Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 7Exhibit 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed separately due to bulk) }f� I I F1 I I L I L1 11 I I I I I I Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the procedures of the City of Newport Beach for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has completed an Initial Study for the project described below. Project Information: Project: Seashore Village Residential Project Project Location: 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, Caldomia. Project Proponent(s): Seashore Village, LLC. Project Description: The project applicant, Seashore Village LLC, proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach. The proposed project would be completed in three phases with two building styles: Plantation and Craftsman. Single - family units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet and a floor area ratio of 0.78. The development proposes three plan types —Plan A during Phase 1, Plan B during Phase II, and Plan C during Phase 111 —and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. For Plan A, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and the maximum midpoint height would be 25 feet and 6 inches. For Plan B, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the midpoint height would be 26 feet and 8 inches. For Plan C, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the maximum midpoint height would be 29 feet and 6 Inches. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. The existing apartment complex would be demolished in preparation for development of the proposed project. The existing apartment complex has been surveyed for asbestos containing materials (AGMs) and all ACMs would be abated prior to demolition. The site would be balanced and no import or export of soils would be required. I Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one handicap space. 1 Existing Conditions: The approximately 1.49 -acre project site (APN No. 424 - 471 -03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L- shaped, three- story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Street and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. Summary of Impacts: Attached is the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The Initial Study reviews potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Please review the Initial Study for more information. Discretionary Approvals: Seashore Village LLC is seeking approvals for the implementation of the , proposed project. The intent of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17194 (TTM 17194). Request to approve TTM 17194 for condominium purposes, creating 24 airspace condominium units. Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 3 -foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. Use Permit. Request to exceed the midpoint height requirement of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. ' Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP). Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. I I I All impacts with the exception of air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise were determined to be less than significant. The following impacts required implementation of mitigation measures to be reduced to a less than significant level. Availability of Documents: Complete copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are on file at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project- related environmental impacts to a less than significant level: Air Quality The construction contractor for the property owner /developer shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: • The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. • The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. • The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean -up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction fire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. • Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. Cultural Resources 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property ownerideveloper shall submit a letter to the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. if artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works /Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: • The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted Geology and Soils 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The measures shall include but are not limited to: • Tie all pad footings with grade beams. r • All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. • Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). • Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. • Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. I Ij I IHazards and Hazardous Materials S. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during any abatement activity. Noise 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. I 7 L' LJ r I I 1 Lead Agency Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. PI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Brandon Nichols Printed Name 2/14/08 Date Idle Associate Planner I I I W UL, STUDY FM SEASHORE VILLAGE ffl prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim Tel: 714.966.9220 *Fax., 714.966.9221 Associate Planner E -mail: costamesa @planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10 0E FEBRUARY2006 preparedfon' CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact: PO Box 1768 Brandon Nichols Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Associate Planner 949.644.3234 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim Tel: 714.966.9220 *Fax., 714.966.9221 Associate Planner E -mail: costamesa @planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10 0E FEBRUARY2006 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ............................... I 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................... ..............................1 B. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................ ..............................1 Geotechnical Investigation 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... ..............................2 E. 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN .......................................... .............................25 Noise Modeling Output 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ........................................................... .............................25 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...._ ......................................................... .............................27 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................... .............................27 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................. .............................29 2.3 DETERMINATION ITO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) .... .............................29 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................. .............................30 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........ ... » .................................................... .............................39 3.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................ .............................39 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................. .............................49 3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................ .............................50 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. .............................61 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... .............................62 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................ .............................65 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................... .............................67 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. .............................70 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................ .............................75 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... .............................76 3.11 NOISE ................................................................................................... .............................76 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................. .............................88 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................. .............................89 3.14 RECREATION ....................................................................................... .............................91 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC .............................................................. .............................91 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................... .............................93 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................... .............................97 4. REFERENCES ........................................ ... ............................... _.... .................................... 99 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES ...................................................................... .............................99 4.2 WEB SITES ........................................................................................... .............................99 6. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................... _ ................... _ ................ ......... .. ... .. . ........ ......... .......... 101 THE PLANNING CENTER ................................................. ............................... ............................101 APPENDICES A. Air Quality Modeling Output B. Archaeological Records Search C. Geotechnical Investigation D. Phase I Environmental Assessment E. Water Quality Management Plan F. Noise Modeling Output Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beaeb • Page i ffl Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page Figure1 Regional Location ................................................................................. ..............................3 Figure2 Local Vicinity ......................................................................................... ..............................5 Figure3 Aerial Photograph ................................................................................. ..............................7 Figure4 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................... ..............................9 Figure 5 Architectural Renderings ...................................................................... .............................11 Figure 6 Plan A Single - Family Building Elevations ............................................ .............................13 Figure 7 Plan B Single - Family Building Elevations ............................................ .............................15 Figure 8a Plan C Duplex Building Elevations ( Craftsman) ................................... .............................17 Figure 8b Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations (Craftsman) ........................... .............................19 Figure 9a Plan C Duplex Building Elevations (Plantation) ................................... .............................21 Figure 9b Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations ( Plantation) ............................ .............................23 Figure10 Coastal Views ....................................................................................... .............................41 Figure11a Site Photographs ................................................................................. .............................43 Figure11 b Site Photographs ................................................................................. .............................45 Figure 12 Plan C Duplex Conforming Structure ................................................... .............................47 List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants .......................... .............................52 Table 2 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ............................................ .............................54 Table 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ...................................................... .............................55 Table 4 Localized Significance Thresholds ...................................................... .............................56 Table 5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ............................................. .............................57 Table 6 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs .... .............................59 Table 7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs - With Mitigation.............................................................................................. .............................60 Table 8 Change in Sound Pressure Level ........................................................ .............................77 Table 9 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................... .............................78 Table 10 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility ................................... .............................79 Table 11 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise-Sensitive Uses..................................................................................................... .............................80 Table 12 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards ................................ .............................81 Table 13 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annoyance ........................82 Table 14 Groundbome Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Structural Damage ......................... 82 Table 15 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences .................85 Table 16 Average Construction Noise Levels ..................................................... .............................87 Table 17 Project - Generated Traffic ..................................................................... .............................92 Page ii a The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I I 1. Introduction Seashore Village LLC seeks City approval for a tentative tract map, modification permit, use permit, and Coastal Residential Development Permit to construct a 24 -unit residential community on approximately 1.49 acres in the City of Newport Beach. Development of the proposed project also requires the approval of a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission to construct in the Coastal Zone. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and associated uses. The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. This Initial Study will provide the City of Newport Beach with information to document potential impacts of the proposed project 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site in the regional and 93 local context of Orange County and Newport Beach, respectively. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.2.1 Existing Land Use The approximately 1.49 -acre project site (APN No. 424 - 471 -03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L- shaped, three -story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Street and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. See Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. 1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use The project site is surrounded by residential uses, such as vacation rental units to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court, and restroom facilities. The Pack Ocean is one block to the southwest, less than 200 feet from the project site, and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north, behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall block wall. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 1 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.3.1 Proposed Land Use The project applicant, Seashore Village LLC, proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach. See Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the proposed project would be completed in three phases with two building styles: Plantation and Craftsman. Single- family units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet and a floor area ratio of 0.78. The development proposes three plan types —Plan A during Phase I, Plan B during Phase II, and Plan C during Phase III —and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Figure 6 shows Plan A building elevations, Figure 7 shows Plan B elevations, and Figures 8a through 9b show Plan C building elevations. For Plan A, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and the maximum midpoint height would be 25 feet and 6 inches (see Figure 6). For Plan B, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the midpoint height would be 26 feet and 8 inches (see Figure 7). For Plan C, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the maximum midpoint height would be 29 feet and 6 inches. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. The existing apartment complex would be demolished in preparation for development of the proposed project The existing apartment complex has been surveyed for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and all ACMs would be abated prior to demolition. The site would be balanced and no import or export of soils would be required. Access and Parking Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one handicap space. 1.3.2 PrWect Phasing Development of the Seashore Village project would be completed in approximately 18 months, as listed below. • asbestos abatement (2 weeks to 1 month) • building demolition (approximately 30 days). • site grading (approximately 30 days). • building construction in three subphases, as shown in Figure 4. (approximately 16 months) I I Page 2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction Regional Location ' Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure I COD 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. I I r 11 I I I I I I I I I r Page 4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 e �r h — — Site Boundary mewpori ♦ �+e Beach SITE 5` ,fir ♦ y6` e 1. Introduction Local Vicinity !1* h^ C ee Scale (Feet) Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center Figure 2 lu 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. C f t I 11 II I it II Page 6 • The Planning Center February 2008 11 1. Introduction Aerial Photograph Site Boundary 0 100 Scale (feet) Source: GooQIe Earth Pro 2007 Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 3 �� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I i Page 8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 10 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 AW) I\ y 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1. Introduction Plan A Single - Family Building Elevations Craftsman (Left Side Elevation) Plantation (Left Side Elevation) Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc., 2007 Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 6 r1w "4h 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I Page 14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction Plan B Single - Family Building Elevations (Right Side Elevation) (Right Side Elevation) Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, lnc., 2007 Seashore village Initial Study The Planning Center - Figure 7 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. J Ll E1 i I F III I I E 1 1 1 1 1 11 Page 16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction Plan C Duplex Building Elevations (Craftsman) Right Side Elevation Left Side Elevation .fig Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc., 2007 Searbore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 80 1. Introduction Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations (Craftsman) Rear Elevation - Driveway View Front Elevation - Street View Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc., 2007 1 Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 8b 9i ���111l11 �j����m i� �- -� ..- - -- �,� � - - r -, �I ' � I��f�!I�� .loll - - - __ ,� ......: e..........: liiiiieil il�Ili_Ill lllil 11'IIIIII) (IIIIIIII11111I 11IIIIIIII IIIIIII�111111 aniu�o�J unniPOOn ��:.,...i! ,�..A...,......�_ __. __. _._ __ ___ _:. -: -__: _ .. _ - --. -J /i i. 1. Introduction This page intentionaW left blank. I-1 1 1 1 I I I D I I i I I Page 24 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 II �11.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN i �I 1. Introduction The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential) and the project site is zoned Multiple - Family Residential (MFR). The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is designated as High Density Residential (RH -A) in the Coastal Land Use Plan. 1.5 DISCRETIONARYAPPROVALS Seashore Village LLC is seeking approvals for the implementation of the proposed project. The intent of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: • Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17194 (TTM 17194). Request to approve TTM 17194 for condominium purposes, creating 24 airspace condominium units. • Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 3 -foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. • Use Permit. Request to exceed the midpoint height requirement of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. • Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP). Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located within the Coastal Zone. • Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 25 88 2. Environmental Cbecklist 2.f BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Seashore Village 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner 949.644.3234 4. Project Location: The project site is at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south, existing residential units to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. S. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Seashore Village, LLC c/o Grant Lane 1550 North 40ei Street, #10 Mesa, AZ 85205 6. General Plan Designation: RM (Multiple Unit Residential) 7. Zoning: Multiple- Family Residential (MFR) 8. Description of. Project: The applicant proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units for a total of 24 units on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. This existing use would be demolished and removed in preparation for development of the proposed project. The proposed project would yield 16 units per acre, within the permitted density of 51 units per acre. The applicant proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet. The applicant proposes three plan types and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one disabled space. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 27 ffl 2. Environmental Checklist 9. Surrounding land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential uses, such as vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. City -owned West Newport Park, with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court), and restroom facilities, is immediately west of the project site. The Pack Ocean is situated one block to the southwest of the project site and Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall sound wall. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: • Regional Water Quality Control Board - Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction activities. • South Coast Air Quality Management District - Permit to Construct • California Coastal Commission - Permit to construct within the Coastal Zone boundaries Page 28 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I! ' 2. Environmental Checklist 1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 88 nI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. nI find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ISeashore Village Initial Study City of Nw-port Beach • Page 29 2.1=4.61 Signature Date ISeashore Village Initial Study City of Nw-port Beach • Page 29 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 77 Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 11 Page 30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 2. Environmental Checklist 1 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS , 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - speck factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - speck screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, ' cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. ' 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is ' substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If then; are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the , incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 77 Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 11 Page 30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I� II 2. Environmental Checklist ' 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. ' 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, 9 any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. II II Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 31 J 2. Environmental Checklist a] Convert Prune Farmland, unique Farmland, or Farmland of Less Than Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown On the maps Significant prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and. Monitoring PotBn[iafty With Less Than Sigrtilicant mitigation significant Nil Issues impact Incorporated Impact impact 'F IMMURE! IC� whR �ttie� G-1 � NU a] Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? x b] Substanl!ally damage scenic resources, including, but not c] Involve other changes in the existing environment Which, limited to, trees, rack outcroppings, and historic buildings y A x Within a State scenic highway? . .. ll` LI i! s e e.. 1 can r _ sby a lice -[ I- :man .gB o all . c) Substantially degrade to emsbng visual character or quality ons:INuuld ;{h6: a a] Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable x of the site and its surroundings7 air quality plan? d) Crcate a new source of substantial light or glare which b] Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to. x would adverse affect day or nighttime views in the ar2a? an existing Or projected air quality violation? a] Convert Prune Farmland, unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown On the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and. Monitoring x Program of the Calkn&I Resources Agency, to non- e ncumiA use? b] Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or x Williamson Act contract? c] Involve other changes in the existing environment Which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of y A Farmland, to non - agricultural use? . .. ll` LI i! s e e.. 1 can r _ sby a lice -[ I- :man .gB o all . ;fph3oQpl dish Il �xeSte piliiirm dt7leY I ons:INuuld ;{h6: a a] Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable x air quality plan? b] Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to. $ an existing Or projected air quality violation? c] Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant far which the project region is non - atainnleilt under an applicable federal or stale amblent air x quality standard (including releasing ernissidns which Mg uantitative thresholds for omne precursors ? d) Egose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant x conceftations? e] Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number x of pea le? I BIkLI I$fL W .. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any spmes.ider$ified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or x regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California oepartrnent of Fish and Game or U-9- Fish and W Nc Service? P Page 32 a T fie Planning C'enler &briva 2008 1 2. Environmental Checklist Less Than the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning SlgmScaut Map, Issued by the State Geologist for the area or Potauffally With Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigmlcant No Issues Impact Inc orated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? other sensitive natural community identified in local or X iii Seismic- related ground failure, including I' uefaction? regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California iv Landslides? X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Service? X c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wellands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (icluding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, X etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation clan? a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in § 15004.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource ursuantto § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those inferred outside of formal cemeteries? X a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, Including the risk of loss, hn)ury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, Issued by the State Geologist for the area or X based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii Seismic- related ground failure, including I' uefaction? X iv Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X Searbore Village Initial S=4 City of NeaP6rt Beacb • Page 33 I 2. Environmental Checklist , through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous Less Than , npterials? Significant b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment Potentially With Less Than through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident Significant Mitigation Significant No ' conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into Issues Impact Inceipmated Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely would become unstable as a result of the project, and X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral X , quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be fixated on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a X to fife or props ' e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in , a) create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X npterials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the prAect area? Q for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fifes, including when: X wldlards are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Page 34 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 2. Environmental Checklist c) substantially after me existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as Significant rapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Rood Potentially With Less Than Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Significant Midgadon Significant No Issues Impact I orated IN act Ira d ttiolligrillimplr i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a requirements? X result of the failure of a levee or dam? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? substantially with groundwater recharge such that there X would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of X pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which c) substantially after me existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as rapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Rood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 35 2. Environmental Checklist Significant Potentially Wth Less Than Significant Mifigafion Significant No Issues Page 36 • The Planning Center Febraary 2008 For a project within the vicinity 1 ' �T 1 ' project expose people 1 • I 1 1 working I project --_- area to excessive noise levels9 X -, 1 ��I1 i fik} _ �tib 1 n .. ;x: #_..m�' ?i.?.k.�.. t < t._= sue... i ... ....s�`vzc ,...�... . _ Induce 1 I. population growth directly 1 1' by proposing new homes 1 ■.© businesses) or 1 irectly (for example, through 1 1.1 or other Infrastructure)? 1 Displace l numbers of existing housing, necessitating 1 1 1 11 of replacement housing Displace 1 Y. I. numbers 1 1'11' necessitating 1 construction of replacement ' f S AN $ A a) Fire protection? 1 Police protection? - -© Schools? - -© 1 . Other public I' Page 36 • The Planning Center Febraary 2008 2. Environmental Checklist Potenbalty Significant would me project Increase me use of existing nelghbodIDo( and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substardal physical deterioration of the facility would occur construction or expansion of recreational facilities which Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial In relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in Inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Nd X El F1 P X I 8B Q Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bi le racks ? a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatmentfacifities or expansion of existing facifities, X the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or X expainded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the jxojecfs projected demand Seashore village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 37 2. Environmental Checklist Signitcant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact locotporateC Impact Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local standes and X ennnlnfinnn .nMwd M —11A ...—n q the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Cal'domia history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X Page 38 • The Planning Center February 2008 J I �I L� 1 3. Environmental Analysis ' Section 2.3 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if ' applicable. 11 AESTHETICS ' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not part of a scenic vista. The project site is located in ' a coastal area. 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, harbor, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. As shown in Figure 10, Coastal Views, the project site is not located in the near vicinity of designated public view point or coastal view road. The nearest public viewpoint is located approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest and the proposed project would not directly obstruct its view of the ocean. ' While the proposed project would not substantially after the visual character of the project area from designated public view points, viewing perspectives from the neighboring residents would be changed. However, as shown in Figures 11a and 11 b, Site Photographs, the project site and its surrounding area ' are developed with residential units of similar height (three stories) and there is no direct full view of the ocean. Existing views of the ocean are already compromised by these residential units on Seashore Drive. ' A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive by 20 feet to 10 feet. The current building designs are similar in size, proportion, and ' separation to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. ' The project site is located within the shoreline height limitation zone, which limits residential development height to 28 feet. However, the ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limn by 5 feet, provided that the midpoints of the roof planes are at 28 feet. The new building heights ' would range from approximately 31 feet to 33 feet. While the 12 newly proposed single - family units along Seashore Drive would comply with the midpoint requirement of 28 feet, duplex units along River Avenue would exceed this requirement by approximately 1.5 feet. ' Under the MFR zone, a single multifamily structure of over 50 units for the project site is allowed. The existing apartment building is a single, 54 -unit structure, approximately 28 feet tall (three stories), with no breaks in building massing. The intent of the height limitation zone is to regulate the visual and physical ' mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As shown in Figure 11 b, typical buildings in the area are three -story, rectangular buildings, and they already obstruct views of the ocean. The proposed visual and physical massing of structures would be compatible with ' the character of the neighborhood. The proposed project would allow for more public visual open space, Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 39 W) 3. Environmental Analysis and 24 single- family and duplex units situated on individual pads would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the single apartment complex with multiple units under one roof. As stated, a minimal encroachment into the 28 -foot height limitation is requested only for the duplex units along River Avenue. The Craftsman and Plantation styles proposed for the project require low pitched -gable rooflines and conforming to the height limitation would result in a more massive structure than currently proposed. Figure 12 compares the conforming design to the current project. As shown, an alternative to exceeding the height limitation by 1.5 feet would be to construct taller structures with longer roof spans. The proposed project results in shorter overall structure design that provides more visual open space. Furthermore, as stated in Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan, the bulk and height limitation is 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" (emphasis added). The proposed project would not substantially obstruct or block the public view opportunities of the ocean. Although the height limitation would be exceeded, the new development would not conflict with the intent of the shoreline height limitation as the development would be compatible with the existing visual scale of the neighborhood. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is designated as Eligible to be a state scenic highway. The designated segment starts east of Newport Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. An approximately 1,000 -foot segment of Superior Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and Hospital Road is designated as a Coastal View Road by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. However, the project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and does not contain any visually unique resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project area is primarily residential except for the city park to the west. As shown in Figures 5 through 9b the proposed development would have two building styles: plantation style and craftsman style. Single - family units with plantation and craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with plantation and craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. As shown in Figures 11 a and 11 b, Site Photographs, the exiting neighborhood generally displays two- to three -story residential units, including vacation rental homes, with various architectural styles. There are no uniform building characteristics and construction of 24 units with a combination of two architectural styles would not have a substantial degrading impact to the area's aesthetic quality. Furthermore, the existing multifamily complex provides a minimal landscaping area of 9,393 square feet (14.4 per cent). The proposed project would more than double the on -site landscaping area to 20,987 square feet (32.2 per cent), especially along the two street frontages. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to complement rather than degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures are necessary. Page 40 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis Coastal Views Limitation Zone City Boundary County Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan Scale (Miles) Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 10 r- u 3. Environmental Analysis , This page intentionally left blank. ' I J 1 1 1 1 I I I Page 42 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis Site Photographs View of the site looking south toward the ocean. View of the site looking northeast. Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure f la rMIN 3. Environmental Analysis Site Photographs Seashore Drive looking west. Seashore Drive looking southeast. Sewhore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure Ilb OV IJ 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. ! 11 I 1 I I LJ I FvI EJ I I [I Ll Page 46 • The Planning Center February 2008 'N ti obi W M V �0 I � � 2 O CL 0 O a. VL ti Q' V a; E.. l a� > 0 C 0 W m m oC 0 Y > W VJ Y L Td c O t C w US L 2 a oli ,. J_ I 1 u 8B R m I� > ■d z Y I � U ID � O 0 O c0 m w 0 It C 0 4 w VJ J N w s Or Iw Ih Iti m 0 ^i 3. Environmental Analysis 3.3 MR QVALliY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. Air pollutants of concern include ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen. This section analyzes the type and quantity of emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. Climate /Meteorology Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by meteorological conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality. The City of Newport Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SoCAB incorporates approximately 6,645 square miles within four counties —San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange--including some portions of what was previously known as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In May 1996, the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin were changed by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) to include the Beaumont- Banning area. The distinctive climate of the SoCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SoCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region Iles in the semipermanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SoCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High - pressure systems, such as the semipermanent high - pressure zone in which the SoCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine - influenced air near the ground surface, resulting in the formation of high -level subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer, and together with strong sunlight, can produce worst -case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The atmospheric pollution potential of an area is largely dependent on winds, atmospheric stability, solar radiation, and terrain. The combination of low wind speeds and low -level inversions produces the greatest concentration of air pollutants. On days without inversions, or on days of winds averaging over 15 mph, smog potential is greatly reduced. Air Quality Regulations, Plans, and Policies The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1960s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The 1990 Page 50 • The Planning Center February 2008 I ! 3. Environmental Analysis Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. In 1988, the state legislature passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which established California's air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of progress for the first time. The CCAA provides the state with a comprehensive framework for air quality planning regulation. The CCAA requires attainment of state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. Attainment plans are required for air basins in violation of the state ozone (Oj, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOJ, nitrogen dioxide (NO2, and particulate matter (PM, and PM2.J standards. Preparation of and adherence to attainment plans are the responsibility of the local air pollution districts or air quality management districts. State and federal agencies have set ambient air quality standards for certain air pollutants. NAAQS have been established for the following criteria pollutants: CO, 09, SO2, NOz, lead (Pb), and respirable particulate matter (PM,, and PM2j. The state standards for these criteria pollutants are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. Table 1 summarizes the state and federal standards. Areas are classified under the FCAA as either attainment or nonattainment areas for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not The SoCAB is designated by both the state and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a nonattainment area for 03, PM,, and PMzs• I I I I I 1 I I ISearbore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 51 88 3. Environmental Analysis Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source: CARS, updated February 2007. The nitrogen dioxide AAOS was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 ppm. ppm: parts per million; Ng/ni': micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pdiutard/duration by this entity. I 1 I I I I I I I I I I E I I I Page 52 a The Planning Center February 2008 1 Federal Averaging California Primary Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources 1 hour 0.09 ppm NA High concentrations can directly affec Motor vehicles. Ozone (0a) lungs, causing irritation. Long -term 8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, Internal combustion engines, Monoxide CO interferes with the transfer of primarily gasoline - powered (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm fresh oxygen to the blood and motor vehicles. deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen Annual Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Motor vehicles, petroleum Dioxide Arithmetic 0.30 ppm 0.053 ppm Colors atmosphere reddish -brown. refining operations, industrial (NOS Mean sources, aircraft, ships, and 1 tour 0.18 ppm * railroads. Annual Imitates upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion, chemical Sulfur Arithmetic 0.03 ppm injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow thE plants, sulfur recovery plants, Dioxide Mean leaves of plants, destructive to marble and metal processing. (SO,) iron, and steel. Limits visibility and 1 tour 0.25 ppm * 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 pm reduces sunlight. Respirable Coarse Particulate Annual Arithmetic 20 Wrtf 50 µg/ma Dust and fume - producing Matter Mean May imtate eyes and respiratory tract, industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, (PM") 24 hours 50 gtma 150 m a decreases in lung capacity, cancer amosphedc photochemical Respirable Annual and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. reactions, and natural activities Fine Arithmetic 12 µg/ma 15 µg/ma (e.g. wind - raised dust and Particulate Mean ocean sprays). Matter 24 hours * 35 µg/ms Monthly 1.5 1 * Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and Present source: lead smelters, Lead (Pb) causes anemia, Iddney disease, and battery manufacturing & Quarterly * 1.5 µg/ms neuromuscular and neurologic recycling facilities. Past source: dysfunction nn severe cases). combustion of leaded asoline. Decrease in ventilatory functions; Industrial processes. aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/ma * aggravation of cardio-pulmonary {S0,) disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage. Source: CARS, updated February 2007. The nitrogen dioxide AAOS was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 ppm. ppm: parts per million; Ng/ni': micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pdiutard/duration by this entity. I 1 I I I I I I I I I I E I I I Page 52 a The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis 1 Global Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat- trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHG), to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is from fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identif ied four major GHG —water vapor, CO2, methane (CH,), and ozone (O� —that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20P and 21n centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming effect to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF.), hydrofluorooarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006. AB 32 requires the state's global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by year 2020, and to 80 percent of 1990 levels by year 2050. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 32, the state's reduction in global warming emissions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARB to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels by January 2008. By January 1, 2009, CARB must prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met or bettered. However, as immediate progress in reducing GHG can and should be made, AB 32 directed CARE and the newly created California Climate Action Team (CAT) to identify a list of "discrete early action GHG reduction measures" that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. CAT is a consortium of representatives from state agencies that have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs that fall outside of CARB's jurisdiction. To address GHG emissions and global climate change in general plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to address global warming emissions and mitigate project - generated GHG. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit these guidelines on or before July 1, 2009. E)dsting Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the proposed project, are best documented by measurements taken by the SCAQMD. The City of Newport Beach is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 - Metropolitan (Southeast Los Angeles County). The SCAQMD air quality monitoring station in the SRA 18 that is closest to the proposed project site is the Costa Mesa monitoring station, located at Mesa Verde Drive, Costa Mesa. As this monitoring station does not monitor PM,, or PM,.,, data was supplemented from the Mission Viejo Station for these criteria pollutants. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 2. The data show occasional violations of both the state and federal ozone standards. The data also indicate that the area occasionally exceeds the state PM,o standard and federal PMZS standard. Neither the CO nor the NO2 standard has been violated in the last five years at this station. V _J I ISeashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 53 ffl 3. Environmental Analysis Table 2 Air and Pollutant /Standard 1 2002 1 2003 1 2004 —1 2005 1 2006 State 1 -Hourz 0.09 ppm 0 4 2 0 U Federal 8 -Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 1 1 0 0 I Max. 1 -Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.087 0.107 0.104 0.085 0.074 Max. 8 -Hour Cone_ from) 0.070 0.088 0.087 0.072 0.062 State 8 -Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Federal 8- Hour >_ 9.5 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max. 8- Hour Conc. (oom) 1 4.29 5.90 4.07 3.16 31 Conc. S(oomm I 0.06 I 0.07 I 0.097 I 0.085 0:01 State 24 -Hour? 0.04 ppm I 0 I 0 0 0 0 Federal 24- Hour >_ 0.14 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Max 24 -Hour Cork. (oom)- 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.01 State 24 -Hour > 50 yg1rW 1 4 2 0 0 1 1 Federal 24- Hour > 150,ug/m' 0 0 0 0 0 Max 24 -Hour Conc. Woftr ?) 80 64 47 41 5 > 654 ua/m' I 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 Max 24- HourConc. tN d) 1 58.5 1 50.6 1 49.4 35.3 46.9 Source., GARB. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data. Obtained January 2007. ppm parts per million; taglm', or micrograms per cubic meter ' Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. 2 The NOx standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1-hr standard to 0.18 ppm. ' Data obtained from the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. 4 The USEPA revised the 24 -hour PMmstandard from 65 pg/m'to 35 pg/m' in December 2006. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cardiorespiratory diseases. Residential areas are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered sensitive receptors, as children are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Although exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers tend to stay indoors most of the time. In addition, the working population is Page 54 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 LJ I I 3. Environmental Analysis generally the healthiest segment of the public. Sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project site include the residences and recreational facilities located adjacent to the project site. IMethodology 1 I r I I I l I� I 11 I I Projected air emissions are calculated using the SCAQMD's Urban Emissions (URBEMIS2007) emissions model6. The URBEMIS2007 compiles an emissions inventory of construction, stationary, and vehicle emissions sources. The UFIBEMIS2007 model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual projects using the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Thresholds of Significance CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine project-specific and cumulative impacts on air quality within the SoCAB, as shown in Table 3. ffl Table 3 SCAQMD Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase 0 erationa! Phase Volatile Organic Gases (VOC) 75lbs /day 55 Ibs/day Carbon Monopde (CO) 550lbs/day 550 Ibs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOS 100lbs/day 55 Ibs/day Sulfur O)ddes (SOO 150 Ibs /day 150 Ibs/day Coarse Inhalable Particulates (PMJ 150 Ibs/day 150lbs/day Poce Inhalable Particulates (PMZ.S) 55 Ibs/day 55lbs/day CO Hotspot Analysis The localized CO impacts are based on the California one -hour and eight -hour CO standards, which are: • 1 hour = 20 parts per million • 8 hour = 9 parts per million The SCAQMD requires the assessment of CO "hotspots" at congested intersections for which project traffic would travel. Exoeedance of the one- and eight-hour ambient air quality standards would constitute a significant air quality impact. ISearbore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 55 3. Environmental Analysis Localized Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO,, CO, PM,,, and PM.., generated at the project site (off -site mobile- source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. The construction LSTs for a 1.49-acre project site within SRA 18 for sensitive receptors located within 25 meters (approximately 82 feet) are shown in Table 4. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling for emissions that exceed the California AAQS. Table 4 Localized Significance Thresholds Air Pollutant Threshold lbs/da Construction operation Carton Monoxide (CO) 406 406 Nitrogen Oxides (NO2) 191 191 Coarse Particulates (PM,o) 5 1 Fine Particulates (PM2J 4 1 Source: SCAQMD. Localized Sknfflrance M7ftdafwY. July 2007. and Aocendl( A: Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 5 for a 1.4Mcre Site at 25 meters (82 feet). PMu Localied Significance Threshold Look -up Tables. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project is consistent with residential land use designation for the project site. Implementation of the project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently existing on -site and emissions from construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. The operational phase of the project would also result in a net reduction of emissions as compared to the existing uses, due to a net reduction in the number of residential units. Furthermore, the project is not considered by the South Coast Association of Governments (SCAG) to be a regionally significant project that would warrant a consistency review for criteria emissions or new GHG emissions I I I I I I I I I i I I I Page 56 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I I I I I F I lJ I E I 11 I W I I 3. Environmental Analysis control strategies under AB 32. As the proposed project is both consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, the project would be considered to be consistent with the AGMP and no significant impacts would occur. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction and operation of 24 new residential units on a 1.49 -acre parcel in the City of Newport Beach. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities. In addition, emissions would result from the long -term operation of the completed project from facility- related energy consumption and automobile traffic traveling to and from the project site. The analysis below describes the project's short-term and long -term air quality impacts. Short-Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be (1) exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment, (2) dust generated from demolition, earthmoving, excavation, and other construction activities, and (3) motor vehicle emissions associated with vehicle trips. Construction is estimated to begin in 2008 and is estimated to take approximately 18 months to complete. The proposed project would require demolition of 48,753 square feet of structures, which would take approximately 30 days to complete. Grading activities would also take approximately 30 days to complete. Construction of the residential buildings would be constructed in three development phases in order to stage construction activities. For the purposes of air quality modeling, it was assumed that all three phases would overlap. Approximately 0.67 acres, or 42 percent of the site, would be paved. These construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in Table 5; the model run is included in Appendix B. Table 5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Source Pollutants Ibs /d co NO voc S02 PNI PM Demolilion 17 37 3 <1 26 7 4,171 Site preparation 15 28 3 0 2 1 2,372 Building Construction 18 24 13 <1 2 2 2,725 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 55 NA Exceeds Threshold NO NO NO NO NO NO NA Source: UROEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. NA: Not Applicable Construction equipment ma based an the URBEMI82007 computer model, which is based on SCAQMD Construction surveys of mid - sized construction sites. Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quiddy as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times dally, equipment loadingfunloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. See Append'a A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCAQMD Rule 403. ' CO, emissions are provided for informational purposes orgy. The SCAQMD, OPR, or CARB have yd to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant. ISeashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beath • Page 57 3. Environmental Analysis As shown in Table 5, all emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD threshold values. SCAQMD, OPR, or GARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for COZ emissions. However, because the project is not a regionally significant project and the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM,,, and PM25), which were established to identify substantial new sources of air pollution, CO, emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant. Long -Term Operation - Related Impacts Long -term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be associated with project- related vehicle trips and stationary- source emissions generated on -site by sources, such as water heaters, gas stoves, and fuel consumed for landscaping activities. Long -term air quality impacts are typically associated with the emissions produced by project - generated vehicle trips. However, the proposed project would reduce the existing residential density from 54 residential units to 24 residential units. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition (see Section 3.15, Transportation /Traffic), the 12- single- family and 12-condominium units would generate 185 average daily vehicle trips (ADT), while the existing 54 -unit apartment complex generates 363 ADT, resulting in a net decrease of 178 ADT. Furthermore, newer construction is typically more energy efficient than older construction, as a result of more stringent efficiency requirements adopted in the California Building Code. Consequently, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would also be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. 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 SoCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and particulates (PM10 and PM,J under the state and federal AAQS standards. Emissions that contribute to the exceedance of these pollutants would cumulatively contribute to the region's nonattainment. Air pollutant modeling for construction emissions demonstrate that project implementation would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds. Furthermore, because the proposed project would result in a decrease in vehicle trips, the project would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the project site. Therefore, the project is not considered by the SCAQMD to significantly contribute to the region's cumulative emissions. Impacts from short-term construction and long -term operation would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it would: (1) cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or (2) place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass (weight) of operational emissions shown in Tables 4 and 5 (pounds per day), localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutants in a volume of air (ug /m) and can be correlated to potential health effects. Because the project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions on- site, operational LSTs and CO hotspot analyses are not applicable for the project because the project Page 58 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I i I I n I I I I 3. Environmental Analysis would result in a net decrease in air pollutant concentrations in the project vicinity as a result of fewer vehicle trips and less residential units. Construction LSTs Emissions generated from construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in pollutant concentrations. The frequency and concentration of such violations would depend on several factors, including soil composition, the amount of soil disturbed, wind speed, the numbers and types of machinery used, the construction schedule, and the proximity of other construction and demolition projects. LSTs are the maximum amount (n pounds per day) of air pollutants that a project can generate without exceeding the AAQS at the nearest sensitive receptor. ILSTs are based on the ambient air quality in the SRA, which for the project is SRA 18. Because concentrations of air pollutants diminish with distance from the source, LSTs are also based on the distance to the nearest receptor, which for the project is within 25 meters (approximately 82 feet). LSTs are based on the AAQS, which are the most stringent. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Table 6 shows maximum daily onsite construction emissions generated by the project compared to the air pollutant threshold (LST). Table 6 Maxtnrum Dally Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs Source' Pollutants bs /day CO NOX PMJO PM Demolition 5 9 25 6 Site Preparation? 14 28 2 1 Building Construction 12 22 2 2 SCADMD LST Threshold for SRA 18 400 189 5 4 Exceeds Threshold No No Yes Yes Source., URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. ' construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCAOMD COnMCUon surveys of 'red -sized construction sites. In accordance with SCAOMD methodology, only on-site egressions are Included in the analysis. ? Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quicldy as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment loadinglunloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. See Append'a A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCAOMD Rule 403. As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LSTs for CO and NO2. However, PM1e and PM., emissions would exceed the LSTs during grading activities. As shown in Table 7, with mitigation, project's construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs, and therefore air pollutant concentrations from project- related construction activities would not exceed the California or federal AAOS. No significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Seashore f/illage Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 59 ffl I 3. Environmental Analysis I Table 7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs - With Mitigation Souroer Pollutants lbs /day CO NOx PM PMZfi Demolition' 5 9 4 1 Site Preparation 14 28 2 1 Building Construction 12 22 2 2 SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 18 400 189 5 4 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: URBEMIS2007 version 92.2. ' Construction equipment ma based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCADfVID construction surveys of mid -sized construction sites: 2 Fugitive dust emissions reductions from demolition based an the particulate matter control efficiencies of Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measure of 84 percent described below, as quanbTied by the SCADMD in Table XI -A, Mitigation Measure Examples: fugitive Dust from ConsMxbon and Demo iBbn. 3 Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quickly as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment loading/unloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 nules per hour. See Appendix A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in Mitigation Measure The construction contractor for the property owner /developer shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: • The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. • The project contractor shall prohibit demolftion activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. • The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean -up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. • Material haul tracks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would 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 are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An I I I Page 60 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 1 1 1 3. Environmental Analysis 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. The operational phase of the project would replace the existing 54 apartment units with 12 single family and 12 duplex units. The existing residential complex is not a substantial source of odor generation. The proposed residential units would not generate substantial odors as well. Nuisance odors are regulated under SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits quantities of air contaminants or other materials to be emitted within the SoCAB that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. No significant sources of odors would occur on -site. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 1 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any 1 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? 1 i 1 I 1 II 1 i 1 No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 percent of the entire is impervious. A site survey was conducted by Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist with the Planning Center, which determined that there are no special status species or biological habitat located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed development would not have any effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 percent of the site is impervious. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community located on the project site. A site survey was conducted by Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist wtth the Planning Center, which determined that there are no sensitive natural communities located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed development would not have any effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Redevelopment of the project site would not directly remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt any wetlands. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Netoport Beach • Page 61 3. Environmental Analysis I d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? , No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54-unit apartment complex and is not being used for migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The project site does not contain any special status biological resources and redevelopment of this site would not interfere with the movement of any ' native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and only contains ornamental landscaping trees and plants. There are two small ornamental pine trees at the northwest corner of the project site. The City Council Policy G-3 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) was adopted with the intent to preserve views and to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits provided by trees and it applies only to City trees, i.e., those located on public property and within public parkways. Removal of these trees and plants would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Wan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Section 10564.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or , determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically significant," it it meets one of the following criteria: i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ii) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. , Page 62 • The Planning Center February 2008 , 1 3. Environmental Analysis rThe project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex, which was constructed in 1972. The building is modern in style and, given the building age of 35 years, no historical significance is warranted. Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significant of a historical resource and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A limited archaeological records search was conducted by McKenna at al. and found no archaeological evidence on or near the project site. The nearest recorded archaeological sites are located approximately one quarter mile north of Pacific Coast Highway and none would be impacted by the proposed project. A review of historic maps (USGS Santa Ana Quadrangles of 1896 and 1901, rev. 1945) illustrated the presence of the Southern Pacific Smeltzwe Branch Railroad alignment passing relatively close to the project area, but this was long gone by the time the 1965 USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle was prepared. Evidence of the historic railroad alignment may be identified within or near the current project area, including the project site, even though the project site has been previously disturbed. The lack of surface evidence does not preclude the discovery of subsurface evidence. However, the following ' mitigation measure would ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner /developer shall submit at letter to the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: • The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for ' exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. ' • Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. ( c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has been previously disturbed and is underlain by fill material and Quaternary-age alluvial. No unique geologic feature exists on -site and the likelihood of presence of a unique paleontological resource is minimal. However, the ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 63 88 L 3. Environmental Analysis I project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and the potential for subsurface evidence remains. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3. The property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works /Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: • The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and/or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. if any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and is surrounded by urban uses. No human remains are known to exist on the project site, and the site is not identified as a formal cemetery. The project site and its surrounding area are highly disturbed and the possibility of discovering human remains is unlikely. However, the lack of past evidence of a Native American burial ground or human remains at the project site does not guarantee the absence of subsurface remains. Therefore, if there is an unexpected discovery of human remains, then the District shall follow guidelines addressed in the Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, which states: In the event of discovery and recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with §27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains... Page 64 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 3. Environmental Analysis If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognized the human remains to be those of a Native American, or had reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. In accordance with state law, no further work in the area of concern (to be determined by the County ' Coroner and a qualified archaeologist) will be permitted until the remains are removed from the site. Once the remains are removed, construction activities may resume. If the remains are non -Native American and of no forensic significance, the City will make the proper arrangements with a qualified archaeologist to remove the remains and have them reburied in accordance with current Health and Safety guidelines. If the remains are recent, the Coroner will handle all necessary removal and reburial activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The below analysis is based on result of the Geotechnicai Investigation report dated June 13, 2007, prepared by EGA Consultants, included as Appendix B. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, ' injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, Issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact The project site is not underlain by a known earthquake fault and is not delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Zoning map. No major faults are known to exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The Newport- Inglewood fault system is located approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. III) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. One of the predominant effects of an earthquake is ground shaking. Similar to the rest of southern California, the project site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity. The most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the region would be a major earthquake along either the Newport- Inglewood or San Andreas Fault Both faults are classified as active, with a seismic capability over magnitude 7.0. The expected ground motion characteristics of future earthquakes in the region will depend on the distance to the epicenter and magnitude of the earthquake, as well as the soil profile of the site. The proposed project would be built to meet the seismic design parameters contained in the most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4, as well as the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). Therefore, seismic impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. ' iii) Seismic- related ground failure, Including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibration such as an earthquake. Loose, granular, sandy soils are susceptible to Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 65 3. Environmental Analysis 1 liquefaction, while the more stable rock, gravel, clay, and silt are not significantly affected by , vibration. Liquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near - saturated granular soils. The project site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits, which are characterized by clean beach sands and silty sands, therefore, the project site has a significant liquefaction potential if subjected to heavy vibration. However, provided that the project is constructed in accordance with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the UBC, standards of the SEAOC, and recommended measures in the site - specific geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants 2007) impacts would be reduced to a ' less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 1 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The measures shall include but are not limited to: • Tie all pad footings with grade beam. • All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. • Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). • Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 , inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. • Dowel ail footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. Iv) Landslides? I Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat and there are no hills in the vicinity of the project site that would pose a threat of landsliding. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, wom away, decomposed, or dissolved, and removed from one place and transported to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is changed, the rate of erosion can be greatly accelerated. This can create aesthetic and engineering problem. Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm sewers, and depositing silt, sand, or mud in roads and tunnels. Eroded materials are eventually deposited into our coastal waters, where the carried silt remains suspended in the water for some time, constituting a pollutant and altering the normal balance of plant and animal fife. Due to the relatively flat topography and the developed nature of the site, erosion impacts would be minimal. In addition, the project site is relatively small in size (approximately 1.49 acres) and would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading. The project would also be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Page 66 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis which is further discussed in Section 3.8 of this report. With the adherence to these codes and regulations, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that Is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Unstable soil is earth material that, because of its nature or the influence of related conditions, cannot be depended upon to remain in place without extra support. The project site is underlain by fill and native materials. The fill soils consist generally of dark brown and gray, dry, loose to medium dense sand with very low expansion potential. Underlying the fill materials are Quaternary-age alluvial and marine terrace deposits, consisting generally of light gray, moist, medium ' dense, non - cemented, fine- to medium - grained; beach sand with occasional shell fragments. Therefore, no sign of unstable soils has been identified during the geotechnical investigation. Furthermore, project compliance with the measures outlined in the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation (e.g., removal and replacement of near surface soils with engineered fill), the criteria and seismic design parameters of the UBC, California Building Code (CBC), and the SEAOC, and submittal of a detailed geotechnical investigation report would reduce potential unstable soil impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant impact. Expansive soil, with respect to engineering properties, refers to those soils that upon wetting and drying, will alternately expand and contract, causing problems for foundations of buildings and other structures. No evidence of expansive soils was identified during the geotechnical investigation. in addition, the design of the proposed project would be in conformance with the UBC and the impacts relating to expansive soils would be less than significant No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ' No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a 24 single and duplex units in Newport Beach. The project would be connected to the City's sewer system and would not need a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? ' Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Operation The proposed project involves development of 24 residential units and would not use, store, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials other than typical household cleaning solvents and landscaping products. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach *Page 67 3. Environmental Analysis Construction The EPA only requires asbestos removal in order to prevent significant public exposure to airborne fibers during demolition or renovation activities. At other times, the EPA believes that asbestos removal projects, unless well- designed and property performed, can actually increase health risk. Project construction would include the demolition of the structures currently on the site. According to the Report for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) (EMG 2007), a total of 44 samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis and 17 samples were found to contain asbestos mineral type. Specified work practice requirements limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are set forth in SCAQMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emission From Demolition /Renovation Activities). This rule, in whole or in part, is applicable to owners and operators of any demolition or renovation activity, and the 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, storage, and disposal requirements for asbestos- containing waste materials. The existing structures on -site are also required to be surveyed for lead -based paint (LBP) prior to demolition or renovation, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with the existing regulations and the following mitigation measure would reduce potential safety hazards pertaining to ACMs and LBPs to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during any abatement activity. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, there is a potential for asbestos to be released during the demolition stage of project construction. However, compliance with the existing regulations would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. To reduce impacts from potential spills of hazardous materials during construction, the project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth under the Statewide General Permit for Construction Activities, pursuant to Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Per the requirements, best management practices (BMPs) would be employed to control hazardous materials use and spills, as detailed within a SWPPP prepared for the proposed project. The proposed residential use would not create significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. I I I I I I 11 I I I I `J I u Page 68 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ■ 3. Environmental Analysis c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? H Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 69 F Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the proposed project site. The nearest school is Whittier Elementary School, located at 1800 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, approximately one mile north from the project site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which Is Included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as a multifamily apartment complex. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DISC) hazardous wastes and substances list, which includes the Federal Superfund Sites (National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Action Sites. Implementation of the proposed single and duplex residential units would not ' create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ' No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, approximately five miles north of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and the proposed project /� �a� p`A8 would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation measures are necessary. Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Hoag Memorial Hospital owns and operates a rooftop heliport, approximately 0.8 nautical miles to the east, and the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, is approximately five miles north of the project site. Project implementation would not result in any airport- related safety hazards for anyone residing or working in the project area. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ' emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the site would be taken via three driveways: two along River Avenue and one on Neptune Avenue. The driveways and internal streets have been designed according to fire department standards for emergency access. In addition, the fire department would review project site plans for access and safety issues and building permits would not be issued until the project met fire department standards for access. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. H Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 69 F 3. Environmental Analysis h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area and is not immediately adjacent to any wildland areas. The project site is not located within the Special Fire Protection Areas (SFPAs). Areas in SFPAs require fuel modification and a 100 -foot setback between the structure and the wildland areas. Because the site is not located in an SFPA, the project site would not constitute a wildland fire risk to the project site. No impacts from wildland fires would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would potentially discharge sediment and pollutants to the nearest receiving waters and result in a potential significant impact to water quality. Grading and excavation of the site would expose and disturb soils. The storage and use of hazardous materials on -site, including treated wood, paints, solvents, fuels, etc., would be potential sources of pollutants during construction. The proposed project would generate the following potential runoff pollutants: • fertilizers and pesticides • household hazardous waste (e.g., paints, cleaning agents, etc.) • pet waste • outside building and cleaning • landscape maintenance debris vehicle washing and repair The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed and the receiving water is Lower Newport Bay, which is identified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as impaired due to metals and pesticides. In addition, EPA Region IX has established Total Maximum Daily Loads for fecal coliform, nutrients, and sedimentation /siltation for Lower Newport Bay. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the NPDES program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. For Orange County, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board would be responsible for implementation of the NPDES requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including, those from construction activities on sites larger than one acre. The proposed project would be subject to the NPDES program because the project would involve a site greater than one acre. The proposed project would then be required to develop and implement a SWPPP and be subject to BMPs designated to prevent erosion and siltation during the project's construction phases. In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 Permit, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared. The WQMP contains specific source- and treatment - control BMPs that Page 70 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I 1 1 I 1 I I LJ I 1 r 3. Environmental Analysis would reduce or eliminate the infiltration of pollutants into the stormwater system. The complete WDMP can be found in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The proposed project would involve asphalt paving at driveways with areas of groutless paver systems to allow filtering of first flush of the driveways. Patios and walks would be constructed with concrete that flows to an underground drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain trench allowing the pollutants to filter through the gravel bed back into the soil. Additionally, landscaped areas would consist of small on -grade planters and two larger areas adjacent to the guest parking, all designed to catch flows in order to absorb the pollutants of the first flush. The proposed project has been designed so that all overflow would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters. The following lists outline source- control BMPs (routine nonstructural and routine structural) included in the proposed project. The project BMPs are designed to have any future pollutants be filtered directly ' into the ground, which would allow the BMPs to work naturally and avoid the need for regular maintenance to BMPs. n iJ i i 1 I I I Routine Nonstructural BMPs • education for property owners, tenants, and occupants. • activity restrictions • BMP maintenance • Title 22 California Code of Regulations Compliance • Uniform Fire Code implementation • common area catch basin inspection • sweeping of private streets and parking lots. Routine Structural BMPs Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation. The following lists site- design BMPs that are included in the proposed project. The combination of paver systems, erosion resistant plants that absorb water better, gravel side yards, and gravel trench drains would filter pollutants naturally and would require only general property maintenance. Site - Design BMPs • Minimize impervious arealmaximize permeability. • Minimize directly connected impervious areas. • Create reduced or "Zero Discharge" areas. • Conserve natural areas. • Porous pavement detention • Porous landscape detention • Infiltration trench Compliance with the NPDES permitting procedures would ensure the project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 71 3. Environmental Analysis b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing apartment complex has impervious site coverage of approximately 86 percent by building and parking areas with no water quality control measures. The proposed project would result in impervious site coverage of approximately 68 percent. The proposed project would increase the pervious surface area and any groundwater recharge occurring in the project area would be unhindered by the implementation of the project. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The current use has no water quality measures, and the proposed project has been designed to allow drainage to be filtered directly into the ground. The on -site paved areas would be constructed with a combination of 1) asphalt paving at driveways with groutless paver systems to allow filtering of first flush of the driveways and 2) patios and walks with concrete that flows to an underground drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain trench, allowing the pollutants to filter through the gravel bed back into the soil. The landscaped areas consist of small on -grade planters along with two larger areas adjacent to the guest parking, all designed to allow flow through them in order to absorb the pollutants of the first flush. As such, all overflow would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters and all private patios would also drain through the underground system. The altered drainage pattern of the site is projected to benefit the receiving water body. The proposed project would not involve alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially Increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The proposed project would provide approximately 68 percent (44,121 square feet) of impervious surfaces and approximately 32 percent (20,987 square feet) of landscaping. The existing drainage pattern of the site would be altered but with the decreased impervious surface areas, the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than the existing condition. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.8c, the proposed project has been designed to allow drainage to be filtered directly into the ground. The project site is already developed and the proposed project would not involve alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. I i I I I I I Irl 1 LJ �J J i I Page 72 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 i I3. Environmental Analysis e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is covered by building and parking. Implementation of the proposed project would minimize the on -site impervious area to 68 percent and allow for groutless paver ' system and a landscape detention system, thereby reducing the volume of urban runoff. Anticipated urban runoff pollutants include fertilizers and pesticides, household hazardous waste such as paints, cleaning agents, etc., pet waste; outside building and cleaning, landscaping maintenance debris, and vehicle washing and repairing. Currently there are no water quality management measures on -site. As discussed in Section 3.8c, the proposed project would provide filtering of first flush runoff waters from driveways and landscape areas and allow pollutants from walkways and patios to filter through the gravel bed back with an in -line perforated drain trench. Small on -grade planter along with two larger area adjacent to the guest parking would allow flow through them so that they would absorb the pollutants of the first flush. In addition, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters and all private patios would drain through the underground system. Potential polluted runoffs during construction would be controlled in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed construction will ' start only when temporary driveway, fence, and control measures have been installed. The Plan requires construction of 24 inch deep and 16 feet wide temporary gravel pit sediment basin, entrance /outlet tire wash, sandbag barriers, and silt fence. The off -site storm drain inlet would also be protected with gravel bags. Development of the proposed project would not create or contribute more runoff water than the existing condition. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 8B f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is covered by building and parking. Implementation of the ' proposed project would minimize the on -ske impervious area to 68 percent and allow for porous pavement and a landscape detention system, thereby reducing the volume of polluted runoff. Implementation of the proposed project would result in beneficial impact to area water quality. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (No. 06059C0377H) covering the project area. The project site is located in Zone X, indicating that the area is outside of the 1 ' percent annual chance floodplain, or that the area has a 1 percent annual chance of sheet flow flooding to a depth of less than 1 foot (FEMA 2004). No significant impacts related to flooding would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone, as indicated on the FIRM, and would not place any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No significant impacts would occur related to flooding and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 73 3. Environmental Analysis i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan (July 15, 2004), the City of Newport Beach is subject to flooding hazards from Prado Dam and the Big Canyon Reservoir. In the event of failure of these structures, floodwaters from Prado Dam could inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach, including the project site. However, the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Impact. A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the project site, Prado Dam could inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach. However, impacts from the Prado Dam would be less than significant as the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. Additionally, dam failure inundation zones in the City are similar to the 100 -year flood zones and the project site is located outside of the 100 -year flood zone. Mudilows are landslide events in which a mass of saturated soil flows downhill as a very thick liquid. The project site is flat and is not located along steep slopes or hillsides. The project would be required to submit grading plans to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval. The potential for mudflow and landslide events is considered low. Implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche or mudfiows. The tsunami threat to the City of Newport Beach is considered low to moderate. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan indicates that local earthquakes would not generate a tsunami in this area, and no known tsunami has ever hit the Orange County coast. Newport Beach has southwestern facing beaches and is vulnerable to tsunamis, or more likely tidal surges, from the south and west. Predicted wave heights for a 100 -year occurrence are: • 4 feet minimum • 6.6 feet average • 9.2 feet maximum Predicted wave heights for a 500 -year occurrence are: • 6.8 feet minimum • 11.4 feet average 16.0 feet maximum V I I I I r I E 1 1 L 1 i I Page 74 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis A tsunami warning system is currently in effect as a function of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. The Emergency Management Plan identifies suggested evacuation routes and evacuation sites in the case of a tsunami incident. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 1.49 -acre site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). The project site would be developed as a 24 -unit residential community and would not physically divide an established community. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal ■ program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Locally - adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project include the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The project site is located outside of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential) and the ' project site is zoned Multiple - Family Residential (MFR). The MFR designation provides areas for single - family, two- family, and multiple- family residential land uses. Development of 24 single- and duplex units is consistent with the MFR designation. According to the Coastal Land Use Plan, the project site is designated as RH -A, High Density Residential with 20.1 to 30.1 du/ac. implementation of the proposed project would result in a density of 16.1 units per acre and would be consistent with the permitted use and density. ' The project site is located within the City's Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, which limits residential development height to 24 to 28 feet and nonresidential development to a height of 26 to 35 feet. The ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 feet, provided that the midpoints of the roof planes are at 28 feet. The proposed single - family units along Seashore Drive would conform to the height limitation, with a maximum ridgeline height of 31 feet and 4 inches and midpoint height of 26 feet and 8 inches. However, duplex units along River Avenue would exceed the midpoint height ' limitation, with a maximum midpoint height of 29 feet and 6 inches. However, the intent of the height limitation zone was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach (Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan). The existing apartment structure has a height of 28 feet (three stories) with no breaks in building massing, and ' beachfront residential units across Seashore Drive are also three stories high with narrow setbacks In- between buildings. Therefore, views of the ocean are already compromised and the proposed project would not substantially deviate from the existing character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As ' discussed in Section 3.1a, the proposed project would not obstruct or restrict scenic vistas or public view opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project would also be consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2 -3 that states: "Implement the regulation of the building envelope to reserve 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." The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. No land use impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 75 3. Environmental Analysis 1 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES , a) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the ' region and the residents of the state? No impact. The project site is developed with an apartment complex and no known mineral resources have been identified on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the state. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not designated as a mineral recovery resource site, as indicated by the Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Maps, and does not contain any mineral resource recovery areas. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.11 NOISE , Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including ' hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological effects, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of ' certain human activities. Characteristics of Sound Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The standard unit of measurement of the , loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt' more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people ' cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner , approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 8, Change in Sound , Pressure Level, dB, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Typical human hearing can detect changes of approximately 3 dBA or greater under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to Page 76 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' L 0 i J F 1, -1 1 3. Environmental Analysis 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA or greater is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. Table 8 Change in Sound Pressure Level, d8 Change in Apparent Loudness ± 3 d8 Threshold of human perceptibility 5 dB Clearly noticeable change in noise level ± 10 dB Haft or twice as loud ± 20 d8 Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen, 1988 Point and Line Sources Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever - widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This is known as spreading loss. The typical spreading loss for point- source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, would also be reduced with distance, but the rate of reduction is affected by both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas would actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with the noise reduction placed somewhere in between these two factors. Unfortunately the only way to actually determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Objects that block the line of sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the shadow of the blockage (such as behind a sound wall). if a receptor is located behind the wall, but has a view of the source, the wail would do little to reduce the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level, as the wall would reflect noise back to the receptor compounding the noise. 1 Noise Metrics ' Several rating scales (or noise metrics) exist to analyze adverse effects of noise, including traffic - generated noise, on a community. These scales include the equivalent noise level (le„), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day /night noise level (L„ J. L,, is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged over a specified time period. The CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL differs from L�, in that it applies a time - weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime ' hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the Seashore Village Initial Study City of N*uport Beacb a Page 77 3. Environmental Analysis daytime period (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 to 10:00 PM) is penalized by 5 dB, and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noise is penalized by 10 dB. The Ldn noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 to 10:00 PM receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and Lyn metrics yield approximately the same 24 -hour value (within 1 dB) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two. Regulatory Environment State of California Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. The State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are shown in Table 9. These noise standards are incorporated as part of the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 25 California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. Table 9 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use CNEL dBA Categories Uses ialeriorr Exteriors Single and multifamily, duplex 453 65 Residential Mobile homes - 65' Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 - Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 - Office building, research and development, professional offices 50 - Commercial Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 - G mnasiuin (multipurpose) 50 - Sports Club 55 - Manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale, utilities 65 - Instihrtional/ Hospital, school classrooms/ layground 45 65 Public Church, library 45 - open ace Parks - 65 Source: TNes 24 and 25 California Code of Regulations. ' Indoor environment, excluding bathrooms, Idtchens, toilets, closets, and corridors. R Outdoor environment limited to private yard of single -family dwellings, multifamily private patios or balconies accessed from within the dwelling (balconies 6 feet deep or less are exempt), mobile home parks, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, and hospital patios. a Noise level requirement with closed windows, mechanical ventilation, or other means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Chapter 12, Section 1205, of the uniform Building Code. 4 Extedor noise levels should be such that interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Noise Compatibility The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element discusses the effects of noise exposure on the population and sets goals aimed at protecting its residents from undue noise. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise thresholds for developments located adjacent to mobile or transportation noise sources and thresholds for stationary noise sources. The City applies the state's Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards, summarized in Table 10, to assess the compatibility of new development with existing noise sources, such as vehicles and trains. Page 78 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 I LJ fI L- C 1 r— L✓' L-1 L 0 F 7 J 1 I r'1 �J n I L� �.l I rable 10 Land Uses Residential — Single - Family, Two - Family, Mu liple- Family Residential — Mixed Use Residential — Mobile Home Commercial (Regional, District) — Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Commercial (Regional, Village, Special District, Special) — Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theater Commercial Industrial Institutional — Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building Commercial (RecreationaQ & Instiutionai (Civic Center) — Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall Commercial (Recreational) — Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, Go-cart Track Equestrian Center, Spats Club Commercial (General, Special), Industrial, & Institutional — Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Institutional — Hospital, Church, Library, School' Classroom Open Space — Parks Open Space — Goff Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. should be undertaken e noise reduction noise insulation features 3. Environmental Analysis New construction is discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Incompatible: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Seashore Village Initial Study City of N"ort Beach a Page 79 93 3. Environmental Analysis Table 10 identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. A normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) incremental traffic noise impact criteria, which becomes progressively more stringent as the baseline traffic noise levels increase. The City's incremental thresholds are shown in Table 11. Table 11 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEI) Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Combined Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 58 3 60 62 2 65 66 1 70 71 1 75 75 0 Cnumm Itihr ni A--. OnenF Cnna.nl Olnn and Cn..ml Olnn CIO 6Mnled AlmwmAer9MR Stationary (Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.025), summarized in Table 12, to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic, because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. The City's noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, and pumps. J 1 1 r L I I r� L r L_ �I I 7 L t✓ i Page 80 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 0 1 7 I� `i h 11 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 City of Newport Beach Exterior Norse Standards (L,3 Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Daytime Noise Levels d8A L26 L Zone I - Single-, two -, or multiple- family residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone II - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zone III - Residerdial portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 A2 50 70 Zone IV- Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 70 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards. Notes: • These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning systems or construction pursuant to Chapter 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, 9 the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone gall apply. Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 10.26.045), new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Construction Noise The City realizes that the control of construction noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 12 above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Federal Transit Administration Vibration Criteria The City of Newport Beach does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundbome vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. These criteria were used for this analysis. The human reaction to various levels of ' vibration varies. The upper end of the range shown for the threshold of perception, or roughly 65 VdB, may be considered annoying by some people. Vibration below 65 VdB may also cause secondary audible effects such as a slight rattling of doors, suspended ceilings/fixtures, windows, and dishes, any ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Nwport Beach • Page 81 3. Environmental Analysis of which may result in additional annoyance. Table 13 shows the FTA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria. Table 13 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Human Annoyance Source: FrA 2006 1 "Frequent Events" are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. P "Occasional Events" are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. ' "Infrequent Events" are defined as fewer than 30 vthretlon events per day of the same Idnd per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipmem such as optical microscopes. Vibration- sensdive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. vibration - sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundbome noise. In addition to the vibration annoyance standards presented above, the FTA also applies standards for construction vibration damage, as shown in Table 14. Structural damage is possible for typical residential construction when the peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeds 0.2 inch per second. This criterion is the threshold at which there is a rusk of damage to normal dwelling houses. Table 14 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Structural Damage Building Category Groundborne Vibration Impact levels Groundborne Noise Impact Levels I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) d8 re 1 mfcroinch/sec dB re 20 micro scats s Frequent Occasional Infrequent Frequent Occasional Infrequent IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage Land Use Category Events' Events' Events' Events Events' Evente Category 1: Buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 NA4 NA NA interior operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA sleep. Category 3: Instdutional land 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA uses with primarily daytime use Source: FrA 2006 1 "Frequent Events" are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. P "Occasional Events" are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. ' "Infrequent Events" are defined as fewer than 30 vthretlon events per day of the same Idnd per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipmem such as optical microscopes. Vibration- sensdive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. vibration - sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundbome noise. In addition to the vibration annoyance standards presented above, the FTA also applies standards for construction vibration damage, as shown in Table 14. Structural damage is possible for typical residential construction when the peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeds 0.2 inch per second. This criterion is the threshold at which there is a rusk of damage to normal dwelling houses. Table 14 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Structural Damage Building Category PPV in /sec Vd8 I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FTA 2006 Nis: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microiroh/second. Existing Noise Environment The 1.49 -acre project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brlsas Apartments), which includes a small on -site recreational area. Existing noise within the vicinity of the project site includes that generated by the apartment complex, such as landscaping noise (lawnmowers, blowers, etc.); noise generated by heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units; other on -site stationary noise; and noise generated by the vehicle trips made by the residents. In addition, the project Page 82 • The Planning Center February 2008 I I 1 ,i L J I I ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' site is surrounded by residential and recreational land uses, including a park with tennis courts and a public beach. The existing noise environment is characteristic of a beach -side residential neighborhood. Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. Noise- and vibration - sensitive uses include residential land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residential receptors are located directly northeast, southeast, and southwest of the project ' site. Other noise - sensitive land uses include the small neighborhood park located directly to the northwest of the project site. Tennis courts within the park border the project site. ' Local Thresholds of Significance The analysis of impacts related to noise considers the impacts of project construction and operations ' noise as defined by the City of Newport Beach (for noise impacts) and the FiA (for vibration impacts). Based on the applicable Municipal Code and the FfA methodology, the proposed project would have a significant adverse noise impact if the project results in any of the following. ' Noise • Short-term construction activities occurring outside of the hours specified (weekdays from 7:00 ' AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, excluding Sundays and federal holidays) under Chapter 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan, project - related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise - sensitive receptors (see Table 11). • Project - related stationary noise would result in stationary (nontransportation) noise that exceeds the standards of the City's Municipal Code (see Table 12) on noise - sensitive receptors. ' Groundbome vibration • Construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA's criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events (80 VdB) at off -site vibration - sensitive structures (see Table 13). • Construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the FTA criterion for structural damage at adjacent structures (see Table 14). ' a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction and operation of 24 new residential units in the City of Newport Beach. Project- generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project- generated traffic (mobile- source noise) and on -site operations ' (stationary- source noise). However, because the project would result in a net - reduction of trips, the project would result in a decrease in traffic noise levels on roadways within the vicinity of the project site. On -Site Stationary Noise Generation On -site stationary- source noise generated by the 24 new residential units would be similar to the noise generated by the existing uses and would be characterized by similar on -site stationary noise sources. However, the new residential complex and would be constructed at a lower density than the existing 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 83 93 I 3. Environmental Analysis 1 apartment complex and would eliminate the on -site recreation area, thereby reducing stationary- source ' noise levels. Because the new residential units would replace the existing residential uses, no significant increase in noise levels from operation of the 24 residential units would occur. , Noise Compatibility The proposed project is located off of small collector streets within an existing residential neighborhood. , Noise generated by traffic on the adjacent River Avenue or Seashore Drive is not substantial for units , facing these small collector streets; and therefore, exterior noise levels are anticipated to comply with the City of Newport Beach's noise compatibility criteria for new residential construction of 65 dBA CNEL However, a small portion of the project site is located within direct line -if -sight of Pacific Coast Highway ' (SR -1). According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (2005), SR -1 is projected to have volumes of 50,000 vehicles per day upon General Plan buildout. Traffic noise modeling of future General , Plan buildout traffic volumes was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model. Traffic noise modeling was conducted at the building exterior, approximately 180 feet from the ' centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, and took into account the approximately nine -foot tall masonry wall ' adjacent to the roadway. Traffic noise at the building facade closest to SR -1 is calculated at 59.1 dBA CNEL at the ground -floor units which is below the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise compatibility threshold for , residential uses (Appendix F). For interior noise environments associated with the proposed project, the State of California requires that , new construction achieve a noise environment of 45 dBA CNEL. Standard windows and doors in a warm- weather climate typically achieve a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with windows open and a minimum of 24 dBA reduction with windows closed (SAE 1971). Because traffic on River Avenue and Seashore Drive is not anticipated to have substantial noise levels and ground floor units facing SR -1 , would have exterior noise levels of 59 dBA CNEL (59 - 24 = 35 dBA CNEL), the interior noise environment is anticipated to comply with the California Building Code for standard building construction and no mitigation measures are necessary. Likewise, building facades with direct line -of -sight to SR -1, , which includes second - and third -story building facades facing the highway, would have exterior noise levels of 67.3 dBA CNEL because they are not shielded by the noise wall, and would also comply with the California Building Code interior noise limits (67 - 24 = 43 dBA CNEL). HVAC systems are proposed ' for all units within the project site. Therefore, standard building construction would achieve the interior noise requirements for new building construction in the state of California. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne ' noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve ' demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. The project site would not require pile driving, blasting, or other vibration- intensive activity. However, construction equipment used during project development would produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and asphalt paving activities. Because the project is a residential complex, no significant sources of vibration would be present during project operations. Vibration is typically sensed at nearby structures when objects within the structure generate noise from , the vibration, such as rattling windows or picture frames. Vibration is typically not perceptible in outdoor environments. , The project would be constructed in three development phases in order to stage construction activities. The primary haul route for material deliveries and material haul trucks would be on River Street A secondary construction access point would be located on Neptune Avenue. The staging areas for , Page 84 •The Planning Center February 2008 , 3. Environmental A construction activities would be located on the northwestern side of the property, away from the residential receptors. The nearest vibration - sensitive uses are residential structures approximately eight feet from where construction of the building pad of southernmost building would occur and four feet from the property line for two residential units constructed in Phases 1 and S. However, the majority of construction activities would occur farther away for demolition activities and construction of the other residential buildings. In addition, R is anticipated that construction activities would involve removal of the existing asphalt pavement to the property line. Table 15 lists the average and maximum levels vibration that would be experienced at the nearest vibration sensitive structures. The maximum vibration level is associated with the highest levels of vibration if the construction equipment was operating directly adjacent to the property line. Because the majority of the time construction activities would be spread throughout the project site, impacts are based on whether or not average vibration levels (i.e., vibration levels that would be experience by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) would exceed the FTA criterion. Table 15 Enuinment at Nearest Residences NA: Not Applicable. Notes. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level MB) using the reference of one microinch/second. 1 Determined based on use of lacldiammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feat. F Miodmum vibration levels based on proxlmn of the residential homes to the material had route on River Street Because vbrabon levels from loaded trucks are a brief pass -by event and am not sustained vibration levels, the FTA significance threshold for vibration annoyance is not applicable but is shown for informational purposes only. The FTA has established vibration levels for vibration - induced structural damage. For wood framed residential construction, the threshold is 0.20 inch per second for the PPV. Due to the scale of the proposed project and limited maneuverability on -site, it is assumed that construction activities associated with demolition of the existing structures would not require very large construction equipment such as scrapers or large bulldozers and therefore vibration levels would not cause structural damage. However, use of a jackhammer near the boundary of the site could generate levels of vibration that could be perceptible and are at the limits for minor architectural damage for wood - framed residential strictures (i.e., plaster cracks). To ensure that even minor architectural damage would not occur, alternative demolition methods would be required for removal of asphalt within eight feet of the residential units directly to the southeast of the project site. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of lvewport veaco -,rage 6l @3 Significance Exceeds Maximum Vibration Average Vibration Threshold Significance E f mant Levels dB Levels VdB d8 Threshold? Small bulldozer 68 f 44 80 80 No No Jackhammer' 89 65 NA NA NA Loaded tmcksz 86 Significance Exceeds Maximum RMS Average RMS Threshold Significance Equipment Veloci in/sec Velocity injsec d8 Threshold? Small bulldozer 0.0166 0.0003 02 0.2 No No Jackhammer' 0.1933 „ A,&A 0.0033 us 0.2 No NA: Not Applicable. Notes. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level MB) using the reference of one microinch/second. 1 Determined based on use of lacldiammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feat. F Miodmum vibration levels based on proxlmn of the residential homes to the material had route on River Street Because vbrabon levels from loaded trucks are a brief pass -by event and am not sustained vibration levels, the FTA significance threshold for vibration annoyance is not applicable but is shown for informational purposes only. The FTA has established vibration levels for vibration - induced structural damage. For wood framed residential construction, the threshold is 0.20 inch per second for the PPV. Due to the scale of the proposed project and limited maneuverability on -site, it is assumed that construction activities associated with demolition of the existing structures would not require very large construction equipment such as scrapers or large bulldozers and therefore vibration levels would not cause structural damage. However, use of a jackhammer near the boundary of the site could generate levels of vibration that could be perceptible and are at the limits for minor architectural damage for wood - framed residential strictures (i.e., plaster cracks). To ensure that even minor architectural damage would not occur, alternative demolition methods would be required for removal of asphalt within eight feet of the residential units directly to the southeast of the project site. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of lvewport veaco -,rage 6l @3 3. Environmental Analysis The FTA criterion for vibration - induced annoyance is 80 Vibration Velocity (VdB) for residential uses for infrequent events, such as construction activities. Construction of the project would generate average levels of vibration that would not exceed the FTA criteria for nuisance for residential uses nearest the project site. While vibration would be perceptible when construction is operating in close proximity to the property line, the majority of heavy construction activities would be operating at farther distances. In addition, heavy construction equipment would only be in operation for a short period of time during project- related grading activities. Consequently, no significant impacts would occur from typical construction activities. Mitigation Measure 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the.southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in response 3.11a, the project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at residential uses in the vicinity of the project due to stationary-source or mobile - sources noise generated by the 24 residential units. Impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the expected number of workers and trucks is small relative to the background traffic. The truck trips would be spread out throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes, and no mitigation measures are necessary. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on -site construction operations, and local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of on -site construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out 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 levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the proposed project (l1SEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the highest noise - producing pieces of equipment. Table 16 presents typical noise levels generated from project construction sites during various construction phases from the nearest noise- sensitive uses, which include the adjacent residences and the neighborhood park. L1 1 H 1 1 J 1 LJ LJ 11 [1 [1 Page 86 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 [] 1 1 11 L n 1 3. Environmental Analysis Table 16 Average Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Levels for Residential Building Construction dBA LJ Ground Clearing 75 Excavation/Grading 80 Foundation Construction 73 Building Construction 73 Finishing and Site Cleanup 80 Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, 1971 Construction staging areas would be located on the northwestern portions of the site, farther away from residential noise - sensitive receptors but adjacent to the tennis court area within the small neighborhood park. Due to the scale of the proposed project and limited maneuverability on -site, it is assumed that construction activities associated with demolition of the existing structures would not require very large construction equipment, such as scrapers or large bulldozers. In addition, construction of the project would take 18 months and noise generated by construction activities would cease once construction is completed. Average construction noise levels from typical construction equipment range from 73 to 80 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. Residential interior noise levels could be reduced by over 24 dBA from this value (SAE 1971). Furthermore, the project must abide by the most restrictive construction hours applied by the City of Newport Beach. According to the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, construction equipment shall not be operated weekdays between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, and Saturdays between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM, excluding federal holidays. Impacts are therefore less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The John Wayne Airport is the closest airport to the project site. However, the project is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, as shown on the John Wayne Airport 2006 Annual 60, 65, 70 and 75 CNEL Noise Contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur from exposure of persons to significant levels of aircraft noise as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact There are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur from exposure to airport noise as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 87 ,ti I 3. Environmental Analysis 1 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex in a residential neighborhood. Development of 24 single and duplex units would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. No growth impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves demolition of a 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 single - family and duplex units, a reduction of 30 units. The 2006 American Community Survey (Census 2007) estimates that there are 43,851 housing units the City of Newport Beach, with 5,462 vacant units. The total vacancy rate for the City is 12.5 percent -7.7 percent rental vacancy rate and 2.1 percent homeowner vacancy rate. Displacement of 30 multifamily rental units would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, since there are existing rental units to absorb the proposed displaced housing units. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves demolition of a 54 -unit apartment complex and would result in displacement of approximately 122 residents (based on average household size of 2.25). The recently approved General Plan would allow substantial numbers of new residential units to be constructed in areas where residential was not previously permitted and would commit the City to enforcing the requirements of its inclusionary housing program, which requires a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or payment of an in -lieu fee. The City's goal is that an average of 15 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low -, low-, and moderate- income households. In order to Implement this Housing Element policy, the City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and identifies the most appropriate use of in -lieu fee funds. The Task Force and staff continually investigate and research potential affordable housing opportunities. The project developer is required to comply with the California Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1, commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act. The Mello Act is a statewide law which seeks to preserve housing for persons and families with low and moderate incomes in Cal'rfornia's Coastal Zone. The Mello Act stipulates that the conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. However, it should be noted that the Mello Act contains exemptions whereby a project can be relieved of the replacement requirement If replacement is not feasible. Additionally, according to the Apartment Guide, a popular website and periodic publication that provides property specific rental information throughout country (http: / /www.apartmentguide.com), the current 1 D 11 1 D 1 F 1 Page 88 • The Planning Center Febmary 2008 1 I ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' rent for the existing apartments (Las Brisas Apartments) start at $1,650 for one bed and one bath unit and $2,200 for two bed and one bath unit. Another website, www.apartmentratings.com show rental ' prices in the City of Newport Beach: it identifies average rent for two -bed and two-bath unit as $2,137 in year 2007. While the presented information may not be 100 percent reliable, it provides snapshots of current rental market in Newport Beach. There are approximately 5,462 vacant units within the City, of which approximately 3,377 units are rental units. There are adequate vacant housing units in the City to accommodate the 122 residents displaced by the proposed project. Based on available rentals at comparable rates, the City's commitment to providing affordable housing units in the City, and project compliance with the Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1 as required, impacts would be less ' than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES ' Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable ' service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection 1 Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is served by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The Newport Beach Fire Department operates eight stations in the City of Newport Beach. t The fire department is divided into four divisions: Operations, Fire Prevention, Training, and Administrative. Each of the eight fire stations has one engine company, three have paramedic vans, and two have ladder trucks. Each engine or truck company has a staff of three persons per 24 -hour period: one captain, one engineer (driver), and one fire fighter, with the exception that on one engine the firefighter position is staffed with a paramedic firefighter. Each paramedic ambulance has a staff of two firefighter - paramedics per 24 -hour period. Station 2, the closest station to the project site, is located at 475 32ntl Street, approximately 1.2 driving miles east of the project site. Station 2 is equipped with one ' fire engine, one ladder truck, and one paramedic ambulance. The fire department's average response time to any area in the City is approximately five minutes. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units and the ' proposed project would decrease the on -site density. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the fire departments ability to serve the project site. Additionally, all development projects within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the most current adopted Uniform Fire Code and other City standards and ordinances. During the building permitting process, the Newport Beach Fire Department would review and approve development plans associated with the proposed project to ensure that they provided adequate access, traffic circulation, water, and ' hydrant systems to support fire department needs. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to have a significant impact on fire services and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection ' Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement services for the City of Newport Beach are provided by the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. As of November ' 2005, the NBPD employed a total of 280 personnel, including 148 swom officers. The NBPD is currently separated into three divisions (Support Services, Patrol/Traffic, and Detectives), all of which are overseen by the Office of the Chief of Police. 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 89 ffl E 3. Environmental Analysis 1 The proposed residential project would replace the existing 54 -unit apartment complex with 24 single ' and duplex units. Therefore, the proposed project would actually reduce the police service demand generated from the project site. In 2005, approximately 85,120 residents lived in the City with the police ' staffing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 population. Based on the 2006 population of 86,820 total population in the City, a reduction of units from 54 to 24 would not result in changes to the existing staffing ratio. The City's General Plan specifies the staffing goal of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' c) Schools Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in reduction of residential units from ' 54 to 24. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on school facilities. Additionally, California Educational Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to collect ' fees for the mitigation of new development projects. These fees are collected by the relevant school district prior to City issuance of building permits for new development. The project applicant would be required to pay developer fees to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to reduce any impacts to the school system. Government Code Section 65595 establishes the allowable school impact fee, which , may be assessed on commercial and residential development. Based on the current fee structure for residential developments, construction can be assessed per square foot. Payment of school impact fees is considered sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to schools that may occur. No mitigation 1 measures are necessary. d) Parks ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in Service Area 1 in the Recreation and Open Space Plan of the General Plan. Although the City's Recreation Element indicates that Service Area 1 is currently underserved by parkland, the proposed project would result in net decrease in dwelling units. ' Furthermore, there are eight parks in this service area and West Newport Park is the nearest park to the project site, located immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. Additionally, Sunset Ridge Park is proposed to be developed on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at Superior Avenue, ' approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast. According to the City's General Plan, the City has approximately 286 acres of developed parks and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreation acreage, for a total of 376.8 acres. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini -parks such as the Lower Bay Park (0.1 acre) to the 47.6 -acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. ' In addition to the West Newport Park immediately adjacent to the project site, the project's proximity to the beach would ensure that the proposed project is not underserved by recreational opportunities. The proposed project would also provide some private outdoor areas. The proposed project is not subject to provisions set forth in Chapter 19.52 Park Dedications and Fees of ' the Municipal Code since the project would not result in a net increase in dwelling units. The proposed project would not create additional demands for parks and adequate open space demands would be met through the existing and planned parks and through the beach, one of the City's greatest open space assets. Therefore, park impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are , necessary. e) Other public facilities ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and its surrounding area are developed with urban uses and with easily accessible existing public facilities. The proposed residential project would not result in ' Page 90 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 FJ F, L d I 1 1 1 1 F LJ C' i 0 I 3. Environmental Analysis substantial adverse impacts to any other public facilities. No significant impacts would result from the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 114 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed is to construct 24 residential units on a 1.49 - acre parcel currently developed with an apartment complex. The number of new users at existing neighborhood or regional parks resulting from the proposed project would not produce substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24. Although no recreational facilities have been proposed as part of the 24 -unit residential project, the recreational facilities demand would decrease compared to the existing uses. It is anticipated that existing recreational facilities within the City would be able to accommodate the increase in demand. The proposed project would have a less than significant physical effect on the environment and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.15 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC a) Cause an Increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system p.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project trip generation was calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7th edition, 2003), as shown in Table 17. The proposed project is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of trips estimated to be generated by the existing apartment use. The proposed project consists of 12 single - family units and 12 condoltownhouse (duplex) units; therefore, is anticipated to generate a total of 185 ADT. Since the project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that generates approximately 363 ADT, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease of 178 ADT and the impacts would be less than significant. A project that generates fewer than 300 ADT is not subject under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a project - specific traffic study is not warranted. No mitigation measures are necessary. ISearbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 91 88 3. Environmental Analysis r Table 17 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in a net reduction of 178 ADTs. The City of Newport Beach does not require the TPO analysis for projects that generate less than 300 ADTs. The proposed project would not cause the county congestion management agency's level of service standards to be exceeded. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an Increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project involves redevelopment of a 54 -unit apartment complex to 24 single and duplex residential units. The proposed project would result in a decrease in traffic levels and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to the project site, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site and the proposed project would not impact the air traffic pattern of this airport. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the project would be provided from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. There are no sharp turns or incompatible uses in the vicinity of the project site. A total of three driveways would access the project site, two from River Avenue and one from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would serve one single - family residential unit exclusively. The proposed project would not significantly change the existing on -site traffic pattern and since it would result in a net decrease in traffic volume, any hazards due to a design feature would be unlikely. The internal circulation system of the project provides proper access to individual units and guest parking with clear visibility. The project site access would be subject to approval by the City's fire and police departments for safety. No conflicts with the internal access system are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. I I 1 I I J F Ll I I CJ I Page 92 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I i3. Environmental Analysis Ie) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant impact. The proposed project consists solely of residential uses. The project site is already developed with higher density residential uses and implementation of the proposed project would not change the sewer quality. It would not include industrial uses and would not be subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No mitigation is required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant impact. Water and wastewater service to the project site are currently being ' provided by the City of Newport Beach. Water ' The project site is within the City of Newport Beach water service area. The City provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of its planning area. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWD), groundwater pumped from the Seatbore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beacb • Page 93 Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would have egress and ingress from two streets, River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. These access points and street widths would provide adequate emergency access into and out of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the UBC, Fire Code, and Newport Beach Fire and Police Department standards and requirements. For example, prior to final site plan approval for each phase of the project, the City of Newport Beach would coordinate with the fire and police departments to ensure that adequate circulation and access is provided within the traffic and circulation components of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed 24 units each include a two -car garage and 13 guest parking spaces, providing a total of 60 parking spaces. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.66.040, Parking Standards for Residential Districts, requires at least one parking space for each dwelling unit for ' residential districts. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a surplus of 36 spaces and would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 88 transportation. Public transportation is readily available in and around the project area. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ' a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant impact. The proposed project consists solely of residential uses. The project site is already developed with higher density residential uses and implementation of the proposed project would not change the sewer quality. It would not include industrial uses and would not be subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No mitigation is required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant impact. Water and wastewater service to the project site are currently being ' provided by the City of Newport Beach. Water ' The project site is within the City of Newport Beach water service area. The City provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of its planning area. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWD), groundwater pumped from the Seatbore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beacb • Page 93 3. Environmental Analysis 1 Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Water is delivered via existing transmission mains and distribution lines totaling over 210 miles within the City's service area. Transmission mains convey water to various sections of the distribution system and the distribution lines deliver water to local , areas. There is a water main along River Avenue serving the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. The City's imported surface water supply is treated at one of two treatment plants: (1) the MWD Diemer Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda; or (2) MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley. Treatment capacity at the Diemer Filtration Plant is approximately 520 million gallons per day (mgd), with existing average winter flows at approximately 140 mgd, increasing to approximately 375 mgd in the summer. j♦ Using the sewer generation factor of 370 gallons per day (gpd), and assuming water generation would be 110 percent of sewer generation, the proposed project is projected to generate the demand for approximately 9,768 gpd of water. The project site currently generates the demand for approximately 12,652 gpd (based on 110 percent of 213 gpd sewer generation rate for multifamily residential units). Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in demand of 2,884 gpd. The existing water infrastructure is currently serving the higher density development, so, no expansion of water infrastructure would be necessary. Wastewater Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.3 million people living in a 470 - square -mile area of central and northwest Orange County. The City of Newport Beach is in Revenue Area 5, the smallest service area for OCSD. The City represents 2.57 percent of OCSD's service area population and generates 4 percent of OCSD's total flow. The two sewage water treatment plants operated by the OSCD are Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. A majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, while flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar (73) Freeway are pumped to Plant No. 1. The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of , 174 mgd and treats an average of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd. Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively. Wastewater treated by the OCSD is discharged into the ocean through a 120 - inch- diameter ocean outfall pipe that extends five miles offshore to a discharge point 180 feet below the ocean surface. The treatment levels meet all current state and federal requirements. OCSD also reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. The project site currently generates approximately 11,502 gpd of wastewater based on the sewer generation factor for multifamily residential unit as identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 8,880 gpd, by using 370 gpd/du sewer generation factor for single - family residential unit. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a net decrease of 2,622 gpd. However, assuming that the existing residents relocate to other parts of the City boundary, the proposed project would generate additional demand on the overall sewer treatment capacity. , Page 94 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I I I F P 1 I 1 1 I 11 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis The proposed 24 units would generate a total of 8,880 gallons per day of wastewater, which would comprise approximately 0.005 percent of the OCSD's average treatment volume and approximately 0.003 percent of the total treatment capacity. With the contribution of such a small percentage of the capacity of OCSD's facilities, construction of the proposed project would not result in the construction or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently about 95 percent impervious and the proposed project involves design features that would reduce the on -site impervious coverage area to 45 percent. In addition, the proposed project would implement various BMP measures to detain stormwater on -site. Implementation of the proposed project would have beneficial impact compared to the existing use. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently connected to the City of Newport Beach water system, which supplies services to the existing buildings on the project site. The City provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of its planning area. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is used only for irrigation purposes and approximately 75 percent of the City's potable water is supplied by the Orange County Groundwater Basin and the remaining 25 percent of the potable water supply is from the imported sources. The project is not expected to require an unusual amount of water for proposed operations. Assuming 110 percent of the sewer generation factor of 370 gpd, the proposed project is projected to generate the demand for approximately 9,768 gpd. The project site currently generates the demand for approximately 12,652 gpd. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in demand of 2,884 gpd. During the building permitting process the fire flow requirements would be submitted and the capacity of the existing water distribution system to supply the peak flow rate will be checked. The proposed project would not require the procurement of additional water entitlement. No significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand In addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system. As discussed in Section 3.16 (b), the existing facilities are anticipated to have the capacity to accommodate ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 95 0 I 3. Environmental Analysis I the proposed project. The proposed project would not require expansion of any wastewater treatment facilities and therefore would have no physical impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. Q Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Orange County has three landfills that could receive waste generated from the proposed project. The Olinda Alpha Landfill, located in the City of Brea, is authorized to receive an annual average of 7,000 tons of waste per day (tpd) and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 8,000 tpd. The landfill opened in 1960 and is scheduled to close in 2013. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located in the City of Irvine, is currently authorized to receive an annual average of 7,015 tpd and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 8,500 tpd. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2024. The Prima Descheta Landfill, located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, is permitted to accept up to 4,000 tpd. This landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2040. The proposed project would not generate significant amounts of solid waste. The total household waste , disposal for the City of Newport Beach in 2005 was 33,478 tons per year, or approximately 21 percent of overall disposal. Based on the resident daily disposal factor of 2 Ibs per resident per day, the proposed project would generate 108 Ibs per day or 39,420 Ibs per year (19.71 tons). The solid waste generated by the proposed project would contribute approximately 0.06 percent of the total household waste disposal and even smaller percent in comparison to the City's overall disposal amount The increase in solid waste generated by the proposed project would be minimal and no additional capacity would be necessary. There is sufficient solid waste disposal capacity in the region to accommodate the expected solid waste generation by the proposed project. Project - related impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant. The proposed demolition of the existing structures would generate construction waste on a short-term basis. It is anticipated that these demolition /construction wastes would be taken to authorized landfills. Since hazardous materials are not accepted at county landfills, hazardous wastes, including abated asbestos containing materials and paints used during construction, would be disposed only at facilities permitted to receive them and in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would also comply with the City's established reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. Additionally, through the City's Development Impact Fee System, fees would be collected from the development of the proposed project to ensure that the project pays its fair share of future expansions of City solid waste collection facilities and equipment. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. I I I Page 96 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1 3. Environmental Analysis 1 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not support the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact any protected biological resources. Although the project site has been disturbed in the past and the potential for discovery of examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory is minimal, the potential for subsurface discovery remains and has been mitigated to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the respective issue areas of this study, the proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. Any potentially significant impact would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The project would have no cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. 93 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, air pollution, noise, heath and safety, traffic, and other issues. As discussed in the respective sections of this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, ' geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, which may cause adverse effects on human beings. However, feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effects on Ihuman beings. No further mitigation measures are necessary I H 1 ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach *Page 97 I 3. Environmental Analysis i This page intentionally left blank. I I L, I L_.! I 1 C I I Page 98 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' I 1 i 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 LEI 1 1 1 1 1 4. References 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noise Control. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971 December 31. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared for the USEPA. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy G -1. Retention or Removal of City Trees. Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG). 2007, March 28. Report for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). Mckenna et al. 2007, December 17. RE., Seashore Village, Orange County, California, Archaeological Records Check. Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2008, January 4. Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessment. Toss Schooler & Associates, Inc. 2007, May 3. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 42 WEB SITES Fire, Special Fire Protection Areas, Address Search & Map. http: // www.city.newport- beach.mus/FMD /. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Newport Beach. http: / /www.ciwmb.ca. gov/ Profiles /JurislJurProfilel . asp ?RG = C &JURID= 340&JUR= Newport+Be ach. Apartment Guide. California. Newport Beach. Las Brisas. http:// www. apanmentguide .conVPropertyOverview.aspx ?srch =lt 1 1 * *st_1 6* *propertycity_7 n a_Newport+Beach * *geo 20_33.6189_- 117. 9281_ 50** listingpricelow _9_0_- 1 * *listingid_2_77937 Apartment Ratings. Las Brisas Apartments. Pricing. http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA-Newport- Beach- Las - Brisas- Apartments - Pricing. html 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 99 I 4. References This page intentionally left blank. Page 100 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. List of Preparers JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services Elizabeth IQm . Associate Planner Tin Cheung Senior Environmental Scientist Nicole Vermillion Assistant Planner Cary Nakama Graphic Illustrator Seashore Village Initial Sandy City of Newport Beach • Page 101 ffl 5. List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank. I 1 IF r- I L r`i L i n L L 1 Page 102 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 0 1 I I I I I 11 [1 I 1 I 1 I I Appendices Appendix A. Air Quality Modeling Output Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach P.jCNB- i0.0EVSP.b Rei. �fVm*fSdx 55 22 qEE §§ � ]!! as ©k\\ §) ( ., §) �\k \ ® q! t) )� ! 2G � §} � }§ " !! / mm §! ]! q§ m!! §�E E ` A |t!« m §\ rte!«« ! ;;!0 /k cc ! 00 55 22 qEE §§ & -I ]!! as ©k\\ # ., !! ® q! 2§ q! " !! mm §! §! q§ m!! !! ` - m §\ ; ,. �7 ■e q! q| ! n | k k k � \k k' ® r 7 , / {� / k / «; }/ | \\ §\ k & -I tp� O N ty O Y C pl N N N r r g j n f0 S W� P y OO � OO lV Cl O OO OO O OO OO O � OO OO O O OO U O ykS000 mmS`eS GOO OO y' O � rOO O OO tltl�I Yf �j 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W O F V O O H N O � G M YJ pj r OO G m m z O O O C 0 0 0 O O O $ O {Oy G G G O O O G G G G O C C C O 00 $ $ O O G G O m m O O O G O O G C P O O O S W p O O O S S 9 00 S O O$ O$$ s O$ O OI O O G C q O C G G O j p � OO � OO C O O L OO O OO C �$m.o ...... .a88 �..8s ^a?a =s 88gsmsb8s88S c o o 0 ... ro m o c o ei ei ri o c c o o a c d o o c o d o c c c a o c o 0 0 o c N M o o O 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ o °o $$ °o °o °° o °o g828-R-.8888-8 , °o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d o 0 6 d o 0 0 o O o 0 0 o d c c o 0 0 o c o o c o 0 0 o c c m O® N S O S 8 8 S S ! A Y A v O z^ 8 m O S N e'- m g P m O O O O� O W N° N N OO w OO OO - G O OO OO OO P O O ! p N` C OO P OO OO O OO OO MI M ° M O O M M O W O O .. m O O ... 0 0 N N O N O O O IN O O E M A -2 Q j S O O O _ > N Y O $_g j P° q 1 Fi S P Q o c O 8 H :� oga c� ��o �ssa maga g� ossmasa�gs P g P g K ?g� "8H � � g o o` E E E a 3 U@ � � � � c 8 g -° ° ° g ° 0 g ggg o g ° 9 D g 5 E� m' p ,U F Fi F Fi Fi A -2 . m. p ;;8 O O m G O G O O C O O mm2RGa 0 o° °o°°°° o s so s g 9 0000aao ���oosoo 0 0 0 0 o c c o "000° ° o000 p No. °o °o Na SSS ti o 0 o d c c c 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 § r o s c 'e m� P. o 0 ein of rim u gssp°"r cir ag-s 3*° cL tDrc f- a60v�•- m m' n H f LL 0 0 A -3 0 O N N ry O b O O $ $ 0 0 m 0 OO C O O 0' C G m M o c d ci c o 0 0 0 0 m O p O O c d d c 0 0 °o °o 0 6 6 6 0 m m ry m o m o $ 2 P, $' ^i O Y C 0 0 C O O - C- OO QUO $$ O$ O O$ O p O O O$$ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO O O O OO O O p O O PI P$ m N o 0 0 0$$ 6 - 2 Y 2 v PoI Q y a a � g � rc rc o` ° o o � q E E E ELLy o O a E a m, 0 m a m m o � ss 9 a f � � IL IL LL LL IL m �m m 0 u o k E m O m ry U n a Vp ay CV 9 V m q OY ° ° g G FF S U P (j 5Sg §S a¢ rc' Ol S° p IRO i rc z° Z iw l�5 0 O N N ry O b O O $ $ 0 0 m 0 OO C O O 0' C G m M o c d ci c o 0 0 0 0 m O p O O c d d c 0 0 °o °o 0 6 6 6 0 m m ry m o m o $ 2 P, $' ^i O Y C 0 0 C O O - C- OO QUO $$ O$ O O$ O p O O O$$ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OO O O O OO O O p O O PI P$ m N o 0 0 0$$ 6 - 2 Y 2 v PoI Q y a a � g � rc rc o` ° o o � q E E E ELLy o O a E a m, 0 m a m m o � ss 9 a f � � IL IL LL LL IL m �m m 0 u o k E m 99!!! %°!§!! § § @! §!. 5!!!! ]§ |!!!5!!5!!! 55|!5§!§ B62 |S 4 � . a 5|25 ||! 55!2!#!! !! §!§ m!!!!!!!!|!§! §q§§!!!! ,! | || 35!!5 Zf;Rs w !]!3;!!|!!§ !!r! |!!2 !!!2§ ]5! §!!!5§ §!!5 7!52 CS ! \I!! !!`t §§ ®k/ ` ®�If -!| :2 |§ ` ■ «: 150 �k)� /k$( \\ 21 k§! ® ■§2 #!I!` aal�� A -s §f m § \! � 2! ! |!§ \! \ §! ! §!» !! ! 2! ! k \ k §em .,_ ) 9 k \ kkzg \ / {/ � / -- ! :�§ � ;■ ail av A -7 ®= 2 |!! f§3 7GE ;; / . ■,| ! :e§■ ! *f$ ! ! ■,7 !t !; ■!§!; ƒ! - &k§)k12 kf£k k !kk A -7 ge q2 §! ]/ cl e7 q2 N® \\ § g|2 §5 ° ■ �)§ Ia § ) \0 �� m 0 / k 7 . m (@(! k ) $ ) !|# f { ; | ) ! o§ . §)/2] N!` § ƒ? § ! ) § ! { k ) ,§ ! ;!!, :/ /2 §§ ) / § ; ; | � 2|2 !§ ge q2 §! ]/ cl e7 q2 N® \\ § g|2 §5 ° ■ �)§ Ia § ) \0 �� m 0 / k 7 . m (@(! k ) $ ) !|# f { ; | ) ! o§ . §)/2] N!` § ƒ? § ! ) § ! { k ) ,§ ! ;!!, :/ /2 §§ ) / § ; ; | � `N r° O� N � m 0 t°V O r N N E nJ M M O � q � 0 0� � •� W � 6I �° m py�� W m Y H N' O � OO OO O d p OO OO d d OO G C O 0' O $ 0 0 0 N ri d o a a d d d 6 d d d o 0 o d o 0 0 odd d o o d d d d 6 mmme°s.o 0 o °ma °ooi� m'OO 8`0°, o00 °p So o$mo NOB °o °o ro mm ° pnr 200 �bimo `o °O°"b' omm0000° °o °o r m a d d . d . d ' d d d d �i �iddd .'+M ddd ddd d d dd ddd dddd d dddd dd d ' 7"o q 8888 °0 8888 °o, °x, 888 o88S '0�' °0,$888 °0,888888 v� o d d d c o d c d d d o odd d o 0 o d d o d ..... d d o 0 0 33SEM °m949 . O �@p O ti rN N g� � O OO d O O O q O d 0 b J� O m o S 0 O y6 ..moo .mv S... °n o$m.. o G G . . O O B O O m� N O N O O . 0' OO P N G ffi ' W rc rc 8 8 8 Le • o a 3 o S OO e$� on g2F a��e �s8€gg .g. ski $€'35m ��$' »3 .�.L��� El$a'S$ omo p N m LL 8 D w C IL LL m P 0 Ul O] V1 $ 0 0 0 m 6 8 6 6 8 GI U �p a E O D E LL £ m' £ m' F F: F A -9 $o $ n o Q o $ $ d o d o c 6 $�oassso o °oo mom$eoso gg...888 eaoo °000 s.ssss888 O G G o j O 66 A -10 8 8 _ b.22 °e sa°oemms 9� NO !!11 O< Fmm p � .S O fl ��Pm $ v }X� W p S C Y ��vm4 p yyyz m p93 4 o yey P °! m S g y O mu s° SL$�' mg^ $ ocm o mrn m 5 m m m a v rc 0 9@ mZ4 E m (g s mr° P'y9 Kt>rcp $ ° nt= SiO�n A -10 r G . C OO O O° o G p o O C O pOO v$ 8$ O O$ O O Yf i O O° G O OO OO ° °O O O OO O MW dd O C O C C O O C Op G O O O OO OO O h 21 &1 N -- �ggqqj����$ � �s��s�as sssaso gsqRV w SSSgq@ O z O p �O ° m mgp Me <'+c rinoric o .=cc �g o02 ggg� P mg 1 92Pr�H°g w 1 $ Q$ 8 sg�g.§ 3 8g gSSC oa$8 Aga a pp O>3 (�J UEud '& iPQF 8 y g 4 g u u m m m m S IL 6r ^LLeugm 0� Fm 0 N� dLL'R'LL'LL'LL'2 V F� y=LL j=. 1 ' A -11 O$ N s e3 s M ® G R W 0 > t1 N N N r G . C OO O O° o G p o O C O pOO v$ 8$ O O$ O O Yf i O O° G O OO OO ° °O O O OO O MW dd O C O C C O O C Op G O O O OO OO O h 21 &1 N -- �ggqqj����$ � �s��s�as sssaso gsqRV w SSSgq@ O z O p �O ° m mgp Me <'+c rinoric o .=cc �g o02 ggg� P mg 1 92Pr�H°g w 1 $ Q$ 8 sg�g.§ 3 8g gSSC oa$8 Aga a pp O>3 (�J UEud '& iPQF 8 y g 4 g u u m m m m S IL 6r ^LLeugm 0� Fm 0 N� dLL'R'LL'LL'LL'2 V F� y=LL j=. 1 ' A -11 ry0ry % 0 0 Iry� O N m W 0 �O0 m �ry n O O a O1 1N0�1 aqr q N 0 fp < O Q O, 0 1�i B S Oj O O O O O NN g O S 8 8 8 m O 0 O d OO S O O 8 O OO d OO OO �-I - OO � O d OO OO d O O G G C OO d 0' 6 G 0 0 N O O OJ O O O O 8 0 N O O O 8 8 4> ® N O O O O O G d O' OO OO "'lll O �- OO C O OO OO O OO d d d OO OO d OO d p d d p d d d d d d O d d o ei d d d d d d o G d m� a mo' ° $ °o ao�m`do °o, °p °o ��2a o °o,$ °p d a o O O ''-' 8 OO OO O d O G O 0O 0O o o d d o d d 6 0 0 0 6 OJ O$$ O O O e S O O O O O O 8 S O O$ O d OO O O O OI OO OO pO OO d OO O O OO O O' OO d d OO OO OO OO d OO $$$$ p pl O S$ O O e$ p 8$$$ O p 8 p O O 8 8 d d pp OO C OI d p' OO OO O O d O d d OO OO O d O O d O d OO f0 O o n N 8 O Q m® m p n< O< 0 m V P la f 8 f N O G G ®`m,R$m m'81'i1 ''Fro%,8 °a8S 8E%8 °888 6 O m 6 d 6 d 'm - d d m d o d d p d d a d d d O p O a 100 O O O N O O 8 e l0 O$ y OJ O m� !'1 p O W m O <N® $s o m s 8 @ y r= t- �O'3$H3�3 535 A -12 W R 81A a7 a A -13 & -14 §§ ` ff! ) ;;■ |! ° !!3 | 2 ! •, ■�2# f � ! ®| ffkklE |!!! ■!!f r -}! / 051. !k!; . _ � ,� . , & -14 A -I5 Jf §§ 2! q2 2 / §§ ]§ ]! ] 2 22 e f[ , S2 S] ;§ .T§ N§ ! {§_ \ 25 q§ 2§ *# ( ! 7$ {25 § 3 mR ul \ j LL �/ k( \ k ) 0 $ )\t)a w ® co /«ar± k 55 §) \§) z z k i #fay) ; . » e 7 ƒ p k IL Z 4)(D m ? R _ ! § E � . _ )] | {, zr#m, , . E § .. a» § ! i ! 2 ! Io \ {70 0 - , e - ■�- ! \§ z 0 :jx \ \ $ ] § $ {k §� z7 2\ /A§ 2!!jk w o r , w A -I5 IL �( 8§ )� )� §7 S7 Ci 40 \ #§ E �09 R ƒ { \{ {f\m afu )) /§ } \\ \\ \ \a ,w MMEA kRp ) \k ),m 2/ !2 ![ \� f� V o m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `m O1 tO ° m O m O O h O j O O G G 6 0 E m N 0 m N Ifl m O O O O O � J U o r of o � m 0 m m m W o 0 0 0 0 o W o o z c o E W W W W W A m N N m E U U w Y O E � ^ E 0 U � A r W m W O �- (J Z m E 0 2 LL m d O X 0 0 a rc m a a 00 a a o S v g m Y S 2 0 0 d 7 J J J J J S O 7 `2 id r m ° W 0 G C1 t0 t7 E O x d a J c T 9 a m im r n 'w E � a A -17 §( new. _ §§ §| §2 §§§ 3 §§ §7 §3 ] §§ (k 55j C4 ®ul q5 d| 25 ^$ \ _ > 7) ]) ]§ R §) kd5f 7 0 of ©� : I® R j ( .. k]!3 §C5 LL / i% 2 { f \& G) k § k § \\ k - Q).0-2 _ § { $ § $ z k C) })) § f C) f§ 7 f ))#2» \\\/ I1 / \ w S S / } / /\\ /k /\{ 0 , . new. a O O N r o0 °o mV (p M a� N m 0 U r m Q of " M 0 ° N Q U Z m (!) N 0 Q w OI a W m c a 3 Z0 w r w W 0 W 2 b W C E C °W W m d N N .Y W � � � O V A 1} F N s s m >W W �- 0 0 0 w A -19 Fm > m d 0 m m F- o m $ F m m M M O N S ° c ° � N d Z K 2 F 3 r p� C C_ � W W N Ta^ p_' m n L F W m Ol Q V Q O IT W � E m aWC. J —y v N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O N O 0 6 6 6 6 g 6 Q N N m O O O _b U a n ai o m • £� o m m m W o 0 0 0 0 o w o o Z S• 1� O m N U) C C C O O CJ G C � g w w W m A N N N m N O V U 92 w v o 5 of vi O r r 7 r O V o r w 0 0 0 --- 0 0 N T lV t•) O �- O O O O O G 0 0 N W O r y W $ a 0 z° r 0 x y L IA N G N C E a � 0 a n CL 7 � n A N 2 F r n x It x N t pp x 0 x O Si 4J '2 Y n m o W C'i lV 1� O N r r N 11 N O x A -20 m v d ffi � � U a J W • • c ~ m F F I / � }/ \ {� \ a )dd( § 2 } 02 M= II!] I = l77, ; *;tea $ co � 27§ & a / 7 I r ea /)) 2' 7` � f ƒ \ _ $$fak \ �! § \2� aEz#« . e / wo i�co k / - J® �o 0 ® m mw,C4 mm ®�® § 4 S� / e)IL J C4 cl $ « ® � ®k \ ■§») E 2 a a ± k § k)ffi\ ' u \\ \ _ )) 'n /R k / \2 Rt {a !££m!E k >02 a =i 4) - o eam&I0< _ LL I A -2! Acres bb A�TLp nrv., m?..Yhrn"'�'•• re e >�:�', a,.,(s,.. i.,z� '�n �t,r r, Source 100 200 Receptor SRA No. Acres Distance 189 244 382 source Receptor North Coastal Orange Distance 288 408 NOx 191 194 CO 266 395 PM10 333 500 PM2.5 1 5870 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 1 158 164 189 244 382 2 226 226 244 288 408 191 194 216 266 395 CO 1 333 500 929 1785 5870 2 481 692 1247 2216 6405 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 1 3 19 34 50 2 2 5 21 36 52 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 2 3 7 20 1 2 3 6 19 h Coastal Orange County 1.49 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 191 194 216 266 395 CO 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 2 3 6 19 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No- Acres 18 1 18 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 A -22 1 `o ac$ K o $ ac m d Q 6 Z m a O a e a a G w C C O G O O EQ �Us m�3 O N E � @r o v a O L N W a m Q O 2 °1 m nEa V(32g $�Zaa m mp Y n 0 N N N N Q m N m��moo Q W NNW W O o a c m w m 6 5 � � E - m 0 y� Q c u c 2L C—) a C w t g o ¢. 9 0 l- . t E E EaE 77 V O (M a�OQJd f a mu�i�m n rocV rm�n U fN'V Q�NN On W m W a i°. -N�mmm N�mrm �NOm� n�mm-n-O perm A -23 y� Q C V U a p m c $mm p N a a � as U r 0 z A -23 Appendices Appendix B. Archaeological Records Search Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach rACNB- 10.oauseAh B.�»W n .ftD,! rsA. I Appendices i This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center P.-WMB- I0.OE1/SWab Revisor D afi" IS.dr i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 February 2008 1 McKenna et al. History /Archaeology/Historic Architecture/Paleontology Jeanette A. McKenna, MA Registered Prof. Archaeologist Owner and Principal Investigator December 17, 2007 THE PLANNING CENTER Attn: JoAnn Hadfield 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Seashore Village, Orange County, California. Ms. Hadfield: In response to your request, McKenna et al. completed a standard archaeological records check through the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center. We also completed a limited amount of research through the Orange County Assessor's Office and confirmed the date of construction for the existing complex at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach (APN 424471 -03). Assessor Data: The County Assessor data identified the existing building as a multi- family complex on an irregularly shaped parcel of 63,597 square feet. The initial construction was completed in 1972, rendering the building modern and of no historical significance. A formal evaluation of the structure is not required, given the relative age of only 35 years. Supporting documentation is attached. Archaeological Records Check: The proposed project area is located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, and can be seen on the attached maps and aerial photograph. The property is located between River Avenue Seashore Drive and west of Neptune Avenue. The Assessor data shows the property as consisting of 1.46 acres. 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(WeartWink.net .(562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 TAB (562) 7547712 CELL ' B -1 -2- The archaeological records check was designed to address the project area and a one mile radius around the project area. Because of the proximity of the property to the Pacific Ocean frontage, the research emphasized areas to the north, east, and south of the project area. Research identified a minimum of twenty-six projects within one mile, including the following: Archaeological Associates (1978) Archaeological Planning Collaborative (1979) Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (1981 and 1983) Billat (2007) Bissell (2000) Boxt and Barretta (1992) Demcak (2002) Drover and Smith (1999 and 2000) Langenwalter and Brock (1985) Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (1981) Leonard (1975a and b) LSA (1983a and b) Padon (2001) Padon and Breece (1989) Pettus (1991) Romani (1982a and b) Scientific Resource Surveys (1978a -c) Scientific Resource Surveys (1979) Steele (1982) None of these studies involved the current project area and none are adjacent to the project area. The nearest studies are those of Pettus (1991), involving a portion of the Pacific Ocean to the southwest of the project area, and Drover and Smith (1999), addressing the Newport Banning Ranch. Smaller surveys have been completed within one quarter mile, but all to the north/northeast of Pacific Coast Highway. As a result of the studies cited above, a minimum of eleven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the project area, including: CA- ORA -59 thru 72 (Pilling 1949; Nelson n.d.) CA- ORA -60 (Nelson n.d.) CA -ORA -357 (Elliott 1973) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckenagiearthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 7547712 CELL Im -3- CA -ORA -148 (McKinney 1964; Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -843 (Murray 1979; Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -844 (Murray 1979; Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1599 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1600 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1601 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1602 (Smith et al. 1998) CA ORA -1610 (Smith et al. 1998) All of these sites are located north of Pacific Coast Highway and none will be impacted by any project within the current study area. The nearest sites are CA- ORA -148, and CA -ORA -1599 thru CA-0RA -1602, all of which cluster north of Pacific Coast Highway and approximately one quarter mule north of the current project area. Each of these sites was identified as being of prehistoric origin. These sites are all small and none are expected to extent into or even near the current study area. The project area and surrounding properties were developed without the benefit of an archaeological investigation and, therefore, no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be present. Nonetheless, the Newport Beach coastal area is generally considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources, especially in areas between the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay. Therefore, despite earlier disturbances, the project area should be considered moderately sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. A review of historic maps (USGS Santa Ana Quadrangles of 1896 and 1901, rev. 1945) illustrated the presence of the Southern Pacific Smeltzer Branch Railroad alignment passing relatively close to the project area (ca. 1901- 1945), but long gone by the time the 1965 USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle was prepared. Evid- ence of the historic railroad alignment may be identified within or near the current project area and, therefore, the area should be considered moderately sensitive for historic archaeological resources. Summary: The Seashore Village project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and the existing structure dates to 1972, rendering it a modern resource. Research showed that there is a moderate level of sensitivity for both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Although the property is currently deve- loped, evidence of prehistoric use of the area may still be present in a buried con- text. To insure accurate and adequate identification of any such resources, McKenna et al. would recommend that any project that involves the demolition of the existing structure include an archaeological monitoring program. r6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena0earth ink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL 1 B -3 Demolition of the existing building does not need to be monitored. however, once demolition is completed to ground level, an archaeological monitor should be on- site to oversee any ground disturbing activities that may yield evidence of buried resources. if evidence of such resources is identified, a Native American monitor or Gabrielino (or Juaneno) descent should be added to the overall monitoring pro- gram. The monitoring program should include provisions for handling any human remains that are determined to be of prehistoric or Native American origin, including notification of the Orange County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission, Sacramento. The extent and duration of the monitoring program_ can be determined in con- sultation between the project proponent, the City of Newport Beach, the archaeo- logical consultant, and the local Native American representative (to be determined at a later date). This document was prepared by Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator for McKenna et al. Any questions should be directed to the author at (562) 696 -3852 or (562) 693 -1305. Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator Date 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(aearddinLnet (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL =1 -5- REFERENCES Archaeological Associates 1978 A Compilation of Archaeological, Historical, and Paleontological Data for the City of Costa Mesa. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California.-(0-299) Archaeological Planning Collaborative 1979 Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey - Superior Avenue Realignment Route. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -442) Archaeological Resource Management Corporation 1983 Archaeological resources Survey of the Avon Street Project. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -688) 1981 Archaeological Resource Assessment for Three Parcels in Newport Beach, CA. General Plan Amendment 81 -2. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -893) ' Billat, Lorna 2007 FCC Form 620 (Section 106) Submittal: LA -2841B - New Tower. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3397) . Bissell, Ronald M. 2000 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the East Addition Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Newport Beach, Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2228) i6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena6ilearthliak net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LA6 (562) 754 -7712 CELL B -5 i n. Boxt, Matthew A. and Christine M. Barrette 1992 Archaeological and Paleontological Surveys for the Proposed Costa Mesa/Newport Brach Pipe Line Route, Orange County, California. On Me, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1360) Demcak, Carol R. 2002 Report of Archaeological Resources Assessment for Placentia Avenue Reconstruction Project, City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3007) Drover, Christopher E. and David M. Smith 1999 A Cultural Resources Inventory for the Newport Banning Ranch, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2129) 2000 Research Design Outline for an Archaeological Test Evaluation of Five Sites on the Newport Banning Ranch Property, Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3077) Elliott, T. 1973 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -357. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. Langenwalter, Paul E. and James Brock 1985 Phase 11 Archaeological Studies — Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -801) Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. 1981 Historic Property Survey — Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project, Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -666 and 0 -2137) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckenaPearthlink.net (562) 696-3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL Tw- II 7 .Leonard, N. Nelson 1975 Description and evaluation of Cultural Resources within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Santa An River Project. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -270) 1975 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Route Alternates between the Michelson Treatment Plant and Plants on the Santa Ana River, Orange county, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1016) LSA 1983 Archaeology at the Superior Avenue Site. On fife, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. (0 -657) McKinney, (unk.) 1964 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA ORA -357. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. Murray, J.R. 1979 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -843. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1979 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -0RA -844. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. Nelson, N.C. n.d. Description of Ora -59. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (p /o 0- 666) n.d. Description of Ora -60. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (p /o O- 666) 1983 Archaeology at 471 Old Newport Boulevard Site. On file, California State 1 University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. (0 -658) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 9001 -3724 email = 7mckena(c�earthlinknet (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 7547712 CELL B -7 Padon, Beth 2001 Results of a Phase 1 Archaeological Resources Study at the Newport Technology Center Project, Orange County. On File, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2231) Padon, Beth and William H. Breece 1989 The Results of an Archaeological Reconnaissance on the Proposed Hoag Hospital Expansion Project Site, Newport Beach, Orange County, Califor- nia On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1907) Pettus, Roy 1991 Marine Cultural Resources Survey within the Lower Santa Ana River Project Near Shore Disposal Area. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, Califor- nia. (0 -1119) Pilling, Arnold R. 1949 CA ORA 59 thru CA- ORA -72 Summary. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (p /o 0 -666) Romani, John 1982 Archaeological Survey Report for the ORA 55 Corridor (PM 0.0/T4.22) 07207 - 492201. On File, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -643 and 0- 1905) 1982 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Route ORA 1 Widening Project (PM 19.80 - PM 25.89) 07210- 499850. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -644) Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978 Archaeological Test Report on TT No. 10272, Site ORA 357, Located in the Newport Mesa Area of the County of Orange, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -242) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = i ckena(alearthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754-7712 CELL W 1978 Archaeological Survey Report on Tentative Tract No. 10537 Located in the Unincorporated Area of the County of Orange, in the Vicinity of Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0+313) 1979 Archaeological Survey Rpeoprt on Tract 10849 (Spinnaker Cove II) Located in the Costa Mesa Area of the County of Orange. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -466) Smith, D.M., W. McManus, J. Paniaqua, H. Mills, D. Reeves, C. Reeves, and D. Juday 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -148 (Update). On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -843 (Update). On file, ' California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA 844 (Update). On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA 1599. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1600. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA ORA -1601. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1602. On Me, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1610. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(&earthlink net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4(159 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754-7712 CELL B -9 w -10- I J Steele, L.D. , 1982 Historic Property Survey: 07- Ora -55 (PM 0.0/T4.22), Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach, Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2129) L I I I I I I F I 1 u F 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = irndcena(pearthlink net (562) 6963852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL B -10 1 Appendices Appendix C. Geotechnical Investigation Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beath P:lCNB- lO.0E1i51Pa6 ReHeiv DraJ`Wefi fSArc I Appendices r This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center P. {CNB- MOEVS�Pvb Rro IS.d. 1 1 1 i 1 r 1 i r r I r r February 2008 r Julie | C-1 Selsmiovaluow. Soisaft'Zone 4 Seise t; Zma Padwg) 0.40 Son piou I)fpe. Ntwar-Sw= Foo-fl., 4-3 1.6 1 375-C,Montr Vista Avvapc ' Costa Mess, CA 92621 -'(949) 642-9369 • FAX (9*9) 642-1290 C-2 KIM "WINI 1"#dv*4ld # t ai �o g"I'larg tie L_jlrf7QdE =1612raMli ,wja, WR*40144I A-0. 1*44, Jg"JLj,6­6;Jjl 6W, - u ra L7, I i ml � U. upm_ 9 til spill ljl�! III! _Ilgi! III ­ 1 1111111 - iI to! owim 10) C-3 a. (941) 64249309 -,FAX (.",,9 ) 642-1291) GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 24 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION June 13, 2007 Project No. TS474.1 In response to your request and in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and the City of Newport Beach building requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject site located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed residential construction_ We were also requested to evaluate the potential for on -site geotechnical hazards. This report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and recommendations. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: • Review of readily available published and unpublished reports; • Geologic reconnaissance and mapping; • Excavation and sampling of six (6) exploratory borings to total depths of up to 10 feet below existing grade (b.g.); • Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory borings; • Engineering and geologic analysis including liquefaction analysis and seismicity coefficients in accordance with the 2001 CBC; C -4 I 11 I ' Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a semi - rectangular shaped lot located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). For the purpose of clarity in this report, the lot is bound by West Newport Park and tennis ' courts to the west, by River Avenue to the north, by Seashore Drive to the south, and by multi- tenant single family dwellings to the east (see Figure 1). I 1 1 I_J L L; I I The subject property consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the site. Currently, the lot is occupied by a three -story structure, 54 -unit Apartment Complex known as the "Las Brisas Apartments ". Exterior improvements include asphalt parking areas, brick and wood fences and a common area swimming pool. The existing structures and common areas are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed re- development shall include the construction of a new multi- tenant residential complex including three -story single family dwellings and duplexes with attached garages. At this date, a total of 24 units are planned (12 stand- alone structures and 6 duplex structures). The proposed structures shall consist of slab -on -grade buildings with perimeter continuous footings. The proposed building layouts are shown in Figure 3, attached. We assume that the proposed buildings will consist of wood -frame and masonry block construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2500 and 1800 pounds per square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly, with maximum regrades consisting of approximately 2 to 3 feet in the building areas. SCHOOLERMmi lane - $515 Rim Are., Newport Bob, CA Projeet No. T3474.1 Soils Report June 13, 7007 C -5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of six (6) exploratory borings (B -1 through B-6) to a maximum depth of 10 feet below grade (b.g.). Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing. Geologic logs of the soil borings are included in Appendix A. The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologistfrom ourfrrm who obtained soil samples for geotechnical laboratory analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Plot Plan. Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 2 % inch diameter, 1 -inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed: * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216 * Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557 -02) * Direct Shear (ASTM D3080 -72) * Sulfate Content (CA 417) * Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 422 -72) SCHOOLER/ MI I mIe . 5515 Rim Ave., Newpoft 6ch, CA Project No. TS474.1 Soils Report June 13, 2007 C -6 I I I 'I I LJ LI I I E I I i i I I I I I F {{t I k i a f: :C 0 tl ak -9.. -Rfe # P.• � f a" r ♦ - a n f e 0 9 e ® a s a "' e� m ; F QC)I+.i E3f81it hied - i515;Rivdr AvC.;: Nmapod Ba., GA "Pptijtgk?4 75476. Xum 13,2W7 6 BE : `. • k ' I� e ���4 . a r ♦ - a n f e 0 9 e ® a s a "' e� m ; F QC)I+.i E3f81it hied - i515;Rivdr AvC.;: Nmapod Ba., GA "Pptijtgk?4 75476. Xum 13,2W7 6 BE b & I 1 M4woomtered in ow test iliidgp; � ufto`iv !rTb , as, ia#fc : Fu1 M . n 0 9 � • t ! �D - Y6 t ! W � 4 i C 9 A 9 9 i2 Cti�:. • :,• M i- t a • / %tOdW(xd #tudf twoYm, gl = I 9 /' 'r p t •!' • pp Im ! ' v I�a "r • 9 Y!i " °b M 9 9 • 9 Y 4 9! i / I tz 4 r•R -! 9' 9• 9 i r' '! 9 N 14RA11011 r;&gco ro U 10 S�H09LERlQt�t tgae - SSI3.AVe„ Np9Yptf[! Sch.,.EA Piujcef;Na.'FS42A: f 5iii�� kepwt Jung #3, 30D7 0 C -10 I Geotechnical Parameters ' compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557). , A copy of the Grading and Foundation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction. ' Geotechnical Parameters ' The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure (also, see "Liquefaction" section, above): ' Foundation Design Structures on property compacted fill may be supported by conventional, , continuous or isolated spread footings. Footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep by 15 inches wide for the two proposed two -story structures. At this depth, all proposed structures may be designed for an allowable bearing value of , 1800 and 2500 psf (fordead- plus -live load) for continuous wall and isolated spread footings, respectively. These values may be increased by one -third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings ' should be reinforced with No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). These shall be considered minimum requirements and incorporated into the , Foundation Plans submitted by the Structural Engineer. Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Table 19 -A-4 of the ' 2001 CBC. Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess negligible sulfate exposure (14 ppm, or 0.0014 %). Test Results are presented in Appendix B. , New Garage Grade Beams A grade beam, reinforced continuously with the garage footings, should be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the garage footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. The 6-inch thick garage slab should have a positive , separation from the stem walls. The grade beam /slab edge should consist of a clean, cold joint. ' Settlement Utilizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the majority of any post - grading settlement will occur during construction activities. We SCHOOLER/Ofant Lane - 5515 River Ave., Newport 13th.. CA 75474.1 ' Project No. Soils Report J=c 13, 2007 10 ' C-12 1 I estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the order of ' 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed % inch in 30 feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for properly designed and constructed foundations. ' Lateral Load Resistance ' Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 may be assumed. ' Slabs- on-grade (' Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The slabs shall be doweled into the footings using No. 4 bars at ' 24 inches on center. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. Interior slabs shall be underiain by 2 inches of sand over a 10 mil visqueen moisture barrier, with all laps sealed, over 4 inches of very low or non- expansive materials. The site soils consist of granular beach sands and are considered non - expansive. Exterior slabs shall conform to the requirements for interior slabs except that the ' moisture barrier may be omitted and the slab thickness may be reduced to 4 inches and reinforced with welded wire mesh placed at mid- one -third height. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water /cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack- sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Retaining Wall Design The following equivalent fluid pressures may be used in the design of site retaining walls assuming a free draining (clean sand or gravel) material is utilized as backfill. Active Pressures 40 PCF At -Rest Pressures 60 PCF Passive Pressures 300 PCF Coefficient of Friction 0.35 SCFIOOLER/Cr t Lane - $515 Rim Ave., Newport B&, CA Project No. TS474.1 JumRepo Ju rt ne 13, 2007 11 ' C -13 The active earth pressure value provided may be used for cantilevered retaining walls. Restrained retaining walls such as basement walls, that not free to rotate at top, should be designed using the at -rest earth pressures value. Depending on whether the wall is restrained (rigid) or unrestrained (free to deflect), an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to 50 or 33 percent, respectively, of the anticipated maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of the wall should be used in design. The retaining walls shall be provided with water proofing in accordance with the architects recommendations and be free draining. Back drains and weepholes shall be installed to collect and divert migrating groundwater. As a minimum, the wall may be drained by placing a 4 -inch diameter pipe perforated (faced down) PVC Schedule 40 pipe or approved equivalent, located behind the base of the wall. The pipe shall be covered by 314 inch crushed rock at a rate of not less than 2 sq. ft. per linear ft. of pipe surrounded in turn by geofabric such as Supac 4NP or equivalent. All wall backfill shall be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D- 1557 -78. Wall back drains shall outlet separately and not be combined with area drains. This office shall be contacted to provide additional recommendations if actual conditions are different than those assumed above. During construction, drainage devices shall be inspected by a representative of EGA Consultants. A/C Pavement Subbase Asphaltic concrete (AC) and Class II rock base should conform to, and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. Pavement sections must be based on 'R' -Value tests using appropriate traffic indices or comply with Section 12.5 contained in the Orange County Grading Manual. We assume that Class 11 base with a minimum R -value of 78 will be used. MINIMUM DESIGN SECTIONS LOCATION DESIGN ASPHALTIC CLASS 11 TRAFFIC INDEX CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE Car Traffic, 4.05.0 3.5" 4.0" Parking Areas Heavy 5.0 -6.0 3.5" 6.0" Truck Traffic Aisles Trash 5.0 -6.0 6.0" 4.0" Pads I (Concrete) SCHOOL61110rmn Lm e .5515 River Am. Newport BdL. CA Project No. TS474.1 Soils Report Jose 13, 2007 12 C -14 L II ' The minimum section of 6 inches concrete over 6 inches Class 11 Base Material applies to the site approaches. If off -site (surrounding roadways) work is anticipated, the Minimum Design Section shall conform with either the City or Caltrans specifications, depending on jurisdiction. Prior to placing pavement sections, the subbase soil should have a relative compaction of at least 90 percent, based on ASTM: D 1557. We also recommend that the base course be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). If pavement areas are planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that the amount of irrigation be kept to a minimum to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on pavement subgrade. Continuous sections of rigid concrete pavement should be constructed in an approximately 12 foot or less grid system. All longitudinal or transverse control joints should be constructed by saw - cutting, hand forming, or placing a pre - molded filler such as zip strips. Expansion joints should be used to isolate fixed objects abutting within the pavement area. Joints should run continuously and extend through integral curbs and thickened edges. We recommend that joint layout be adjusted to coincide with the comer of objects and structures. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should ' be avoided adjacent to the structures. Recommended minimum gradient is 2 percent for unpaved areas and one percent for concrete /paved areas. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area drains should be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes. PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on site pre - grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. ' C -15 SCHOOLERKirma Lank - 5515 River Ave., Newport Bch., CA Project No. TS474.1 Soils Report June 13,2007 13 ' C -15 LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance Is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with the providing of services described herein. Data, interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. Sg IGGLER/Grant Lane - $515 River Ave., Newport Dch., CA Project No. TS474.1 Soils Report June 13.2007 14 C -16 REFERENCES 1. "USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute quadrangle, Newport Beach, California Quadrangle," dated 1965, Photorevised 1981. 2. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. 3. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California,° by Roger W. Reensfelder, dated 1974. 4. "Earthquake Hazards Associated with Faults in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, Los Angeles County, California, Including Faults in the Santa Monica - Raymond, Verdugo -Eagle Rock, and Benedict Canyon Fault Zones, DMG Open -file Report 79 -16," published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1979. 5. Maps of Known Active Fault Near - Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. 6. "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work: Seismological Research Letters," Volume 68, No. 1, by Boore, Joyner, and Fumal, dated 1997. 5515 Riva Aw, Ncwport Odd, CA 15 C -17 SCHOOLER/Orant Lanc Projcet No. TS474.1 Soils Report ' lunc 13,2007 5515 Riva Aw, Ncwport Odd, CA 15 C -17 II� e 1 1 i! t t� t .Y L 1 d 9-1 , I 1 j t 1 f 0 `4 'i* V4 IY t p {�1 i 1 _Q �J 1 5i �s x1 r5 t C -19 YaeNLki�$s4 ?St2 O o N �D f a 0 o z Wig Q LL Q O mf z �( U � v8 J a� a L 0 � T L a ui W Z h, O o N �D f a 0 o z Wig Q LL R ar Q _o �a e s m Q O mf z �( U v8 J a� L 0 T L ui W Z R ar Q _o �a e s m I 1 I Fa I C I 1 1 I I I [I H I 0 1 Appendix D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Seashore Village Initial Study P:WNB- 1O.OEVSW.b R.*. D,.fi W, IS.A, Appendices City of Newport Beach I Appendices , This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center P.IcNH- I0.OEVskP.6 Re m.lx Jw"fills.d. 1 February 2008 1 r� s� i Shaw Project N& 12946&,91 January 4, 20& II II Prepared for: Todd Schooler & Associates 301 E. 17th Street, Suite 204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Prepared by: aQ. Rmawwtofm 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92612 i D -1 I 1 D -2 1 PIIASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT Las B sas ApWmn& 5515 Rifer Avenue Newport Beach, Cagrornk Shaw Project Na 189968.01 January 4, 8098 Prepared for: Todd Schooler & Associates 30I E. 17th Street, Suite 204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Preparer: I declare that, to the beat of my professional knowledge and beliet; that I meet the definition of or have otherwise prepared this document under the direct supervision of an individual that meds the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR 312, and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. ' For: Greg Enos Environmental Technician Reviewer: I declare that, to the best of my professsional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312, and 1 have the specific quali fications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. 1 have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 Ramil G_ Reyes, RE Project Manager ' D -2 1 Phase |Environnonw Site msseearnerit Report � 5510 River *�Newport Beach, CA ' � ��� vw^^^^^ w, mx ~�w�,"wwv ii IDExecutive Summary .............. ~ ............... ~ ............................... . ......... . ................ . .......... .~~ ................ 1^1 211 Introduction .................... ... ~~~~ .... .... ~~~~~~~...~.�~ .................. ~~~~_~~~ ......... 24 21 Detoi|wd Scope nf Services ................. .......................... ............... .................................................... 2^1 22 Significant Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Limitations and Exceptions ....................................... .................... .......... ................. ............. ~~~.2-2 3.0 Property Description .~~ ................. ~..~~~~..~~...~~_.~..~~.~.~~�.~~~......~_~3-1 3.1 Property Location ., ............... ........................................................... ................................................ 3-1 3.2 Property Description .-~~....~....-^_......~ . 33 Environmental Setting of Property ... .................................... .^ ................................................. .... 3-2 4.0 User Provided Information . ......... ��~������ ..... ............................................... 4-1 5.0 Records Review .............. � .......... .............. �~~�__...~~�~�~~�~~.�~.��~..��~���.~.��5� 51 Standard Environmental Records Sources ......................................................................................... 5'1 52 History ...................~~^_~...._..~..~.~...~~~..~..~.~...~~.5^1 591 Summary of Property History .............................................................. ............................... 5-1 522 Aerial Photographs .................... ....................... ............... ................................................. 5-2 523 City Directories ........................................ - ................ --......... ............................ ............ 5-2 524 Building Department Records .................................... .......................................................... 5-3 525 Historical Fine Insurance Maps ................................................................ . ........................ .S4 526 Other Historical Sources ................................................................ ...................................... 54 527 Previous Environmental Reports ......... ................................................................................ 54 6.0 Site 81 Methodology ~.~.~~~...~~~.~....~.~~..~....-.',...~~~~~...~..-~^.~^~~~6' 02 Site Reconnaissance Observations ....... ......................................................................................... -8'1 62-1 Interior Observations ............... ............................................................... ........................... O'1 622 Exterior Observations ........................................................................................... ............... G'2 623 Underground Storage Tanks ............................... . ................ .. ....................... .................. 6-3 62.4 Aboveground Storage Tanks ........................................................................................ ....... G^3 71 Interview with Owmor/[�vno/o ............................ .................... .... y'i 72 Local Government Officials ............................................................................................ ............. ...... T-2 72�1 Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Heuth. .......................................... .7-2 722 California Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................................ ................ 7`2 723 City of Newport Beach Zoning Department '~_..~.^ _._`-~-._......^.7-2 724 Newport Beach Fire Department ............................... .......................................................... 7-2 8.0 Other Environmental Considerations ...... - ... .~ ..... . ..... . ......... ..... ...... . ..... -,..-~ ....................... _.8-1 9.0 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions ................................................ .......................... 9-1 Q-3 Phase I Environartental Site Assessment Report iii 5515 Rim Ave.. Newport Beach. CA January 4,2008 11.0 Opinions......_............_........._ .............................................................. ...... . ................... . .......... ... . .. Appendices A. Qualifications of Environmental Professionals B. Figures C. Photographs D. Environmental Regulatory Agency Database Report E. Historical Sources F. Statement of Limitations G. Photocopies of Selected Environmental Records I r7 L I I I I D-4 I Phase 1 FswmnmentA Site Assessment Repot 5515 RirmAm. NOM M Beads CA Acronyms and Abbreviations iv January 4, 20D8 I J I D -5 AST Aboveground Storage Tank L AUL Activity and Use Limitation bgs Below Ground Surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CERCLIS -NFRAP CERCLIS- No Further Remedial Action Planned CFR Code of Federal Regulations CORRACTS Corrective Action Site CSM DOT Certified Survey Map U.S. Department of Transportation ERNS Emergency Response Notification System EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment LQG Large Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned NPL National Priority List NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service REC Recognized Environmental Condition 'RCRA RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System CORRACTS RCRIS- Corrective Action SCS Soil Conservation Service Shaw Shaw Environmental, Inc. SHWS State Hazardous Waste Site SQG Small Quantity Generator SWFlLF Solid Waste Facility/Landfill Facility TSDF Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility USDA United States Department of Agriculture USGS United States Geologic Survey UST Underground Storage Tank I J I D -5 f'hwc 1 Ei"imumnW1 Site fwc: incr•1 Rcpon 5515 FSiwf Ave., tde'rryat Heath. CA 1.0 Executive Summary 1 -1 {� Jaraary 4, 208 V1 Shaw Enviromaenial, Lic, (Shaw) is pleasud to present this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Pliase i ESA) prepared For Todd Schnoler ..c Associates (1SA). Cited below is au overview of the lnoject, including a su nmlary of our significant fndi ngs= Las Brisas Apailmcnis 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, Cal ifomia (Subject Properly) Pareul No. 424- 471 -03 (Orangu Counry Iax Assessor's Office) Todd Schooler & Associates l ' -`f fix+ •h_' `�`- "� ' '- The subject property is a ea ndidate site for acquisition and redevelopment. "171e purpose of the ESA is to ` identify, to the oxicut feasible, nxugnixed f cnvirorancntal conditions in eonnali on with the propeity. The t"r) "recognized environmental _ . conditinns," ac deft tied by American Socioty for - Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2005), means the "presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances of petroleum products on a property under conditions Thai indicate an existing release, a past - release, r a material thfcat of a release of any hazardous eubstancc or petroleum products iutu strueiures on tits property or i11fo the groundwater, ground, nr surface water of the property -- December 12, 2007 January 4, 2008 December 14, 2007 '11w Subjout Property, reported to be approximately 119 ABMs of land -.� toc ail ed at 1515 River AVCWIle in the City of Newport Beach, is developed with an appmximstOv 64,88'5square foot three -story, 54- - unit apartment complex srltictilre. II lc [m jority of the general area or the Subj cct Propc rty is comprised of l�sidential pro pertwus with the ex cept inn o(a oily park located west and northwest, k h e interior consists of eight (8) studios, Thirty - Iwo (32) one- bedr'oofn units, and fourteen (i4) two- bedrOOM anit,, and also inc lodes an oft Ice, - mailroom, laundry room, jan ito rs room, mai ntcnancc room, A31d D -6 Phase I En%rmnm id 5ile Jk S . MOM keyort 55.15 River qve „Newport Beach, CA 1 -2 Januxy a, 2Cd8 exercise ro otn. The exterior consists of a fenced swi mmi nS pool, carports and asphalt -paced parking and delve access if=, U ilderground utilities consisting of cable, electrical, and gas, water meter, Power pn1.es, sta nxl drllin, ceali hl (10n sha its, and fim hydrant were noted along the 1100hcr11 and southcm botmdariu of the Subject Property. Wood fencing ryas uoteel along Zhu suulhunt and uastem bowularies. Chain link fencing was noted along the western Boundary. 54 -unit apartment complex Pfior to 1. 967 Vacant tlndcvclopul land 1968-1971 Vacant lot 1972 — present Apartment complex This assessment has revealed no evidence of historical rtcoenixcd environmental conditions in connection with She Subject Property. -� .3Mu 'f This assessment has revealed no r._vjde. . at"i_orrcnt rcco¢nizcd environmental conditions in connection with the Subjcct Property- D-7 Phase 1 Emi'romneotal S49 Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA January 4, 2008 I • Based on a review of an Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Report conducted by Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG) dated Match 28, 2007, ACM was detected in 17 of the 44 samples analyzed from the building located on the Subject Property. Shaw found no evidence of testing for lead -based paint (LBP) on the Subject Property. Since redevelopment of the Subject Property is planned, demolition of the buildings should he accomplished in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may require that a lead -based paint survey be performed prior to demolition. In addition, abatement of all ACM detected within structure should be accomplished by a registered, licensed, and certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to any demolition activities. WIN The results of the environmental assessment of the Subject Property have not revealed the presence 7any recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. I i 11 1 1 D -8 I if id 1� Phacc � Paivirsanmenlal Situ A:SUxsnant Re?pr[ �. 5555 Rivor Ave., Nextuxt 6cadt, CA I DI L I� .7 h.. IL � I I II,'I 2.0 Introduction 2 -1 Januay 4, 2006 Tile obi ectivc of this Phase I ESA is Io identi ry. In the extent feasib lc pursuant in th e.pt'ocu os out[ined in the Scope of Work,. recogni7.exl unvironrneutal conditions, as defined Uy ASTM E 1527 -05. None None None T. i i I _ w e Y Greg linos 7 a + Ramil ['s. Reyes R,5sum& of fie l;n vironruental Profo.wonals performing the work dcwribcd in this report am included in Appendix A- 2.1 Detailed Scope of Services The scope of services was Ib prepare a Phase I GSA in accordance with the standards established by the Amcricair Society for Testiug and Materials (A. "-JM) for Pllase I I:I'virOmnental Site Assessments of cnniettemml real estate (ASTM Desigriat ion R 1527 -05), and Lu vironmcntal Prntection Agency. (EPA) 40 CFR Part 312, Standards and Pfaeticcs For A11 Appropriate Inquiry (AA IjI Final Rule, Noveniber 1, 2005. ]'he project included t[ru following five tasks: Review of historical iuformation, ioe[uding aerial photographs, topographic nuips, previous environmental assessiwnts, and 7otligg information, Review of QLVIionmen tot eta tabus es and files or in£nmtation obtained fi on1 fe&,ral, state, or Inca regulatory agencies. Interviews with ovnterNoperators, site wrtfaets, or managers of the site. Vis ua€ inspectiou. of the pmperfy, which incfudcd photographs of the si tc and noting adjacent property uses and ounditinns. Preparation oFrepoA_ 1 ❑ -9 Phase I Envimnmental Site Asseasrnent Report 5515 RNer Ave., Newport Beach, CA 2.2 Significant Assumptions The following assumptions have been made: I 2_2 January 4, 2fb8 • Conditions observed during the site reconnaissance are reasonably representative of conditions at other times. • Interview information is truthfttl and reliable. • Information provided by the public records database vendor is accurate. • Historical property use evidenced by historical records remained substantially unchanged during periods for which no records are available. 2.3 Limitations and Exceptions Report Limitations are presented in Appendix F of this report. D -10 I FIMs. 1 Cnoi mmi,IU Eft Assessrrt Z Ro ", 55 k5 'r. wf AI NNTM 9ea:h, CA 3.0 Property Description t 3.1 t] fl 11 Property Location 3.1 January d. 2at(1a Las Brisae Apartments 5515 Ai wr Avenue, Newport Beach, California (Subject Property) Ytuc:cl No. 424 -471 -03 (01233ge County Tax Assessor's OffifC) Figure I in Appendix A preserts tc Properly Location Map showing he location of the Property and the general vi6lity. 1 3.2 Property Description L' L it ii `. ,I J I 1 5 lllc Subject Property n doveloped with an approxi mateiy 64,835 square foot ibrce story, 54 -unit apartlnent complex structure. The majority o£tIke generdl area ofthe Subject 1'mperty is W co acprised of res identi at properties with the exception of a city park located west and nor[hwe%t. The interior consists ur eight (S) _ studios, thirty -two (32) ouc- bedroom units, and Fourteen (14) two- bedroom units, and also uieludcs an office ; maiimom, laundry room, janitor's room, maintenance ronnt, and exeroise room. The ..,a •. _ exterior consists of a fenced swimming pool, carports and asphalt- - paved parking, and drive aceew areas. Underground utilities _ consisting of cable, clectri cal, and gas, wath.r meter, power poles, s tumi drain, venti hi Lion shafts, and fire hydrant were rioted along Y the northern and southern boundaries of the Subject Property- . _ Wood Fencing was nulcd along, the southern and eastern boundaries- Chain Ii uk fencing was noted along the western botncdary- Appmximately 1.44 acres 47% 54 -unit apartment cajupleX 1 1) -11 Phase I EcArrnmental SWe AssessmeO Rep it 5515 River Are.. Nexporl Beach. CA 3-2 Janusry 6, 2llD8 n_::: S cuclus ro7rd. AO •r r _ r• m8 The Subject Pfoperiy is developed with an approximately 54,885 - square foot three-story 54 -unit apartment complex and associrrlwl _ facilities constn reted of wood flaming on a cement slab foundation. f __ - �• D` _ - The remainder of the Properly consists of a swi auni ng pool, _ - carports, and asphalt -paved parking and drive access areas" Undergrotmcl utilities arc prL=nt oasite. _ The Subject Property is boonded by Seashore Drive to the south, - - residential properties to [lie east, West Newport Park to the west, and - River Avoznie to the ilolth- 11firnary access to the Subject Propwly can be gained off of a driveway along River Aveurie, :r . mod'- e'nrn . co er•.hes, consi sling of sand to a depth of G inches; underlain by ooarsc sand to a deptlt of ' r _ .iliver Averioe followed by residential - - area of the Sahjeot Property is Iisred as "nl3ACHES "- - - u Seashore Drive to Rowed by rwidurdiai properties and fact fie Ocean Residential m� W'cs[ Newport Park 9L' Figuru 2 in Appendix D presents a not- to-scale site plan of the Subject Property. Property photographs ere. prmided in Appendix C. 3.3 Environmental Setting of Property o _ - a The Subject Property's elevation. is approximately 12 feet above [beat sea level according to the United States Gcologicai Surveys (USGS) "33 h 17 -PS Newport Bitaeh, California" Iopogruphie quad angle (19R 1), which provides coverage of the Pnipefry- The Subject Pfnpetty and surrounding area has a generally flat Eopography; howvwca, the r6cn'nee i lopographie rnapy also indicates that rho tnliography in the regional area slopes towards the gcrrcraI wcxt- oirlhwes[. u ' The Subject Property is underlain by a thin inantic oImmdual soils atWor engineered fill - The sltal €ow soil layer is underlain by Quatcrnary -age terrace - marine deposits which arc described as clean bead Bands- Regionally, the _ - Subject Property is located within die western boundary of the Coastal Plain of Change County, Accordi rte to the UDR Geocheck report, which provides infom ion worn the U.S" Department of Agricultural's (USDA) Soil Consrxvation Service (SCS), the soil in the area of the Subject Property liar, a" svid" soil surface texture. Speoifical ly, the soil profile in the atea of rho Subject Property is identified as . consi sling of sand to a depth of G inches; underlain by ooarsc sand to a deptlt of 60 inches- The sand and coarse sand arc generally made up cotvsc: grained soils, r _ sands, c]cnn sands, and pcwrly y3adui satrds. 11te soil conlporieltt name for the - - area of the Sahjeot Property is Iisred as "nl3ACHES "- D -12 N*n IL Ni=rranNF Sits Assersinont Depart 5515 Rwr Ave tirwpxt Beads• CA 3 -3 January -0,2005 Unless otherwise stated, groundwater Sfadient was estimated based on Property and regional topography and surface Features such as streams, lakes, and wetlands. Sources of this intorma lion inc lud c: a United Stated Geologic St) rvcy (USGS) Topographic Map, 33117 -E8 Newport (;each, Cal iforoLi, 1981 EDR Radius Map with OcoClheckO, hiquiry Number: 2t199923.2s, December 12, 2007 i listed Slates 1) Mai luhenf of Ag7iculturc Snit Ca tservatiou Service D -13 The hydrologic group of the sniI conyposition itr the area of.the Subject Property is identified as "Class D ", which has very slow infillratie:c rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or axe shallow to an itupervion3 Layer. The soil drainage class is Iislcd as "poorly drained ", which indicates that the soils may _ : a ll ac•e a sawrated zone, a layer of low conductivity, or seepage with the depth to water table being less than one toot" Additionally, the sail does uuxf [ho • requirements for a hydric soil and the eorrosion.potcntial is listed as high" Tire Pacific Orean lies approximately 118 -mile south of the Subject Property. Groundwater flaw is generally directed Iowards the ocean. Surface water bodies such as rivers, lakes, trod streams can locally influence groundwater flow direction in. tie arut, - - D' . �raatuf (e • .i'n. Rased on a review of a Gin technical Investigation Report conducted by EGA ' n Consultants dated June 13, 2007, the depth to groundwater was measured at , depth of appmximately six to cighl lcctbdow grotmd surface (bgs)" T - - The groundwater flow direction at the Sobjcet Property is interpreted to be directed towards the west- southwest, corisistent with the regional topographic surface gradient as gruhmdwa ter flow direction often follows surficial topography" However; local gradient could also be influcneed by any nearby _ production wells and/or localized topogrVidc features" The actual groundwater flow direction niay vary,. and cannot be dcicrmincd without an actual avbsurfacc r investigation" There arc no slate- registered or. Federal USGS wells located on the Subject f'ioperty or in its inuncdiate vicinity" - a _ ,ma t According to the EDK overview map, which obtains its information from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FLMA), the Subject Property lies •s '"�' withlu a 500 -year flood zone" T1115 does not pose a co ncenl to the Subject Properly bur should be noted during £olive mdcvelopment activities. ti = Evaluation of radon eimss ions is beyond the scope of an ASTM 1527 -05 Phase I ESA. However, accordiog to the VDR Radius Map Report, the LTA- designated i - Radon Zone for Orange County, Cali fomia, is Zone 3, which means it has an = indoor average radon levul < 2 piouCurics per liter (pCi1L.)" The EPA recommended action level for radon is 4 0 pCi/L. Therefore, the Subjat -� Property dots not appear to be in an area of elevated radon levels" Unless otherwise stated, groundwater Sfadient was estimated based on Property and regional topography and surface Features such as streams, lakes, and wetlands. Sources of this intorma lion inc lud c: a United Stated Geologic St) rvcy (USGS) Topographic Map, 33117 -E8 Newport (;each, Cal iforoLi, 1981 EDR Radius Map with OcoClheckO, hiquiry Number: 2t199923.2s, December 12, 2007 i listed Slates 1) Mai luhenf of Ag7iculturc Snit Ca tservatiou Service D -13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach, CA a08 Ja,warY A. 2008 • California Division of Mines and Geology • Geotechnical Investigation Report, 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, EGA Consultants LS.-C, June 13,2007 D -14 C Phase 1 E rry mwwial. rile Assessrnent licpa. rt 5515 Rives Ave.. Nexpart 60ach, CA r40 User Provided Information 4 -1 January 4, M App radix G coolaiiis copies of selected ery ironmental records. D -15 No title records were provided to Shaw for review; however, according to - Orange County Tax Assessor informatiolz and information cotltaincd within the EDR's "Envirorintenta I lJon Report" reviewed for -the Subject property, f is ourrent owner tar parce 1424-4 71-03 is "SF Pa:lfie Propertia% Inc'". =t Titlu to the Property w,ts received &oin Santa Fc Pacific Realty Corp. 'Ihe ..9 •. deed was dated December 22, 1984 and was recorded on April 19, 1993 - [Document No.: 93 -02 5648J). Property information is included in Appendix G. Information reviewed as part of this invcsugati on and as Provided by the .f User did not reveal evidence of any such lien. A copy of the Envirotunental • a.: _ Lien Search Report as provided by FOR is included in Appeudix G. cry ty • it us t tnformatinn revic.wud as part of this investigation and as provided by the •.3 _ IJser did not reveal evidence of any activity or use limitations, such as deed restri aims, engineering controls or 1119htitiouai controls that Rave been Plttecd on the Properly or that slave been Cited or teeordcd in a registry. _ . s `• ..' .- No properly plans pmvidcd by User; properly identified as - apartments- by User User provided the following previous reports: y o Crenteclnueal Investigation Report conducted by EGA Consultants (FGA) dated AMC 13, 2007 - > Asbestos Containing- Materials.iteporl conducted by _ _ Environments€ Monitoring Group (PMG) dated March 28, 2007 .� .. The review of these reports revealed no currcnf recopti Zed cuvironmejital conditirms associated with the Subject Properly as it relates to a phase i USA, Nos rialitr•.d knGwJed a reguding the Sub cet Property has been a communicated to Shaw. Shaw discovered no valuation reduction for environmental issues regarding the Subj cut Property. App radix G coolaiiis copies of selected ery ironmental records. D -15 Phase I Envkonmeatai Site Assessment Repot 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 5.0 Records Review 3.1 Standard Environmental Records Sources Jmuary 4.2008 The regulatory agency database was obtained from Environmental Data Resources (EDR). A complete copy of the database report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D. Research into environmental regulatory agency database listings was performed by Environmental Data Resources (EDR). The purpose of the review was to identify reported environmental issues for the Property and other properties in the vicinity. The definition of the databases searched and the associated search distances from the Property are identified in the regulatory agency database search report. Shaw reviews the results of the database search report to note reported release sites in the vicinity of the Property that were considered to have a potential to have adversely impacted the Property (Le., are known to have or are expected to result in recognized environmental conditions). Reported release sites identified in the regulatory agency database search report were evaluated with respect to the nature and extent of a given release, the distance of the reported release site from the Property, the stratigraphy of soils, the expected sail permeability, and the topographic position of a reported release site with respect to known or expected local and/or regional groundwater flow direction. Generally, reported release sites located within '/. -mile upgradient or '/. -mile cross - gradient or adjacent downgradient are considered to have a potential to have impacted the Property_ Sites that were listed in the database search report, but not identified as a release site, and sites that were listed as being "closed" were not considered to have a potential to have impacted the Property. The Subject Property was not identified in any of the databases searched by EDR. Additionally, based on the above criteria, none of the listed surrounding sites in the database report represents a potential recognized environmental condition to the Subject Property due to their regulatory status and /or presumed cross to down gradient position. 3.2 History Historical documents (i.e., aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, topographic maps, city directories), reviewed for this report are included in Appendix E and were provided by EDR- 3.2.1 Summary of Properly History D-16 i 1 I I II I 1 I I F I I 1 I i I I I I I 11 I I I I I Phase I Emdronnmtal Site Assessment Report 5-2 5515 RiM AVe.. Newport Beach. CA January 4.2M 5.2.2 Aeriai Photographs Historical aerial photographs of the Subject Property and surrounding area were obtained from EDR. The Photographs were reviewed for indications of previous uses of the Subject Property and surrounding area_ No Potential environmental concerns were noted in the research of historical aerial photographs. 1927 1" =500' The Subject Property appears to be vacant undeveloped land. The majority of the vicinity is also undeveloped. Pacific Coast Highway appears to the north and the Pacific Ocean is present to the south. 1938 i" =555' No significant changes from previous photograph with the exception of new residential development to the south along the coastline and farther east. 1947 i"' -666' No significant changes from previous photograph - 1953 1'=555' No significant changes from previous photograph with the exception of an increase in residential development to the south along the coastline and northwest and farther east. 1968 1=480' The Subject Property appears as a vacant loL A significant increase in residential development and road improvements is noted farther northwest, west, south, and east 1977 1 "=666' The Subject Property appears with the existing apartment building. Residential development surrounds the Subject Property with the exception of a vacant parcel to the adjacent west. New residential and commercial properties are noted to the farther northwest. 1990 1 '�--666' The Subject Property and surrounding areas appear the same as the previous photograph with the exception of the adjacent property to the west which is now occupied by the existing park and tennis courts - 1994 I" =666' No significant changes from previous photograph. 2002 i " =666' No significant changes from previous photograph- 513 City Directories Shaw reviewed information for the Subject Property and surrounding properties from various city directory sources that EDR provided for 1920 through 2002. The city directory search was performed based on the address for the Subject Property (5515 River Avenue). The review also searched for adjoiningisurrounding properties at multiple Ascent addresses. The Subject Property was not listed until 1975 when multiple residential listings were identified. No potential environmental concerns were noted in the research of city directory information. x� r e� r ` c �` �i °� , , s a y�- z D -17 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport seadk CA I Ja ary4,2008 , 1946 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1950 Subject Property. Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Macoil Corp. Oil Producers (5800 Coast Highway) 1955 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1966 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1975 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Armstrong Petroleum Corp, General Crude Oil Company (5800 W. Coast Highway), Davidson Realty (5801 W. Coast Highway), Banner Carpets and Drapes (5708 Seashore Drive), Barton A. Kubela DDS (5316 River Avenue), Gibson Building & Construction (55 16 River Avenue) 1980 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Armstrong Petroleum Inc. (5800 W. Coast Highway), Jacco Photography (5301 Seashore Drive) 1986 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1991 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1995 Subject Property: Residential listings (55 15 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Bodles Glass Service (5722 W. Coast Highway), Show Time Limousine (5208 Seashore Drive), Bullard Realty Inc. (5300 Seashore Drive), Lazarra's Salon Extraordinaire (5303 Seashore Drive), 2002 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Lincoln Brokerage (5501 Seashore Drive), 5.24 Building Department Records Review of Building Department Records was not necessary to evaluate potential historical threats to the Subject Property or Property use. Nevertheless, a search of available information on the Subject Property from the City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development revealed several permits associated with electrical, plumbing, fire alarms inspections, building repair, non - building repair, and re- roofing purposes. No open cases, open permits, or code enforcement violations for the Subject Property were found. According to the permits on record at the City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development, the building located at the Subject Property (5515 River Avenue) was constructed in approximately 1972. MM Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Reach, CA 5.25 Historical Fire Insurance Maps 5-4 January 4, 2008 Historical fire insurance (Sanborn'[n maps of the Subject Property and surrounding area were researched, but were found to be unavailable. There is no coverage for the Subject Property or the surrounding areas, 5.26 Other Historical Sources A review of historical topographic maps of the Subject Property and surrounding area dated 1901, 1902, 1951, 1965, 1972 and 1981, which were obtained from EDP, revealed that the Subject Property is shown at an elevation of approximately 12 feet above mean sea level. The Subject Property was not clearly depicted on the 1901 and 1902 traps as the majority of the area appears undeveloped The map from 1951 shows no development on the Subject Property with residential development located along the coastline and further east, southeast, and north. An oil field with numerous oil and gas wells is depicted farther north- northwest of the Subject Property across Pacific Coast Highway. The maps from 1965, 1972, and 1981 show that the area of the Subject Property is developed although no structures are depicted on the Subject Property. The vicinity is characterized by a mixture residential and commercial development with new road improvements noted A sewage disposal plant was noted farther west - northwest. There were no other sources of historical information reviewed during this assessment. 517 Previous Environmental Reports Shaw reviewed an Asbestos Containing- Materials Report conducted by EMG dated March 28, 2007. The report findings and conclusions are presented as follows: • The asbestos containing- materials (ACM) that were discovered are found to be in good condition and do not appear to pose an exposures hazard at this time. However, if future damage owns, action must be taken as recommended. • The ACM listed in the "Table of ACM" shall be moved and disposed of prior to any demolition work in the building. All removal, disposal and handling of these asbestos containing- materials shall be in accordance with Federal, State and Local agency ordinances, laws and regulations. The disposal of the ACM less than one - percent is designated as general construction waste. Shaw reviewed a Geotechnical Investigation for the Subject Property conducted by EGA dated June 13, 2007. The report findings and conclusions are presented as follows: Based on the geotechnical study of the Subject Property, review of available reports and literature and experience, it was EGA's opinion that the proposed construction at the Site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appears to be no significaut geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for construction of the proposed multi- tenant residential development- D -19 FIa c I Envimo - fat S410 Ass6urrhnt'RerA 5515 River Aw_ WrkraA 83 ach, CA 6.0 Site Reconnaissance G -1 dWU@fy A. 2,908 The objective of the Site rcconnaissattce was to obtaitr information indicating 113c pn:sence of reco;niMl environmental couditiuns in connection wit] t the Pmpuiy" U Methodology Shaw utilvai the following mcthodology to vh"oen'e the Property, as applicable -.. Traverse tl tc onto Properly bouadvy Traverse t3nuseet5 across the Pmperiy Traverse the periphery of all structures oa the Property n Visually assess accessiblo interior commo0 areas; optxarions, maintenance, aeld repair areas; utility areas; and a representative sample of occupant spaces 6.2 Site Reconnaissance Observations 5,2:9 Interior pbswYatlons Shaw noted the following intetor observations during the 3 econnaissanec of the Subject Property! ❑ -20 - Y' Electric — Southera California Edison a " y' g City of Newport Beach M City of Newpnrt Beach SCtntlle3n California Edison r Approximately five - gallon container of gasoline for landscapo equipment; - approximately fifteen- gallon container of paint; two-gallon container of _ maratic acid; two - gallon container of chlorine; five quart containers of motor ni f: aeid various slue containers of mui ti- purpose cleaners and several spiny paints were observed in maintenance rp(1eft. - lltcsc materials were observed to _ be properly stored and are nal cons idcrcd a RFC to the Properly. rd Alone observed Ea scd on a review of the ACM Report conducted by EMG dined March 28, 2007, ACM was detected ut 17 of the 44 samples analyzed from the - building located on the Subject Property. p ]like to the age of the building onsi to (reportedly constructed in 1972), there is : a potential that lead -based paint was aced. du ring construction. I A. GenLral dash ' 11 - None observed ❑ -20 I {� phase I bnwonmcnlal Site n�essricnt Report 6-2 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA dwrvary 4. 2008 c: 11 IiJVI 0 I HV U II 1, LI Pt U 0 L -7 L_i 0 J I. F �I •L'ealwww,r a /arbcaus- c'unrurning nrnrcrraOs end [cad =6nsed pnini w'e bcywrd +he scope of an ]:YIM r) 2Y -V! Iu I t'a'R. 6.2.2 Exterior Observations Shaw noted the £ollowi og exterior oiucrva boos during the rtN•orrunissatloe of the Suhj ect Pmpeny: oces`F " 3ir_ = Note observed n uin n.. . r"e No sumps or drywell s" A floor drain was observed in the liirndry room. No staining was obsen•ed in its vicinity- 06s._ No odors detected 4n. a an 'J) Lpo; "�ston None observed P IaFC��. None obscrvod " - Dnlms containing sewer cleaner was observed in ihejanitorial mom and drums containi ug water sealer and paints was observecl in maintenance room. These - materials were observed to he properly stored and are not considered a REC to - the property". "c i Lilevatar presecrI ousiic. L•Icvatar math located iu maiateltance room nn first floor (]tydro�lectric powered )" No concerns identified as it is well- - maintained" •L'ealwww,r a /arbcaus- c'unrurning nrnrcrraOs end [cad =6nsed pnini w'e bcywrd +he scope of an ]:YIM r) 2Y -V! Iu I t'a'R. 6.2.2 Exterior Observations Shaw noted the £ollowi og exterior oiucrva boos during the rtN•orrunissatloe of the Suhj ect Pmpeny: D -2l drone observed aF s None observed p: General trash r S� - Nonc observed . a "s ter NonL obscrvwl None observed - No smogs or drywe[is were observed, ho%ever; one storm drain was obsvrvW along the western houndary and one storm drain was observed along the _ - northern boundary- One drain was alvu observed in tire sw immiito pool area and one drain was ubsc cvcd in tllo swimming pon] equipment area - '� None observed - -rt Nonc obse es E • P -' -$ - t Nooe observed - i -!a t Typical minor staining was obsery od as a n:su[t of parked velii[les in cazport areas- The staining observed is not expected to impact the 11foperty" n.,T None observed D -2l Plwsc f parr RAft antal Sit- Assessment Refart 5515 River Ave., Ke%purt Bewh. CA B-3 January 4, 2008 6.2.3 Underground Storage Tanks Type or UST (Existing or FoYmcr) en RE X,' (Yes or No) Nationale for it being a REC h - None as td a NIA $s Shaw observed Me pad- rnauntori tIaILSfOrater on the eastern side of the subject NIA bail dill'. Ilte t[arufonncr appeared to he in good condition with no evidence - of leaks or'releases. �.. - The visua] inspectirm revealed no evidence of wetlands an the Subj cct - - Property nr visible portions of inimedialcly adjaccnf properties. During the ?. Site Ivalk, 11a .plant, anima[s, or vegetative 91x'Mes recogni 7ah le As wetland - - Species or species associa]O with wetl:nids was observed. V. - None 6.2.3 Underground Storage Tanks Type or UST (Existing or FoYmcr) Nutnher of ilti i's, Contents, Capacity RE X,' (Yes or No) Nationale for it being a REC F_xistino (ISTs Nouc NIA NIA Farmer USTs XONIC NIA NIA NOTE: Shaws assessment of LISTS tnduded ofemms vrr t the Properly Ownef2Operator and visually apparent observations iri k ding rapaks topavement, vent pipes, amYary equipment, and Pports; as neP as a reviewolreadifyaacertainatJe reurda mlOng k current and historical heating 1W scarce& and beat and slate nerds. 6.24 Aboveground Storage Tanks TyVc of AST {Existing or Farmer] Nurnher of ASrrs, (,ontents, Capacity REIC (Yes or no) Ratinnale for it being a RFC' Existing ASTs Nooc N'A NA Furmcr ASTs None NIA N/A NOTE: Shaw's assossrnent of AST& irrclmW interviews with the Properly Nnerloperetor and v+sualfy epparentohsemaiiaas ind!i6ig repairs to pavement, tank pads and andtlary agaipm rlt, and.spol confainrrlent berms; As wed as a review of rea&Gy ascartamahla records refa*rg b anent and histnmi at heating Friel sources and facet and cafe records. D -22 Phase I Environmental Sle Assessment Repod 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 7.0 Interviews 7.1 Interview with Owner /Owner's RepresentativelProperty Manager 7 -1 January 4, 2008 As part of this assessment, the property manager, Sally Frattarole, and property owner, Douglas Wang, were interviewed regarding their knowledge of the Subject Property. Their responses to the interview questionnaire are summarized below_ All of the below questions were answered to the best of their personal knowledge of the Subject Property_ 1. Has an environmental assessment and/or a site investigation X report ever been completed for the facility? 2. Have areas of the facility that contain hazardous materials X ever been flooded? 3. Has the facility ever been damaged by an earthquake that X could cause contamination? 4. Has the location for the facility ever been used for industrial X purposes prior to its current use? 5. Has Mere been any disposing of hazardous chemicals or X hazardous wastes in, on, or under the property? S. Has the facility ever had any electrical transformers, X capacitors, or hydraulic equipment that may have released PCBs or oil to the environment? (if YES, was the equipment aver tested for PCBs?) 7 Has testing of any groundwater wells on the property ever X revealed possible contamination? 8. Do any photographs, geophysical reports, analytical test data. X and/or air sampling data exist that indicate the possible presence of hazardous materials and/or waste in unwermnted or unexpected areas of the facility? 9. Has the facility ever had liquid/sludge containment areas. X surface impoundments, collection ponds, and/or lagoons? 10. Have land farming or bioremedation been used at the facility? I I X waste materials, tires, or automotive batteries at the faciliy? 12 Have ash and/or combustion residuals been disposed of at X the facility? 13. Have any underground storage tanks been removed, X abandoned, or taken out of service from the facility? 14. Has any contaminated soil been discovered and/or X remediated at the facility without oversight by an appropriate regulatory agency? 15. Have there been fires and/or explosions at the facility that X may have caused a release of hazardous waste or materials? D -23 7 -2 Phase I Emtironmental Site Assessment Report ianaary 4, 2008 5515 River Ave., Newport Beads, CA 7.2 Local Government Officials Shaw interviewed the following local govemmeat officials, and learned the following: 7.11 Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health The orange County Health Care Agency (oCHCA) was contacted to determine if there were any environmental health violations, hazardous materials, environmental investigations or cleanups associated with the Subject property. No response had been communicated to Shaw from the health department at the time of report preparation If the health department provides any documentation of any environmeatal related violations, which lead Shaw to revise its evaluation of the concerns for the Subject Property, Shaw will provide TSA a letter addendum separate from this report. 7.22 California Regional Water Quality Control Board The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) online database system ( "Geohacker maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board) was accessed to determine if any violations, wells, spills, leaks, investigations, or cleanups are associated with the Subject Property. No records were available for the Subject Property. 7.23 City of Newport Beach Zoning Department The Subject Property is currently zoned for "Multiple- Family Residential" (MFR) with a general plan land use described as "Multiple -Unit Residentiar' (RM). 724 Newport Beach Fire Department The Newport Beach Fire Department was contacted to detemiiac if any fives, emergency responses, or hazardous spills have occurred on the Subject Property. The fire department stated the only records for the Subject Property show that it is was a former hazardous material handler dated in 1987. However, ffie fire department records on file did not indicate the type of hazardous materials associated with the Subject property (although it is believed that the D -24 ' Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach. CA 7-3 January 4.2M8 materials referenced were associated with landscape and/or pool maintenance). No other information was on file at ' the fire department for the Subject Property. I I LI r f _J I1 I I i r1 1 1 D -25 Phase I Emarmmeotal Site Awessaent Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA &0 Other Environmental Considerations i e 'January 4, 2000 8 As part of this assessment, Shaw evaluated the potential presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, radon, and wetlands on the Subject Property. Shaw was not asked to investigate other non -scope considerations, as defined by ASTM E 1527 -05, as part of this Phase I ESA. Phase I Eavimmrcental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 9.0 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions This assessment has reve; with the Subject Property. D -27 9-1 Amuary 4, 2006 connection Phase 1 Env'vonmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newpod Beach, CA 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 10-1 , January 4, 2008 Shaw has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations presented in Section 2.0 of this document of the Las Brisas Apartments property located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Subject Property). Any exceptions lo, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.0 of this report Ibis assessment has i the Subject Property. connection -suspect ACM and Lead- Based on a review of an ACM Report conducted by EMG dated March 28, Based Paint in building 2007, ACM was detected in 17 of the 44 samples analyzed from the building located on the Subject Property. Shaw found no evidence of testing for lead - based paint on the Subject Property. Since redevelopment ofthe Subject Property is planned, demolition of the buildings should be accomplished in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may require that a lead-based paint survey be performed prior to demolition. In addition, abatement of all ACM detected within structure should be accomplished by a registered, licensed, and certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to any demolition activities. Ibis assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in c,mectiou wil the Subject Property. No further environmental assessment of the Subject Property is warranted at this tune. MM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 11.0 opinions 11 -1 January 4, 2M The following lists the Environmental Professional's opinion on the Environmental Condition of the Property: The results of the environmental assessment of the Subject Property have not recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. D -29 Appendices Appendix E. Water Quality Management Plan Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach P.-KNE- 10.0EVAPxb PWk. Drg U),.fr IS.d. I Appendices ' This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center P: NCNB- 10.OEVStPuh Ammo Draf W,.fr IS.du February 2008 Water QualrtyManayenwatPlan (WQMP) ' SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5515 RNER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofAfewpWbeacb Contract No. INSERT GRADMG PERMIT NQ, BtMDING PERNIT APN (SPECIFY LOTIVUNBERSIF57TEl3A PORTION OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PERMIT/PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER & TRACT/PARCEL MAP NUMBER CUP, This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for SEASHORE VILLAGE has been prepared for Seashore Village, LLC by Todd Schooler & Assoc inc. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, Planning & Public Works Dept., Tract /Parcel Map No. Tract /Parcel Map number, Condition Number(s) Condition Numbers, and/or Site Development Permit/ Application Number Enter number, Condition Number(s) Condition Numbers requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for 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 Stormwater Runoff Management Program. A copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this Water Quality Management Plan. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Signed: Name: Todd Schooler Title: President Company: Todd Schooler &Associates inc. SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC WQHPAW $ashac VoLve 05/03/07 E -2 Certification Water ~ty Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHOREWLLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach CantraciNO .INSEXiGRADINGPERMIffia, BUILDING PERMIT NO, TRACT Niwof R, CUP, SUP AND /OR APN (SPEaFYLOTNUMBEtiSIFSTIEISA PORTXONOFA 7X4 C97 THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Address: 301 E. 171h # 204 Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 Telephone #: 949 - 646 -8805 Date: 05/03/07 SEASWR9 VXU.AGE, t.tC Certification wQW.sxSeaswreVOW 05/03/07 E -3 Water Quality Management Plan (WQNP) ' SEASHORE WLLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACN,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach Contract No IN5FRTGRADING PERMITNO., BUILDING PERMIT NO., TRACTNUNBEQ CUP, SVPAND /OR APN (SPECIFYLOT NUMBERSIFSZTEISA PORTION OFA TRACT)- TNEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. ' Contents ' Section I Tract or Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality Condition(s) Number(s) and Conditions 1 ' Section II Project Description ......................................................................... ............................... 2 Section III Site Description ............................................................................. ............................... 5 ' Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) .............................................. ............................... 7. Section V Inspection /Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ........................... .............................12 Section VI Location Nap, Plot Plan & BMP Details .......................................... .............................13 ' Section VII Educational Materials Included .................................................... .............................16 Attachments , Attachment A ................................................................... ............................... Educational Materials 1 J I SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Contents ' WQW -dws vntw Page i 05/03/07 E -4 , ' Water QuaBty Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHOREVILLAGE, 5513 RWR AVENUE NEWPORT SEACN,CA. LOT 104, TRACT3813, City aFNewportbeach ConhactNo. IAGSERTGRADrAfG PERMIT NO., BUILDING PERMIT NO., rRACTNUMBER, CUP, SUPANDIOR APN (SPECZFYLOTNUMBERSIFSITEISA PORTION OFA TRACT)- YHEN TAB 70 NEXT FIELD, ' Section I Tract or Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality Condition(s) Number(s) and Conditions CLICK AND TYPE DISCRETIONARY PERMIT( S) AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS HERE 1 r [1 E 1 ' SeASHOPE VILLAGE, LLC Sedbn I WQMPAOC sftdw VFAM Page I 05(03/07 ' E -5 9 3 7.n ..� S A a It + n agow t ^ C i Wus i° C i J f • IY 6 i i • i Y 0 i f 3 grum=,. A` 9 =.* i i X• 9. i b E RSWfm It ♦' ® ��' PY FAR re `a r. - -a x ♦ x M.ee ® FOR WaterQnadlty Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHOREVILLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3513, City efNewport beach Contract No. INSERTGRADMGPERMITNO., MOLDINGPERNITNO., TRACTNUMBER, CUP, SUPAND /OR APN(SPECIFYLOT NtIMBERSIFSITEISA PORTIONOFA TRACT) - THEN TAB TO NEXTt7ELD. Routine Structural BMPs Site Design BMPs The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMPs follows: Site Design BMPs Check One Name If not applicable, state brief reason Not Included Appli Provide storm drain system stenciling and ❑ M Interlocking paver system & gravel side and erosion resistant landscaping s' ® E] All underground drainage shall be Design and construct outdoor material storage ❑ through a gravel fitters stem Create Reduced or'Zero Discharge' Areas ® areas to reduce pollution introduction Drainage through paver system and into Runoff Volume Reduction planters Design and construct trash and waste storage ❑ areas to reduce pollution introduction LnJ Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation Incorporate requirements applicable to ❑ individual project features a. Dock areas ❑ b. Maintenance bays c. Vehicle wash areas d. Outdoor processing areas El e. Equipment wash areas tni f. Fueling areas g. Hillside landscaping ® erosion resistant plants shall be used h. Wash water control for food El Z preparation areas I. Community car wash racks Site Design BMPs The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMPs follows: Site Design BMPs SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC V#QMPAoc Seas Wl ge 05/03/07 E -10 Section IV Page 6 Included? Technique Brief Description of Method Yes No Minimize Impervious Area/MaArnize Permeability (C-Factor Reduction ® M Interlocking paver system & gravel side and erosion resistant landscaping Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas ® E] All underground drainage shall be DCIAs (C-Factor Reduction through a gravel fitters stem Create Reduced or'Zero Discharge' Areas ® Drainage through paver system and into Runoff Volume Reduction planters Conserve Natural Areas (C- Factor Reduction) SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC V#QMPAoc Seas Wl ge 05/03/07 E -10 Section IV Page 6 Water Quality Management Plan (WQNP) SEASHOREVILLAGE, 5515 RNER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofNewport,beach Contract No. INSERT GRADING PERMIT NOy BUILDING PERN.iT NO., TRACTNUNBER, CLIP, SUPAND /OR APN (SPECIFYLOT NUNBERSIFS nF1SA PORTIONOFA TRACT)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FXEM ' Interlocking paver systems shall be constructed as part of the driveway to filter polutants. If not applicable, state brief reason Additionally any water run through an underground drainage system shall be filtered No through a gravel filter. Treatment SMPs ' The following table shows treatment BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMP follows: J Ii 1 I Treatment BMPs Name Included? If not applicable, state brief reason yes No Vegetated (Grass) Strips Q Vegetated (Grass) Swales Proprietary Control Measures Dry Detention Basin Wet Detention Basin Constructed Wetland Detention Basin/Sand Filter Porous Pavement Detention Porous Landscape Detention Infiltration Basin Infiltration Trench ® ❑ Media Filter Proprietary Control Measures ■ The proposed BMP's are designd to filter pollutants naturally track in the ground on site. The combination of paver system, erosion resistant plants that absorb water better, gravel ' side yards, and gravel trench drain all contribute to this goal and will not require any special maintenance program for an owner besides general property maintenance. I L ' SEASHORE VILLAGE, ILC Section IV WQew.aoc Seas « Yrrge Page 7 05/03/07 E -11 Water QHWity Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHOREVILLAGE, 5515 MVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newpmt beach CantractNo. IA+SERTGRADINGPERMITNOC, $=DIMPERMiTNO., TRACTNUMBED CUP, SUPAND /OR APN( SPEC7FYLOTN4YMSERSIFSnFISAPORTIONOFA 7R4CT)- 7MENTAB R7N£XTFIFLD, Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The individual owners will be responsible to maintain the project irrigation system & planters to be able to properly impliment the BMP's. SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC "PA cSpa mage 05103/07 E -12 I k U I 1 I I 1 I� k secuon V , Page 8 I ' water Quality management Man O VQMP) "ASHORE VILLAGE, 5515 RIViER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach 1 Contract No IA5ERT GRADING PERMITNO., BUILDING PERMITNO„ MCTNUMBER, CUP, SUPANR /OR APN (SPECIFYIOT NUMBERSIFSM"A POR770NOFA MM- THEN TAB TO NEXTFIELD. Section VI Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details 1 I I I 7] 1 1 LJ ' SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Section VI WQow.aac swmw wlne Page 9 05/03/07 ' E -13 Water Quaft Kamvamevrt Aw (WQNP) SEASHOREWLLAGE, 5595 RWRAVENUE NEWPORT BEAMCA. LOT 104, TR4CT3813, Cify ofNewpwtbeaah Contract No MSERTGRADMGPERMITNO. BUIW.rNGPERNITNO, TRACTNNMBER, CUP, SUPANDIOR APN (SPECTFYLOTNUMBERSZFRM ISA PORTIONOFA TRACT)- THEN TAB 7O NEXT FIELD. Section VII Educational Materials Included The following is a list of educational materials included in this WQMP. n When it rains, it drains ■ Do you know where the water in your storm drain goes ? ■ "The ocean begins at your front door" • Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) • a) Home repair and remodeling • b) Heavy equipment and earth moving activities • c) Painting • d) Landscaping, gardening and pest control f) Fresh concrete and mortor control LI 1 1 F LEI ■ Before you stop... stop!, drop!, and swap 1 ■ Disposal of household waste , El INSERT ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXT HERE OR DELETE THIS LINE (Use the "FORMAT OPTIONS" button to insert subtitles and /or paragraphs) SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Sedion VIt WQWAM sws� vw� Page 10 05/03/07 E -14 1 1 U Ntlld 9NMVND kaym illad i ya e�cigti €iilli�l�ll:6.iet,i I E -15 Obl �fil! t`s a i' i; Hill e e®®ae Appendices Appendix F. Noise Modeling Output Searbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach P:%CN6- t0.0EVS{Pxd fteeicw DraftWrefi 19.d. Appendices 1 This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center P:�CNB- I0.0EVAPa4 Revise DrW Wwfl fS.d. February 2008 Excavation 88 75 Foundation Construction 81 81 Building Construction 81 65 Finishing and Site Cleanup 88 72 Construction Noise at 120 Feet (dBA Leq) Average Feet at Site: 120 All Applicable Equipment in Minimum Required Construction Phase Use' Equipment in Use' Ground Clearing/Demolition 75 75 Excavation 80 67 Foundation Construction 73 73 Building Construction 73 57 Finishing and Site Cleanup 80 64 Source: Boft, Beranek and Newman, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared for the USEPA, December 31, 1971. Based on analysis for Domestic Housing F -1 }! �2 E �k » 2k }k kj $ k�$ « M k i k « # §) k k 8 ! { ! k { § \ k ! \ k / B22 k ƒ} K °c f� �k )_j $� ;aa } ;! q a ! k § F-2 ; / , ) k { / ! J k / ! ` 7 t k ) \ � \ # ! ■ ! 3 E f � ) _ �2f k %t) ) |`£ � {k\ k )/j z !Ef ; E{£ ;!f \ kk0 � �k }) CO | 7§ §{ ] 7!]I Seashore Village - Sound Levels on Pacific Coast Highway Sound Levels ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH Receiver Name Lden Calculated dBA Noise Compatibility Threshold Building Facade Fvterinr int.A .r Windows Windows nnnn C1ncnA At Project Site 67.3 65 45 55.3 43.3 At Project Site with a 9 -Foot Wall on Jamboree 59.1 65 45 47.1 35.1 saaeryoiwummouve engneersia wmuenasanel. iwi.txun r. Rouse Nois�uction Measurements for Use in SbAie Of iraaB Fho Ndse. SAE Publication AIR 1081. F -3 Seashore Village - Pacific Coast Highway INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Pants Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Segment X Y Z Pvmt ft ft it It Tvne F -4 point2 2 - 3,500.00 45 0 Unk1 WB middle 16 point3 3 - 2,501.00 29 0 Average point4 4 - 3,500.00 29 0 Link1— WB_Ief# 16 point5 5 - 2,501.00 13 0 Average point6 6 - 3,500.00 13 0 Unk1_EB —left 16 point7 7 - 3,500.00 -13 0 Average point8 8 - 2,501.00 -13 0 Link1 —EB_ middle 16 point9 9 3,500.00 -29 0 Average point10 10 - 2,501.00 -29 0 Unk1 EB right 16 pointl9 11 - 3,500.00 -45 0 Average point12 12 - 2501.00 -45 0 F -4 Seashore Village - Pacific Coast Highway INPUT: RECEIVERS Receiver Name No. Coordinates (ground) Height X Y Z above Ground ft ft ft ft A♦ o.,:,e.d C;ie 4 _Z nnn nn _1 Rn n d 09 F -5 3 s s !A 0 O V U W U IL c O c N ¢ � a J tr U V N C F J no 2 d � m O � U LL m ? ir Z r F -6 L i i i i L m£ O o 0 0 0 0 m? a o 0 0 0 0 0 U > GC W O O O O O O C e o g o 0 e 0 O O O O O L U) E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O o W O o O O O a ca� m o 0 0 0 0 0 o a L o) £ 0 0 0 o O a ? a e o o a o 0 0 0 s 3 W 0 0 e o 0 a 0 0 o I L _ s o o a 0 0 0 I a co E to LO in LO Z I O P Y W V � R.9 - - i �o Ic N E N N N N N N c 0 0 � 6i OOi 0 0 LU o o T m W m m Y ,a a m rn M CO M m 02 1 L �m m m m m m m m Cl) m m m rn i coo w m c Cl) m m� Q � c i - Nmd'Nt�A. co mO W N C C C C C C C E C C C C_ U CL CL OLCLCLCL°.aaaQ v v v s i m E w c ml ml ml I ! 1 LL11 WI W� c Y C Y G Y C Y C Y C Y C 4 J J J J J J m F -6 L i i i i E Plan View Run name: PacificCoastHighway Receiver: ❑ Tree Zone: dashed polygon Barrier. Contour Zone: polygon Building Raw: -- Parallel Barrier: Terrain Line: Skew Section: —� -3600 -3400 -3200 3000 -2800 -2600 -2400 -2200 F -7