for a multi - family residential complex is unprecedented in the City of Newport Beach, and will add a significant number of cars to the neighborhood. There is also the additional explosion risk in an enclosed parking structure of this type. 11. In the category of `Biological Resources" it should be noted that the applicant had native plant species stripped from the bluff in approximately December of 2007. Photos of the native species that had previously existed include Lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Coast Sunflower (Encelia califomica) and California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Apparently the California Coastal Commission issued a violation regarding this, along with direction to replant the native vegetation, which, it appears, has not been attempted. 12. In reference to the oversized and overbuilt nature of the proposed project, Land Use Policy 3.2 states: "Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale and character ". 13. Land Use Policy 5.1.1 states: "Establish property development regulations for residential projects to create compatible and high quality development that contribute to neighborhood character ". It must be pointed out that in the Notice of Preparation of EIR it states that "south and east of the Site are a mix of family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Harbor ". It should also have been stated that Ocean Boulevard allows development on the bluff face since there is a height limit of no more than 3 feet above curb height. The subject property is on Carnation, where properties are located "on top" of the bluff and do not have this height restriction. Since this point was obviously ignored after having been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission in May of 2007 shouldn't it have been clarified in this notice? The project's architect, who also does advisory work for the City, continues to use examples of other bluff developments he has done that are not relevant to this project due to the difference in location and codes. Clearly this project has been flawed from the beginning in its attempt to make the proposed structure "as large as possible" by using their own rules, and has been allowed to progress by attempting to manipulate a City's legal process, its Planning Commission, staff, the language of the CLUP and the PLOED, (which they decided on themselves), as well as an entire neighborhood. Until recently this plan had succeeded, and all in an attempt to overbuild for profit at the expense of the existing neighborhood, public coastal views, and a protected coastal bluff. Had a group of concerned citizens not taken notice, studied the policies and codes, had meetings, hired attorneys and independent experts to testify against the untruths and misinformation that have been perpetuated throughout this process, this project would have passed at 73,000+ square feet, without the necessary due diligence, and the question "how could this happen in our City ?" would have been asked after the fact, and the City and its residents would forever live with a massive overbuilt structure that would set precedent for future condominium complexes in the City. Many citizens requested an EIR on this project for more than a year and had been repeatedly denied, when the project itself should have been denied. Why is it the job and financial responsibility of private citizens to monitor the Planning Commission and staff? No more inadequate MND's that were re- circulated multiple times. We expect a professional, unbiased and accurate EIR to finally be done on this project. Anything less would a travesty for us and other concerned citizens, as well as for the City of Newport Beach and its New General Plan. Sincerely, Joseph and Lisa Vallejo Kathleen and John McIntosh RECEIVED BY rAANNING DEPARTMENT South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -4178 fit' T Ch NEWPORT BEACH Cdp H " ( (909) 396 -2000 • www.agmd.gov September 16, 2008 Mr. James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department P_O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Dear Mr. Campbell: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Aerie (PA2005 -196) Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The SCAQMD's comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft environmental impact report (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment riles. Without all tiles and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of (lie air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Oualitv Analvsis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396 -3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.urbemis.com. The Lead Agency should identity any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction- related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to. emissions from the use of heavy -duty equipment from grading, earth- loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g.. construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation- related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and compare the results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internee address: ht�pt : / /w-%ti w.agmd. og v/cega/handbook[PM2 5 /PM2 5.html. Mr. James Campbell -2- September 16, 2008 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at hltp ;'www. agmd. gowcega /handbook/LST' /LST.html. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk Isom Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis ") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following intemet address: ht to:/hvww.agmd.gov /cega /hatdbook /mobile toxic /mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts. To assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, please refer to Chapter I 1 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following intemet address: www agmd f ov /eeoa /handbook /mitigation /MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction - related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following intemet address: http: / /wwnv.aclmd.ao`lprdas /aq t <lelauguide.html. In addition, guidance on sitting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following intemet address: hltp:// www.arb.ca.eov /ch /liandbogk.pdf. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396 -2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage littp: / /www.agrnd.gov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project - related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Daniel Garcia, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396- 3304 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith. Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:DG:AK ORC08091 1 -04AK Control Number