No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - AERIE Project - Attachment An U C ATTACHMENTS A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration A.1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 Mitigated Negative Declaration To: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department E-1 Office of Planning and Research 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 P.O. BOX 3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 (Orange County) X® County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Date received for filing at OPR/Counly Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: July 13fh through August 12h,2007 Name of Project: ARIE (PA2005 -196) Name of Project Proponent: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., 23792 Rockfield Blvd. Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630 ® Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, Orange County Project Description: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family home to construct a 7- level, 9 -unit condominium complex, including grading and all appurtant facilities. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is I7 attached O on file at the Planning Department. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider this project on at 7:00PM on August 14, 2007 in the Council Chambers in City Hall located at 3300 Newport Blvd., Neweport Beach, Ca 92663. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200. James Campbe Date July 13, 2007 A. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 4. Project Location: 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 6. General Plan Designation: RT (Two -Unit Residential) & RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) — 20 du /acre 7. Zoning: R -2 (Two Family Residential) & MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential, 2178 sq. ft. land per unit') ®. 8. Previous Drafts of the Mitigated Negative Declaration:. Prior to the circulation of this IS -MND for public review, the Newport Beach Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding this proposed project which extended over three meetings. Those meetings were held on February 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, and May 17, 2007. A mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public review prior to the February 22 hearing, with the thirty-day public review period to conclude on March 15, 2007. Among other things, the draft MND concluded that the proposed project was consistent with the predominant line of existing development. The staff report for the February 22 hearing, however, reached a different conclusion than the draft MND and stated that, "for discussion purposes," the predominant line of development should be approximately 52 feet above mean sea level parallel to Carnation Avenue." The staff report also indicated "that a variety of methods may be employed in identifying and locating the predominant line of development." After the February 22 hearing, the applicant modified the project in a number of respects: • The proposed modifications to the existing docks were eliminated. • The bayward extent of the northwestern portion of the proposed building was reduced to be consistent with the bayward extent of the southwestern portion of the building. The northwestern portion of the building extended further away from the is Pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density is calculated using the total lot area minus slopes in excess of 50% and submerged lands. p.4 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ® Page 2 of 57 bluff edge than the southwestern portion of the building. The applicant revised the plans by moving the deck thirteen (13) feet and the building wall fifteen feet, two inches closer to the approximate location of the bluff edge on Level 2 (lower floor of Unit #7). • The deck and building wall on the level above (Level 3) were also modified, but were not moved closer to the estimated bluff edge. The southwest corner of the building wall and deck corner were cut off (angled) to provide greater view angle for other units. • The exterior stair on the deck of Unit 7 was moved to the north - facing wall away from the neighbor's view. After the February 22 Planning Commission hearing, the City retained an independent environmental consultant to review and /or revise the previously circulated MND. A quantitative air quality assessment was completed and incorporated into the revised MND. That assessment demonstrated that construction- related air emissions will be below applicable thresholds of significance. Staff and the environmental consultant concluded that the analysis and proposed mitigation supported a finding that there would not be a potential impact to marine resources. Revisions were made to the previously circulated draft MND to reflect the findings of the air quality assessment, the changes to the project offered or agreed to by the applicant, and the changes recommended by the independent environmental consultant to provide ® additional project information and clarification. The revised MND concluded that the project was consistent with the City's Coastal Land Use Plan policies requiring that development be contained within the predominant line of existing development. Other than Planning Commission comments, no comments on the adequacy of the originally circulated draft MND were received prior to the closing of the comment period on March 15, 2007. Although revised mitigation measures were identified which would provide equivalent or superior environmental protection, no new environmental impacts were identified. As a result, City staff determined that the revised MND did not require recirculation. The revised project and the revised MND were considered by the Planning Commission at its continued public hearing on April 5, 2007. The Planning Commission received public testimony and again continued the public hearing, this time to May 17, 2007. After the April 5 meeting, the applicant again revised the project. The lowest extent of exposed development on the bluff face was modified to be 30.5 feet above mean sea level (previously 29 feet MSL). The finished floor of Level 1 was revised to be 18 inches higher on the bluff face. The lowest visible extent of the north elevation was revised to vary between 59 feet and 46.25 feet MSL. The patio slab at the Level 1 lounge was modified and moved closer to the bluff edge at elevation line. 28.0': The patio guardrail was removed and the exposed bluff at the Level 1 lounge and the pool was moved to elevation 33.08" (18" above ® patio slab). A-5 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 3 of 57 • The northeast corner of the patio at Unit 8 was eliminated so that the natural grade can run up to elevation 65.0' to create a gentle transition from 215 Carnation to the project site. • The entire building pad was elevated one foot, six inches so that the bottom of exposed bluff is at 30.50' and the patio at Units 8 and 7 exposed bluff 46.25`- 47.0': At Unit 2 on Level 4, the building wall at the southeast corner was pushed back approximately eight feet to enhance the view from vantage points on both Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. • At Unit 1 at level 5, the building wall pushed back five feet, ten inches closer to the bluff edge. The deck and eave also were pushed back five feet. • The overall floor area of the proposed building was reduced by 896 square feet as a result of these changes. Also after the April 5 hearing, the draft MND was revised to reflect these proposed changes to the project. Additionally, the MND addressed issues raised after circulation of the first draft MND regarding the project's potential impact upon public views from Begonia Park. Even though the project as described in the third version of the MND actually extended down less of the bluff face than did the project as analyzed by the first and second iterations of the draft MND, this third iteration of the MND reached yet a different conclusion regarding the project's compliance with policies pertaining to the predominant line of existing development. This third draft MND included a proposed mitigation measure requiring the project to encroach on the bluff face no lower than the 52 foot MSL elevation, even though the MND also stated that "the establishment of the predominant line of development remains open to interpretation...." The staff report for the May 17 hearing stated that "the Commission may determine that the predominant line of existing development should be set at a location different than the one identified by staff in the revised MND based upon an alternative interpretation of the CLUP policies." It also concluded that,. based upon new information, "the predominant line of existing development could be 50.7 feet above MSL." At the May 17 hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the project to the City Council at the building elevations as revised by the applicant in response to comments from the Planning Commission at the previous meetings. At that time, the third draft of the proposed MND had just completed its thirty -day public review period. The Commission found, on the basis of "substantial evidence in the record," that the revised elevations were consistent with the predominant line of existing development. However, because of the varying interpretations of the predominant line of existing development which had been presented in the different versions of the draft MND and staff reports for the three Planning Commission hearings, the applicant agreed to modify its proposal to provide that the project will be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development as ultimately established by the City Council. The Planning Commission's recommendation of approval contained a condition that "Prior to City Council action on the application, the MND shall be revised to eliminate specific conclusions as to the location of the predominant line of existing development and reflect that the applicant has agreed to modify its proposal to restrict all AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ® Page 4 of 57 development to the predominant line of existing development as ultimately determined by the City Council." The Planning Commission also required that the revised MND be circulated for public review for no less than thirty days prior to City Council action on the application. This fourth draft of the proposed MND for the project contains revisions to reflect that the establishment of the predominant line of development is, as was indicated in prior versions of the MND and the staff reports, subject to varying interpretations. Its analysis will take into consideration the applicant's agreement to mitigation which will require revisions to the project if and as needed to comply with the City Council's establishment of the predominant line of existing development. It also will take into consideration an additional revision of the project agreed to by the applicant at the May 17 Planning Commission hearing to assure that there is no significant impact upon public views to the water from Ocean Boulevard. Additionally, it will present new information pertaining to the locations of structures which are built into the same bluff face as the proposed project as set forth in a report from GeoSoils, Inc., dated June 11, 2007. The purpose of this fourth version of the MND is to assure that, before circulation of the MND and initial study, project revisions have been made which clearly will avoid or mitigate all potentially significant effects of the project. Additionally, because of the agreement of the applicant to modify the project to the extent needed to comply with the ® predominant line of existing development as determined by the City Council, all possibility is eliminated of the revised project failing to comply with the CLUP policies regarding adherence to that line. Finally, this MND will clarify and, where necessary, correct the seemingly conflicting statements found in the prior MND drafts and the Planning Commission staff reports. 9. Description of Project: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building (approximately 13,688 square feet of gross floor area) and single - family residence (approximately 2,810 square feet of gross floor area) to construct a new 9 -unit condominium complex. The existing structure has a total of four levels, three split levels visible above existing grade from the street, with all four levels visible from Newport Bay. The new structure will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks much of which are which are subterranean. Approximately 31,524 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres. J A.% AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 5 of 57 The proposed 9 -unit condominiums will consist of the following areas: K � \�° 4�.."K 1 �•. .�.3'�,{ri 2 Y� v,, ..�L: r 4,714 .� i. i- iti�s. 369 ^r:���e! $IF .. 1393 k�Y11 �11a4. yy iT.. S.', 6,536 2 1 3,214 369 1:638 5,221 3 1 4,459 361 962 5,782 5 1 4,959 361 794 6,114 6 2 3,959 368 824 5,151 7 2 4,662 369 863 5,894 8 3 4,811 472 734 6,017 9 2 6;632 369 1,264 7,995 Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on Levels 1. 2 parking spaces are provided for each unit, with a total of 5 guest and 2 golf cart parking spaces provided on Levels 1 through 4. Level 4 is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation and it will house residential units, 2 two -car garages, and 3 guest spaces. All other parking is below street grade and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. Those areas (including the subterranean garage, lounge, exercise area, spa, and drive aisles) total 18,779 sq. ft. and when added to the floor area devoted for the residential units, a total gross floor area of 73,418 sq. ft. is proposed. The existing upper portion of the stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing stairs which will be seaward of the proposed residential structure will be connected to the building by a ramp at the lowest sub - basement. Although part of the original application, the project has been modified to eliminate modifications to the existing private boat docks. Therefore, this IS /MND does not address any such modifications. Architectural plans, conceptual grading plans, and a tract map are attached for reference. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2005 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 0048716882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201 -205 Carnation) and a single family residence (207 Carnation). There are no current tenants within the apartment building. The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The following aerial photograph shows the project's current setting. ON f AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 6 of 57 Aerial Photograph The westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky, and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The buildings presently on the project site are constructed on the top of the bluff and extend down the bluff face. The westerly extent of the foundation is located on the face of the coastal bluff. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Vegetation and exposed rock formations cover portions of the landform below the existing building. West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site are single family and multi - family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff which is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the project site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands; however, the lower portion of the bluff was altered for the construction of Bayside Place and several homes along Bayside Place including 101 Bayside Place (the "Sprague Residence "), as set forth in the GeoSoils report dated June 11, 2007. South and east of the site are single family and multi- family residential ® buildings.and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. f. 'L S� at � aY } F to took y. t I IKON it P JiH y �f v 5 ai44r�' SL . ... :._e_ L ._LS.eiaLa -.v:,. if: y. .— - :� y- � � :� � � ., // �� _ �� � � % \� \�: \ : !� t� � /° � . < :� k4■�<s \ »§ s » ~� � � +��� \ � : � 2 � ©- �� �� �� f y- > , > \� (� � \ � � k. \�� . : � : \ : � >: � . � x «� � !ate : : VIM:n t ` � vy � r i k° q IT ;l ktY I _. A,- t5'S5� f 4 F.k v VIM:n t ` � r ;l ktY f 4 VIM:n t ` AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 11 of 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 DETERMINATION ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 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, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ James Campbell, July 13, 2007 Submitted by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date Planning Department )q-lq AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ® Page 12 of 57 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people? A -15 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ [✓] ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ El ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people? A -15 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife.corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: 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 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 13 of A Potentially Less Than Less than No — Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact 1 Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Q ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q I El ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q J M 0 A-« J 11 C ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 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 - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 14 of 57 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ D ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ERJ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ d ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ B ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A-17 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 15 of 5J A -i8 Potentially Less than Lessihan No Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t Incorporated h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ J death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ❑ d requirements? b) Substantially - deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ [Jj 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)? 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- oroff -site? d) Substantially alter* the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ E1 ❑ area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ Ea ❑ ❑ capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ following construction? A -i8 ®i AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 16 of 57 ❑ ❑ Potentially Less Than less than No would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t ❑ ❑ Incorporated 0 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from ❑ ❑ D ❑ areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle plan, or other land use plan? or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, XI. hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess IT) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the ❑ ❑ ❑ beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of ❑ [✓j ❑ ❑ an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ D would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ ❑ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground bome ❑ ❑ Q ❑ vibration or ground bome noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 14-17 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 17 of Is Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use or, where such a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ p (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES / a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ H Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ E�J ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? q -2o AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION A -V Page 18 of 57 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant With Significant Impac Impact Mitigation Impact t Incorporated XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the ❑ d ❑ ❑ 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)? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ El increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ D Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ d Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ' e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? A -V f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 19 of 51� Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or XVII. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 0 LEI Significant Impac Impact t ❑ D ❑ R1 u This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist.' The environmental analysis in this section is patterned after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed Project's impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; however, mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project's physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant. Those mitigation measures are specified in the following sections. Each recommended mitigation measure has been agreed to by the applicant. 0 ® Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified with each response. /a -ZZ E AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 20 of 57 AESTHETICS The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single family residential uses to the north, east and south, and multi - family uses to the immediate south. Many residential structures in the area are built into the coastal bluff; where along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue there is extensive development of the bluff face. The north- facing portion of the property overlooks Bayside Drive and the homes on Bayside Drive. The west - facing portion of the property overlooks a small cove off of Newport Bay, as well as several residential structures built into the bluff above the cove. The project site is currently developed with a multi -story, 14 -unit apartment building and a two - level, single -story single - family residence. The proposed project will result in a new 9 -unit condominium structure that will have a total of seven levels, of which two levels and a portion of a third will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The result of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street and Newport Bay. The overall building height will be increased by approximately 10 feet over the existing multiple- family structure and approximately 8 feet over a portion of the existing single family structure as measured from the front street grade level, a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The certified Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP °) and the General Plan indicate a public view at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is a designated view street. Views from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard presently exist between the existing apartment building and a fence and garage structure located on the abutting property to the south and east. Existing development of the site blocks the view to the north from these public roads. The project will result in a structure that is approximately 10 to 20 feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The structure is designed to conform to the existing 28 foot height limit imposed by the Newport ® Beach Zoning Code. Although the proposed structure is higher than existing structures, the new structure will not impede public or private views of the bay and coastline due to the location of the proposed structure. The existing view to the south measures 25 degrees while standing in the optimal position within the public right of way closest to the structure. The view will be maintained and increased by 52 % from 25 degrees to 38 degrees. This increased viewing angle is due to the southwest wall of the proposed new structure being located approximately 10 feet, 4 inches to the north of the existing building wall, thereby increasing the distance between the proposed structure and the existing single family residence to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be enhanced due to the increased distance between buildings. See the illustration of the proposed changes in the public vista at the intersection of Ocean Blvd/Camation Avenue, later in this section of the Initial Study. The project site is visible from Begonia Park, which is approximately 2000 feet to the northeast. As shown in the following exhibits depicting the view from the park toward the project site, the proposed building envelope would encroach slightly into the left edge of a public view of the harbor entrance and end of the Balboa Peninsula. Although the building would be visible in this view, it would not be a predominant feature and would not obstruct a significant amount of the water and horizon view. There would be a less than significant impact on this scenic vista. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including', but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The west - facing portion of the site includes a coastal bluff with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff. The intertidal area has a small cove with a sandy beach surrounded by the bluff and rocks. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. These resources are visible from many public spaces on the most easterly end of the Balboa Peninsula and from Newport Bay. The location of the proposed building is above the exposed rocks of the bluff and intertidal areas. These areas will remain undisturbed. The site is not visible from a designated scenic highway as no ® scenic highway is located in the vicinity of the project site. No historic buildings are located within the project site and none will be affected by the project. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on scenic resources. A -23 it N'R1S "t h �..1"11"V F 4 1 y1 i� J' L 41 sr F4,h i t " k`'L4i An„b 14r Y i _ 1``• Y SYi.ijii9� -- j L ra r f it t j IIf i 1 \rk, � '3 �� .. ,.. •pJ >a �' � ..t . .- I.V YY F.i � .YS _ ... •. .0 T.. wY. .0 .. it N'R1S "t h �..1"11"V F 4 1 y1 i� J' L 41 sr F4,h i t " k`'L4i An„b 14r Y i _ 1``• Y SYi.ijii9� -- F ra r m t t _ , IT a �, �� •. .. Y -T .a 1 a . s _ y ice`^ 51 � i3 li / I I: I t S '�71 �a• ?4 I, ti �, ,I 1� A I i 11 1 l 101 { xa I i a I r � r Irl tit} F r � /..' t r f ♦ - r % !, r �� r •r •.r \„\` �'d k.� x aitgC sit -0 St r J x� { -_ rf.vFlr rr/ � � ,.lrJ _. -: -.' y ♦v`, -�� /f �.' / \f ''♦� `� yr: �> m x,r. ♦ '♦ \ � t ; ,�� +/ � '.� .. �'tlrr fi � n r � r� A 'V\ /♦ r f�v v \ y 'Iys A - II r I x / / vr( '� \\ �' r '; .1 fv l ♦� ♦ r: Yi.•.�ir� � ys � s f: .+ , l' ( \ \ \ 1 r ♦ \.� % \. � s \} l t �` >f. mij4%# 'd ... a .. o :... _ : s AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 27 of 57 c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Existing buildings presently cover approximately 22% of the entire site, consisting of the highest and Flattest portions of the site and extending to a point 42 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Coverage is approximately 27% of the area of the site above mean low water. The proposed building will cover approximately 24.8% of the site and approximately 30.4% of the site above mean low water. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built in 1955. These structures are not aesthetically pleasing, especially with open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the apartment building facing Carnation Avenue. Their architectural character is below the quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety, especially compared to the older and more mundane features of the existing buildings on site. The project will introduce a new style of architecture in the area that will be visible from surrounding properties. The structure is designed to conform to the steeply sloping landform, with curved roofs and walls, creating a unique theme. As shown in the following illustrations, the proposed building characteristics will provide a more pleasing architectural aesthetic than the existing buildings, when viewed from sidewalks, streets, and neighboring homes along Ocean Boulevard and Camation Avenue. The visual character of the area as viewed from Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula is presently affected not only by the substantial existing development on the bluff face, but also the existing development on Bayside Drive which obscures the lower portion of the northerly- facing Carnation Avenue segment of the bluff. That view will change with the proposed building covering more of the bluff face. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. This quality will be reduced where the proposed building covers what is now open space. The extension of the proposed building down the bluff face will vary as shown in the exhibit below, which reflects the modified project proposal. At its lowest point, the proposed building will extend 11.8 feet below the lowest point of the existing buildings on the site. The northern portion of the proposed structure will transition down the bluff face from an elevation of 65 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to an elevation of 46.25 feet above MSL, approximately 4 feet vertically above the lowest point of the existing apartment building. Roughly 34,75 feet of the bluff above the homes located on Bayside Place will remain undisturbed, although much of that area is now obscured from public view by those homes. The western portion of the proposed building will extend downward approximately 11.8 feet below the existing apartment building with, at the lowest point of the proposed building, roughly 30.5 feet of the bluff above mean low tide remaining undisturbed. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan establishes criteria for the protection of public coastal views of the coastal bluffs along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 expressly allows "private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development" While such development is expressly permitted, however, the extent of that development is limited to the "predominant line of existing development" (the "Predominant Line ") for the stated purpose of protecting public coastal views. This provision, found in CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9, establishes a reasonable threshold for a finding that the impact to public coastal views of the bluff face along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is less than significant if development of the bluff face does not extend beyond the Predominant Line. The applicable portion of CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9 reads as follows: "Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pack Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect pubic coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements...." The method by which the Predominant Line is to be established is not, however, set forth in the CLUP. It is, therefore, subject to interpretation. The location of the Predominant Line applicable to the proposed project is influenced by several factors. As previously noted, the proposed project is located on a bluff with (1) a north- facing bluff face segment A-3o 1] E AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 28 of 57 which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west - facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north- facing and west - facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as 10 feet above mean sea level. While the CLUP does not specify how the Predominant Line should be determined, among the possible methods are the following: The Planning Commission Method. The Planning Commission concluded that the Predominant Line is best depicted by a line that reflects the transition from the west- facing segment of the bluff to the north - facing segment and the corresponding transition in the extent of existing development on each of those segments. The Planning Commission found that the proposed project elevation represents a reasonable transition between the higher development pattern on Carnation Avenue and the lower development pattern on Ocean Boulevard. The City Staff Method. As discussed above, during the course of the proceedings on this application, City Staff has generally taken the position that the establishment of the Predominant Line is open to interpretation. Among possible interpretations, City Staff has indicated that the Predominant Line could be established at the median elevation above mean sea level of seven selected structures along the bluff face. This method was based upon staffs interpretation and application of the following definition of "Predominant Line of Development' which is contained in the Glossary of the CLOP: Predominant Line of Development., The most common or representative distance from a. specked group of structures to a specified point or line (e.g. topographic line or geographic feature). For example; the predominant line of development for a block of homes on a coastal bluff (a specified group of structures) could be determined by calculating the median distance (a representative distance) these structures are from the bluff edge (a specified tine)." The median value under this calculation is established by determining the lowest vertical elevation of each of the seven selected structures and then eliminating the highest three and the lowest three. Using this method, the May 17 Staff Report concluded that the Predominant Line "could be 50.7 fleet above MSL" The Applicant's Method. The Applicant's proposed method for establishing the Predominant Line assumes, on the basis of the June 11, 2007, GeoSoils report, that, from a geologic perspective, the project sits on only one bluff. The Applicant's proposed method takes into consideration a block of existing structures built on that bluff which, on the west - facing segment, extends to and includes the Kerkchoff Marine Lab, and, on the north- facing segment, extends for a comparable distance. On the west- facing segment, this method takes into consideration the residences at 2495 and 2501 Ocean Boulevard, the Channel Reef condominiums, and the Kerkchoff Marine Lab. On the north, this method takes into consideration the residence at 101 Bayside and the residences at 225, 221 -223, 227 -231, and 233 Carnation Avenue. The Applicant interprets as precedent for its position the approval by the City and the Coastal Commission of other projects built into the bluff in Corona del Mar since the certification of the CLUP. The Applicant's interpretation of these approvals is that the Predominant Line generally has been set at the furthest extent of existing surrounding development on the bluff face. Using this method, the Predominant Line'is approximately 10.0 feet above MSL, well below the elevation of the proposed structure. As noted earlier, the Applicant has agreed to modify the project, if built, to be consistent with the Predominant Line as established by the City Council. The Applicant has also agreed that if the Predominant Line is established below the proposed building elevation, the Applicant will deed restrict the property to prohibit the development of the residential structure beyond the lowest elevation of the project proposal, thus precluding development of principal residential structures (as opposed to permitted accessory structures) to the Predominant Line, and also assuring that landform alteration is minimized. Therefore, if a Predominant Line other than that recommended by the Planning Commission is established by the City Council, revising the project to be within the Predominant Line, as the applicant has agreed to do, will meet the threshold established by Policy 4.4.3 -9, protect the existing visual ,4 -3/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 29 of 57 i character or quality of the site and its surroundings, and reduce any potential impact on the visual quality of the coastal bluff to a level of insignificance. Mitigation Measure I -1 will ensure that the project will be built within the Predominant Line. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Glazing is to be tinted and most windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. No glare impacts from building finish materials, therefore, are expected. Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities only and would not produce -any light or glare effects outside of the structures that could affect adjacent properties. Outdoor lighting from exterior patios, the pool area, and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would he visible from the bay as minor point light sources, but would not occur as a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the project site, and are separated a considerable distance from the project site. There are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the project site. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be designed to illuminate the affected activity area on site, and would not cast any illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits. All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the subject property to have an adverse effect at neighboring homes. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with aesthetics to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure 1 -1 — The project shall be revised such that principal building is within the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council. i R -3 2 ,rn i s 'g N., . _ ga, "p, �A 'I, ;ct "-++' -5' ro �iv; - L -mg " 5M,*T�1,. gi Igo , 13 v . . . . . . 4 -�,74 iR ®r" 5, M, M-51�vnm� , - U 1 i lq, 14 � I fl,"� - " - - F�� itz - lopqc.�>, -ES � jam, T 0 Ml W, min M &W 313 thu A a dim A on] z A." Elh_v, 8p -Tf"5 MA U r N2 -Q OR AMOK MmMA' xZMQTT _-, I,U QUM 2z Fri.. AtRl 4, u Iq 18" MIN K I -AR MagFqg ­3 yn "p- 'v lam, REIM , C"'? - C C A -35 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 33 of 57 II, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are not designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore; no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Single Family Attached" and the zone designation for the site is "Multiple Family Residential" and Single Family Residential." Therefore; there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The site is not 'being used for agricultural purposes and is not designated as agricultural land. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non- agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Replacement of the existing 15 housing units with nine luxury condominiums would have no effect upon the key strategies of the regional air quality management plan (AQMP), which focus on emissions reductions through controls on business, industry and paints, and through stricter federal and state regulatory controls to improve fuel efficiency, reduce transportation- related exhaust emissions, and reduce emissions from a variety of consumer products. The subject site is already developed with housing and is planned for more intensive housing; therefore, this project would not have any impact on AQMP emissions projections related to land use planning and growth forecasts. As discussed in the responses to questions b-e, no significant air quality impacts are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. . b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no air pollution sources on site or in the immediate vicinity and the proposed project would not introduce any sources of air pollution or hazardous air emissions that could contribute to or worsen an existing air quality violation. The proposed project would lead to temporary construction emissions that may affect local and regional air quality. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during the construction stage of the proposed development, including the on- site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction employees commuting to the site and trucks delivering building materials. Heavy -duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the demolition and construction phases. Operation of these vehicles and machines would temporarily increase air pollutant levels in the vicinity of the proposed project. In addition, emissions from delivery and haul trucks, construction crew vehicles, concrete mixers, and other off -site vehicle trips would add to local pollutant levels. Gaseous and particulate emissions associated with the demolition and construction phases were calculated, using the latest computer model inputs for the URBEMIS program and are presented as an Attachment to this 4 -3(O AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 34 of 57 Initial Study. Results of these calculations determined that the short term construction emission levels would be well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for each type of pollutant, with or without best available control measures. Construction -phase emissions would not, therefore, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Given the relatively limited size of the project, construction emissions for CO, ROC, SOx and PM -10 would generally be low from equipment use and truck trips. However, the use of diesel fuel in most of the equipment and trucks would lead to increased NOx levels. In addition, VOC emissions from paints and coatings would create ROG emissions during construction. Dust emissions on site would be generated by demolition of the existing structures, excavation and initial construction activities. Long -term emissions were also calculated (see attachment to this Initial Study), assuming that all of the emissions represent new impacts. Emission sources include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic, energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term emissions would be well below the SCAQMD daily thresholds for all categories of pollutants. Please note that this analysis overstates the actual net impact of the project, since long -term air emissions could be generated by re -occupancy of the existing apartments. The project -s long tens emissions would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. C) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, construction and vehicle ® emissions associated with the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Since the South Coast Air Basin is in non - attainment with respect to ozone and PM -10, and the construction emissions would add to the regional burden of these pollutants, a vigorous set of air pollution control measures is recommended during the construction phases - -see Mitigation Measures 111 -1 through III -6, at the end of this section. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. There are no senior housing facilities, hospitals, schools or other sensitive receptor sites located near the proposed project site. A blufflop passive park, Lookout Point, is located on Ocean Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding responses, this project would not generate substantial pollutant emissions, during the temporary construction phases or over the long -term operating life of the completed homes. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. A variety of odors would be associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions and application of paints and other architectural coatings. The odors would be minor and temporary in nature and would not affect people located outside the immediate construction zones. Replacement of the existing apartments and single family home with nine luxury residential condominiums would not result in any significant change in the kinds of odors that could be generated on site. Occasional, less than significant odors may occur in conjunction with trash pick up and outdoor food preparation (i.e. barbeques), and possibly with outdoor maintenance activities. Trash containers would be equipped with lids and would be stored inside the dwelling units and garages. The proposed project will result in the development of a 9 -unit residential condominium building, which will not involve the use of large • quantities of solid waste materials, chemicals, food products, or other odorous materials. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors. R -37 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 35 of 57 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures highlight specific aspects of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 that are considered effective construction control measures to minimize this project's construction phase air quality impacts: All applicable measures set forth in those rules shall be implemented by the Contractor(s). Mitigation Measure 111 -1 — During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. Mitigation Measure III -2 — Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily. Mitigation Measure III -3 — All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. Mitigation Measure III -4 — The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a Flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. Mitigation Measure III -5 — The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. Mitigation Measure III -6 — To the extent feasible, pre - coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. A Biological Constraints Analysis was completed in June, 2005, and a Marine Biological Field Survey completed in April, 2005, Both studies concluded that there is no appropriate habitat existing on site for any threatened or endangered species. No candidate, sensitive or special status species were observed during the surveys. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed building is located well above the marine environment. The bluff face vegetation is not a riparian resource and is not identified as a sensitive natural vegetation community in any plans, policies or regulations administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Game. Storm drainage currently empties from the site into the Bay, and the proposed project will reduce stormwater runoff from 3.04 cubic feet per second to 2.94 cubic feet per second based from upon the hydrological study prepared by Hunsaker and A -3X AERIE (PA2005 -196) ® INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 36 of 57 Associates. The conceptual water quality management plan includes best management practices and stormwater filtration devices that will improve the quality of runoff from the site, compared to existing conditions. C) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands as construction limited above 17 feet above mean sea level. A water quality management plan and a storm water pollution protection plan are required as standard practice and they have been prepared and will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional pollution and erosion. The plans include best management practices to ensure that short -term construction and long -term use of the site will not impact Newport Bay. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. See responses above. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, the project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ® resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project will result in the removal of introduced trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff where grading and construction activities are proposed. The existing vegetation is not protected by a preservation policy or ordinance. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial ydverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined §15604.5? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure constructed in 1949 and a single family residence constructed in 1955. These structures are not listed on a Federal, State or local historical resource inventory. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5? No Impact. A cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by, LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. The survey found that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would ® exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Therefore, no archeological monitoring is recommended. C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? A -.3 9 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 37 of 57 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rocky cove. The project will not impact the cove as project construction will occur well above the feature. No alteration of the rocks or the cove is proposed. The cultural and paleontological resources records survey indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, the site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. The survey concluded that the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation measure in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during grading /excavation activities (refer to Mitigation Measures V- 1 below). d) Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure V -1 — During excavation and grading of the site, paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by an experienced monitor under the direction of the project paleontologist. If fossil remains are found by the monitor, earthmoving shall be diverted temporarily around the fossils until the remains have been recovered and the monitor agrees to allow earthmoving to proceed. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project 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? Less than Significant Impact. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on or in close proximity to the site, and the site is not within an Alquist - Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately 1.7 miles to the west of and off -shore from the site, the Whittier - Elsinore Fault is located approximately 25 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault is located more than 50 miles to the northeast. Episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, but it is highly unlikely that there would be ground fault rupture. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce ground movement hazards to acceptable levels. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response to VI(a)(i) above. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact. The site is a bluff above Newport Bay. The site and the surrounding area have been developed for a number of years. The project is not expected to be subject to seismic- related ground failure, such as landslides or liquefaction given the rock nature of existing soils. A review report for the conceptual grading plan was prepared by Neblett and Associates (August 5, 2005) and the report A - un AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION is Page 38 of 57 concludes that with standard shoring, engineering and grading techniques, the potential for seismic - related ground failure and liquefaction is considered low. The report also concludes that the exposed bluff material is sandstone and bluff erosion is not considered a significant hazard. iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. See response to VI(a)(iii) above. b) Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. A stormwater pollution prevention program was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005, and with the implementation of the best management practices contained therein during construction, significant erosion or loss of topsoil will be avoided. Implementation of the stormwater pollution prevention program is a standard requirement of the Newport Beach Building Department and all best management practices are mandatory during grading and construction. With additional impervious surfaces (an increase of 11% compared to existing conditions) this project would reduce the amount of open land area exposed to potential erosional forces of wind and water. Given the rocky nature of the bluff face, there is a relatively thin layer of topsoil. Removal of topsoil during excavation would represent an insignificant loss of topsoil. C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located ® within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on- or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A preliminary geologic/grading analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Neblett and Associates in August, 2005. This report concludes that on-site geologic conditions will not present a significant hazard to the project. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils Inc. dated October, 5, 2006, which concludes that the project will not be subject to coastal erosional processes or long tens bluff retreat that will likely endanger the proposed project during the 75 year economic life of the structure. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 187 -16 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. The grading review report prepared for the preliminary grading plan ( Neblett, 2005) concludes that expansive soils are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. e) Would the project 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 project will be connected to existing sewer lines. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ® No Impact. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and A - yl AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 39 of 57 handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. On -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. The Phase I Assessment concluded that although, given the age of the existing structures on site, there is a possibility that asbestos and /or lead -based paint to be present and there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions that exceed the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E1527 -00. Abatement of-any asbestos or lead -based paint requires special handling and disposal routinely required and monitored by the Building Department during the demolition phase and this issue is not considered a significant risk. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? No Impact. See responses to VII(a) above. C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the project site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the project site by a residential community and Pacific Coast Highway and will not be impacted by construction activities on the site. The proposed luxury condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions. Release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department, as noted in the response to item a). d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. A search of various databases concerning hazardous wastes and substances sites was conducted as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; this search determined that the subject property is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, . within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result In a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.8 miles south of John Wayne Airport and is not located within or subject to an airport land use plan. Operations at John Wayne Airport will not pose a safety hazard for future residents due to the proximity of the project to the airport. 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. A- �! 2 AERIE(PA2005 -196) ® INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page AO of 57 g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project will not interfere with an emergency evacuation plan as the site does not abut a roadway designated for emergency evacuation. Closure of Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard during construction is not proposed although vehicle movement may be hindered from time to time due to construction activities. This issue will be temporary in nature and any construction vehicles within the public right of way are prohibited from completely blocking vehicular and emergency access by the Vehicle Code. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are not located within a "Potential Fire Hazard Area" as identified by the Newport General Plan Public Safety Element. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? No impact. Waste discharges associated with this project that could affect water quality would be limited to non - point source discharges, including potential stone water runoff of construction materials and wastes and storm water runoff from the developed site. This project would not generate any point sources of water pollution; all wastewater generated by the residential plumbing systems would discharge ® directly to the City's sanitary sewer system; and this would not affect the present permit to operate the affected wastewater treatment plant. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A variety of best management practices (BMPS) have been identified in a preliminary Storrnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that there is no contact between stone water and construction site wastes and materials and to prevent any accidental spills, leaks or wastes from draining off -site and into Newport Bay or the nearby storm drain system. A final SWPPP will be subject to approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City or issuance of a General Construction Permit by the RWQCB. The permits will include requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that all water pollution control measures are properly implemented. The project will not result in a substantial change in land use and the composition of stormwater runoff will be highly similar to the runoff under current conditions. A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby incorporated by reference into this IS /MND (see reference #4, in the list of documents prepared for this project, on the last page of this report). The WQMP is conceptual and identifies a number of structural and non - structural BMPS that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach water quality regulations, and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as part of a General Construction Permit (as discussed earlier). The BMPS have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. All 'first Flush' and low flow runoff from the developed site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Carnation Avenue and filtered by a storm filter and bacteria filter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. The proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff ® into a storm drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP and SWPPP will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. 1?- 41 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 41 of 57 b) Would the project 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)? No Impact. The relatively small -scale project would not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the project's potable and non- potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of this project. There are no water wells located on or near the site, and since this project would not affect any existing or require any new water wells, the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. C) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which woulii' result insubstantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. No stream or river exists on site. A majority of site runoff currently sheet flows in a northerly and westerly direction, directly into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. A hydrological analysis prepared by Hunsaker R Associates, March 27, 2007 indicates the site currently has three stormwater run -off areas, all of which drain into Newport Bay. The northerly portion of the site (Area A) drains to existing residential properties to the northwest of the site toward Bayside Place below the project site and eventually to the bay. A majority of the run -off (Area B) is to the southwest directly into the bay. A small portion along the top of the bluff along Carnation Avenue (Area C) drains to an existing municipal catch basin located within Carnation Avenue. Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage (11% increase in impervious surfaces throughout the site) the existing drainage pattern on site will be modified. This would not affect off -site drainage patterns and the overall changes are not considered significant. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration and energy dissipater elements within the two outlet structures, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. 'Runoff during a peak storm event should actually decrease, compared to existing conditions, as shown in the analysis of pre- and post - project hydrological conditions, summarized below. Storm Water Run-off d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a 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. See the preceding response to item c. A -UU 1 1 1fo 4i')t S} 1 it l L 0.366 0.108 1 . 0.504 d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a 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. See the preceding response to item c. A -UU AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 42 of 57 e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See response above. As noted previously, all site drainage will be captured, filtered and discharged into the storm drain system in Carnation Avenue and will increase the storm water flow during a 100 -year storm by a less than significant 2.41 cubic feet per second. The existing 10 -foot wide catch basin in Carnation Avenue is presently undersized for the area it drains and will need to be upsized. This project will be responsible for replacing /upsizing the catch basin, including filtration elements as described previously. This minor alteration of the storm drain that can easily be completed during project construction without impacting the drainage system provided it is accomplished outside of the rainy season. Mitigation Measure VIII -1 will ensure that this project provides the required upgrading of the Carnation Avenue catch basin including appropriate filtration elements. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No impact. See response above. g) Would the project 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? No Impact. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. ® h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to VIII(g) above. Would the project 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? No Impact. The project site is not within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. j) Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is in close proximity to the Pacific Ocean and has frontage on Newport Bay; however, the Coastal Hazards Study prepared by GeoSoils, Inc., dated October, 5, 2006, concludes that the potential for inundation by seiche, tsunami and mudflows at this site is very remote. k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact. See responses to preceding items a -d. 1) Would the project result in potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? ® Less than Significant Impact. Stonnwater discharge from the site will be that typically associated with residential uses. No outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are proposed. Vehicle parking areas are to be fully enclosed or subterranean. As noted above, a final WQMP and SWPPP are required as standard practice by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that stormwater impacts during or after 17- q5 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 43 of 57 construction are minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible. For example, the City's standard practice is to require street sweeping as a construction control measure, rather than washing down the street surface, to avoid runoff of construction wastes, sediment and debris into the storm drain system or the bay. m) Would the project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than Significant Impact. See response to item VIII(a). n) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed storm drain system would achieve a decrease in peak storm runoff.' As a result, this project would not result in adverse impacts due to changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. o) Would the project create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact. See responses to preceding items a -d. Mitigation Measure VIII -1: The developer shall be responsible for replacemenUupsizing of the Carnation Avenue storm drain, to provide sufficient capacity for the added runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this drain. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project divide an established community? No Impact. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 9 -unit condominium structure and is located in a neighborhood consisting of single family and multiple family buildings. Therefore, the project will not introduce a new use to an existing neighborhood and will not divide an established community. b) Would the project conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency and 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The Newport Beach General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach Zoning Code contain land use plans, policies and regulations of concern with respect to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. An assessment of the project's consistency with applicable provisions of each is provided in the following narrative. Presently, the site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. First, a small portion of the site, approximately 584 square feet is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion, of the site is (60,700 square feet) designated RM (Multi -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The applicant proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a matching amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation so the entire site will have consistent designations. The designation of the 584 square foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). Although the additional land area would otherwise numerically allow 1 additional unit, the density limitation as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive as it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50% from the A - y(P AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 44 of 57 density calculation. The density of the proposed project is well below the maximum density permitted by both land use plans (28 dwellings) and it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone with the exclusion of submerged lands and sloped in excess of 50 %. The Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources. Additionally, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) contains more specific policies regarding these issues. A discussion of the relevant and applicable CLUP policies follows. Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and development. The site is designated for residential use and as discussed above, a minor adjustment of the CLUP designation is necessary. The following additional policies within Chapter 2 apply: Policy 2.7 -1 palls for the maintenance of appropriate setbacks, density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project conforms to existing building height and floor area limits. Setback encroachments are primarily subterranean and do not impact the character of the area as the above ground encroachment on the north side of the building provides between 5 and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level and approximately 28 to 30 feet of separation on levels above. Policy 2.7 -2 calls for the continued administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low and moderate income units within the Coastal Zone. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years (except for caretakers retained by the property owner) and there are no low or moderate income ® households residing on this property. Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this project. Policy 2.8.1 -1 requires that all applications for new development be reviewed to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by, GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, potential hazards are seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces and tsunamis. Seismic issues are mitigated with the implementation of the Building Code and coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. Inundation by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote. Policy 2.8.1 -2 and 2.8.1.3 requires that the design and siting of new development and land divisions to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. The proposed building is located above potential wave action and as such, it is sited to avoid the most hazardous portion of the project site. Policy 2.8.14 requires new development to assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landfonns along bluffs and cliffs. Policy 2.8.3 -1 requires that all development applications for new development on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush. Policy 2.8.6 -10 requires the siting and design of new structures to avoid the need for shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years) and Policy 2.8.7 -3 requires that new development be free of geologic hazards. Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005, the Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised March 2007), and a Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 2007 collectively indicate that the project will not be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic ® life of the structure (75 years). Policy 2.8.6 -9 requires property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval. Shoreline A—q 7 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 45 of 57 protection is only permitted to protect existing principal structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A mitigation measure is recommended to implement this policy. Policy 2.9.3 -1 requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The project would utilize below grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators. If the elevators are in use and someone desires to access them from Carnation, they will be forced to wait within the public right -of -way for the elevator possibly inconveniencing the public: Additionally, residents and their guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. This will temporarily take on-street- parking away from visitors to the coastal zone, which could be negative impact to public access even with the increase in on- street parking the project design will achieve. These issues are not considered significant as they are temporary in nature and standard conditions of approval for multi- family projects require residents to use their garage spaces for the parking of operable vehicles while prohibiting other types of storage in all parking areas. Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following policies within Chapter 3 apply: Policy 3.1.1 -1 requires the protection and where feasible, the expansion or enhancement of public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.2 -1 specifically indicates that access to and along coastal bluffs is desired while Policy 3.1.2 -2 indicates that public access must minimize impacts to coastal resources and coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11 notes that a project must minimize impacts to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -9 identifies the following goals regarding public access: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities • Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view condors; • Facilitates alternative modes of transportation; • Minimizes alterations to natural landforms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24 encourages the creation of new public vertical access ways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policies 3.1.1 -13 and 3.1.1 -14 would suggest that new development provide the direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral and vertical public access when it causes or contributes to an adverse impact to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -26 in that maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline is necessary with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Lastly, Policy 3.1.1 -27 states that the implementation of the public access policies must take into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity; • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; • Management and maintenance of the access; 11 C A - Nfl- AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ® Page 46 of 57 • The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. The project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical access to the coastal bluff or bay at this time. The proposed project does not make any accommodations for public access. As noted above the site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steep topography of the site, existing development and submerged lands. No abutting lateral or vertical public access presently exists that would connect to any access that might be considered of the development. The lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. Access to the designated view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will remain unaffected and the public view from that point will be enhanced with project approval. The proposed design will afford 3 new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the elimination of the overly wide drive approach to the existing apartment building. These spaces will be available to the public. The applicant plans only maintenance improvements to the existing concrete pad and private docks while providing an emergency communication device and wet standpipe to the docks for enhanced fire protection. With the reduction in residential density and the fact that no existing or prescriptive access rights exists, the project will not impact or impede existing public access. Providing enhanced public access to the bluff or bay would necessitate a reduction in the overall scope of the project and the construction of a staircase on the bluff. Maintenance of such an access point would need to be guaranteed by either the future homeowners association or the City of Newport Beach. The proximity of the access to existing and proposed residential uses is also a factor. Public access to the bay is currently provided in the vicinity at China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. ® Based upon the foregoing, requiring public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary and the project can be found consistent with the forgoing CLUP policies and the Coastal Act. Given the steepness of the topography, and the proximity of nearby access to the water, vertical and lateral access is unwarranted. Chapter 4 establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies are applicable: Policy 4.1.3 -1 identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on blufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species and require their removal in new development. The, project does not encroach within habitat areas or wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Policies 4.3.1 -5, 4.3.1 -6, 4.3.1 -7, 4.3.2 -22, 4.3.2 -23 require development to limit land disturbance activities and implement structural best management practices to prevent or minimize erosion that would impact coastal resources. A Water Quality Management Plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a hydrological analysis have been prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices and structural methods to ensure that erosion and stormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. Policies 4,4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require that development be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, ® including public views to and ,along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policies 4,4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, however, expressly permit new development on the bluff face on Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive when principal structures presently exist on the bluff face provided the new development is "sited in accordance with" the Predominant Line. In those A - yI AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 47 of 57 cases, Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, 4 must be applied in a manner which does not negate Polices 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. As noted previously, Policy 4.4.3 -9 establishes a threshold for the protection of coastal views to the Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue bluff faces by limiting development to the Predominant Line. Policy 4.4.3 -9, therefore, provides the standard by which Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 can be implemented for this specific location. Because the applicant has agreed to limit development to the Predominant Line as established by the City Council, these policies are met by the proposed project. Policy 4.4.1 -3 requires the design and siting of new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Similarly, Policy 4.4.3 -12 promotes the use of site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs. As with Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, Policy 4.4.1 -3 and 4.4.3 -12 must be read in the context of the policies which expressly permit development on the bluff face to the Predominant Line at this location. The applicant has agreed to Mitigation Measure 1 -1 which ,provides that the project will comply with the Predominant Line as determined by the City Council. Therefore, the project will be consistent with Policy 4.4.3 -12 if its proposed grading of the bluff to the Predominant Line will be the minimal amount necessary to construct the project. Because the proposed building is sited on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.4.1 -6 requires public views from Ocean Boulevard to be protected. A public view over the project site from Ocean Boulevard to the west presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site. Presently there is a 25 degree view between the existing apartment building and the neighbor's garage and fence to the south. With the project, the view will increase to 38 degrees. Policy 4.4.1 -4 promotes requiring, where appropriate, new development to provide view easements to protect public coastal views. A mitigation measure requiring a view easement (applicable only to the project site) is recommended to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. Policies 4.4.2 -2 and 4.4.2 -3 stipulate that the visual and physical mass of development should be regulated through enforcement of building envelope regulations (i.e. building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) in effect on October 13, 2005, in order to preserve public views. The project is consistent with building height limits and other building envelope restrictions with the exception of above grade and subterranean setback encroachments to the east and south. The below grade encroachments will not impact public views and the above grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback between the proposed project and the abutting. home to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public view currently exists. Policy 4.4.3 -4 notes that on bluffs subject to marine erosion, such as the west- facing portion of the bluff in this case, new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways must be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development. However, no new accessory structures are proposed. The policy requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. A mitigation measure is recommended which provides that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the future. Policy 4.4.3 -13 requires new development on coastal bluffs to incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and/or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. The project would implement this policy through hydroseeding the bluff with a drought tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. A mitigation measure is recommended such that the planting and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow across the bluff face, and discharge to Newport Bay with less intensity than under current conditions; this will help reduce the potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site runoff. C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? R -5o C l- J AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 48 of 57 No Impact. The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with land use to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measure IX -1 — The property owner(s) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. Mitigation Measure IX -2 — The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. Mitigation Measure IX -3 — Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed if threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. Mitigation Measure IX-4 — Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California, coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? q -5/ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 49 of 57 No Impact. The proposed project is not located in an area where there are known mineral resources, and development as proposed would not affect regionally significant mineral resources. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The proposed project site is not identified in the Newport Beach General Plan as a significant mineral resource area. XI. NOISE a) Would the project result in 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. Noise associated with demolition and construction activities is exempt from restrictions, provided such work occurs during the days and hours specified in Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Please refer to the response to item d, later in this section, for more information concerning temporary demolition and construction noise effects. Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes maximum noise levels for interior (45dBA) spaces and exterior residential spaces (50dBA nighttime and 55dBA daytime, unless ambient noise levels are higher). The site is not currently impacted by significant noise levels as it is located in a relatively quiet residential area distanced from major highways or other noise producing activities or uses. Noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant noise sources. On -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the developed site would increase, compared to current conditions, since the existing apartments have been vacant for several years. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed outdoor pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise . levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels.that exceed City standards. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Drilling of piles is proposed to secure building foundations. This is a less intensive method than pile driving and excessive ground borne vibration or noise is not expected. Ground borne noise and vibration during the hours when construction activities are normally permitted will occur and it will be characteristic of typical grading and construction work associated with on -site conditions. C) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the response to item a, redevelopment of this property with nine luxury condominiums would not involve any significant noise sources. Noises associated with outdoor recreation and arrival and departure of vehicular traffic would be minor and compatible with neighboring residential uses. Permanent noise levels would increase compared to existing conditions, since the apartments have been vacant for an extended period of time, but this increase would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? A -52 AERIE (PA2005 -196) ® INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 50 of 57 Less than Significant Impact. A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, over the estimated 2.5 year construction program. Noise levels would vary, depending upon the type and number of construction machinery and vehicles in use and their location within the project site. The types of machinery to be active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: Construction Phasing 1. Demolition of existing buildings and site improvements 2. Drill shoring caissons 3. Lag and excavate 4. Shotcrete shoring walls 5. Install foundations 6. Build- concrete structure 7. Instalf plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exteriorlinterior, etc. 8. Hardscape and landscape Noise levels associated with construction machinery typically range from 75 to 100 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. No unusual construction methods are proposed that could generate extremely high noise levels; for example, no blasting of rock materials is anticipated and pile driving will not be required, based on the results of the geotechnical investigations. The maximum noise levels would occur while the machinery is in active use and would be noticeable intermittently throughout the construction work day. There are no regulatory standards governing noise levels of construction machinery and operations, so most jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, restrict the days and hours of construction activities to weekdays and Saturdays, when people are generally most active and the ® nuisance -level of construction noise is considered most tolerable. As noted in the earlier response to a, Chapter 10.28 of the Municipal Code prohibits any construction activities between 6:30 pm and 7 am on weekdays, between 6 pm and 8 am on Saturdays, and at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions to these standard restrictions; therefore, the temporary construction noise impacts would be 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 project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport. Noise from planes landing or taking off from John Wane Airport is below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airport. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to 9, and therefore, the project is not likely to result in a substantial increase in population. All proposed utility services can be provided through connections to existing main line facilities that are on or near the project ® site. This project would not require expansion of any infrastructure facilities that could support additional growth. Vehicular access is already available from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and this project would simply alter an existing driveway cut along Carnation Avenue. A -53 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 51 of 57 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease in a total of six dwelling units. The loss of six dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach. With the exception of a tenant in the single- family residence (207 Carnation) and a caretaker residing within the apartment building, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is necessary. C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? No Impact. See response to XII(b) above. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease of six residential units, although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site. Therefore, there will not be a significant increase in structures and persons requiring emergency services. The project includes all necessary fire protection devices including fire sprinklers. The project must be found compliant with the Building Code and Fire Code. Preliminary code analysis has been preformed and the proposed building will comply, although a final determination will be made at the time of issuance of a building permit. An emergency communication device will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe will be provided to the existing docks for enhanced fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, are existing in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. • Police protection? No Impact. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartments and one single family residence with nine luxury condominium homes would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. Schools? No Impact. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single family home and one apartment. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District_ When this project is completed, there could be a number of school age children living in the new homes, estimated at less than 20, distributed between various grade levels. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each new home, the builder must pay a fee to the school district, pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, to help offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to handle increasing student enrollment associated with new housing projects. • Other public facilities? No Impact. Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. XIV. RECREATION A- 5y C AERIE (PA2005 -196) ® INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 52 of 57 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 will result in a decrease of dwelling units and will not occupy an existing or planned park or recreational facility. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, plus a private beach area, most residents are expected to enjoy their private recreation amenities frequently. Those residents who occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage of those parks and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project includes private common amenities and private access to the bay that will help off -set the need for recreational facilities. Due to the reduction in density and resulting decrease in population, it is anticipated that no net increased demand for public recreational facilities would occur and thus no new facilities would need to be constructed. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Would the project 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)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of truck traffic would occur that could add to congestion levels on affected travel routes, particularly during the peak summer tourist season when there is more than normal traffic present. It is estimated that there could be the following peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases: Excavation- trucks to haul excess materials to a remote site 2,300 to 2,700 truck trips, with up to 100 truck trips /day, over approximately 4.5 to 6 working weeks Construction of shoring and walls 75 concrete mixers and pumpers, for a 14-day total time period Construction of Caissons and Concrete Work 500 concrete mixers and pumper trucks, with up to 15 per day, along with a number of flat bed trucks, to deliver a drill rig, crane, and back hoe, plus several dump trucks. This phase would have duration of approximately 12 months. Grading will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Since that will be the heaviest period of this project's construction traffic, this control measure would avoid significant traffic congestion impacts. Depending upon the selected route(s), there could be some adverse impacts, for example, a convoy of trucks taking a route along narrow residential streets with numerous stop -sign controlled intersections could slow local traffic, impede turning movements at private driveways, and could result in potentially intrusive noise and bursts of exhaust emissions as trucks slow, stop and then accelerate through successive intersections. Some ® normally acceptable routes could be temporarily impacted by utility construction within a section of the street, thus rendering that route a poor choice for the project's extensive truck traffic. Since the ultimate destination of the export materials cannot be determined until time of grading, and the conditions, advantages and disadvantages of potential haul routes cannot be ascertained until that time, it is premature to specify a particular set of construction traffic control restrictions. To ensure that this A -55 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 53 of 57 project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts, and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, Mitigation Measure XV -1 will be imposed, to require development and implementation of a construction traffic control plan and to designate the contents of that plan. Trip generation factors developed for the Newport Beach Transportation Analysis Model indicate the proposed project would result in a net reduction in morning and late afternoon peak hour trips, as well as total daily trips, compared to the existing apartments and single family home. The net changes are summarized in the table, below, and assume that all of the existing apartments and the single family unit are occupied. tiY r `;AYA9{Y7i,,1 b .'��. -ih• iff��a34:cS'�fi 1u1 -,. � � %�99u'��- S'�,i"��J317 s °�'Sw.?Y `�.� 1. '`41' 1 1 The traffic analysis considered the decrease In total dwelling units, and likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic per units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households that could generate a minor amount of additional traffic for domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance, etc., Even with such additional traffic, this project would not result in an increase in peak hour and total daily traffic and would not, therefore, result in any significant traffic congestion impacts. b) Would the project exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and as noted in the preceding response, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect on traffic conditions. C) Would the project result in a change in air traffic pattern, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed building is no more than 33 feet in height would not encroach into any air traffic space. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to /from the subject property. On some occasions, there will a relatively substantial number of trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through traffic for short periods of time. The project will be constructed on an existing site and the only off -site change will be the reduction in the width of the existing drive approach. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L of the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed homes would include the same kinds of automobiles and trucks normally found in this area and would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Fire Department has conducted a preliminary code analysis with the Building Department and they found that emergency access will be adequate. During J E A -5& AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 54 of 57 construction, portions of Carnation Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction activities including construction vehicles. The use of Flagmen may be required and Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, there could be temporary displacement of public on- street parking by construction crew members and possibly while large trucks deliver and pick up machinery and materials. The applicant is proposing the following construction staging and parking management strategies to minimize such impacts: Construction Staging Plan • Schedule grading to avoid the busy summer season • Keep all staging related to demolition on site • During excavation, shoring, foundation and structural phases, trucks are to be staged on Pacific Coast Highway, south of Cameo Highlands Drive. Trucks would be brought to the project site one at a time via the approved haul route • An encroachment permit or temporary street closure permit will be requested to allow use of 10 feet of City right -of -way; from the property line to Ocean Boulevard, for staging of materials, temporary parking of trucks while materials are off - loaded, etc. This will achieve a total 20 feet of staging area along the Ocean Blvd. frontage, when including the 10 foot building setback area. • Once the parking structure is completed, it will be used for staging for the various trades to complete the remaining phases of construction Construction Parking Plan • A portion of a nearby parking lot will be leased to provide space for construction crew parking. Crews will be shuttled to /from the work site at the beginning and end of each work day • When the parking structure is completed and the car lifts are operational, construction crew parking will be provided on site. In concept, this is considered an adequate approach to avoiding significant temporary parking impacts during the construction phases. Mitigation Measure XV -1 will be imposed to ensure that this is fully and properly planned and implemented, The project will provide 18 resident and 7 guest parking spaces for a total of 25 spaces. Additionally, vehicle lifts may be used to increase the off - street parking supply. Several spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. All of the spaces are within the three sub - basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by freight elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. The project would require a total of 18 spaces for residents and 5 spaces for guests for a total of 23 spaces for the proposed 9 -unit project. The project exceeds the minimum parking standard. By reducing the length of the curb cut for the proposed driveway entrance, this project will create space for three additional on- street public parking spaces. This will be a beneficial impact in this popular beach destination area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, pians, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed residential project will be constructed on developed site containing 14 is apartments and a single family home. There are no transit facilities on or along the frontage of this site. This project will not require the realignment of existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities in the vicinity and, given the likely affluence of future households, would not affect demand for public transit. A-57 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 55 of 57 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic; Mitigation Measure XV -1: Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate construction vehicle parking. Construction traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there Is no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend).The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed new 9 -unit residential structure would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase over existing uses due to the reduction in residential density. The project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 10 -inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the project site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. C) Would the project 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? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The project will result in additional impervious service areas by the new building, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a slight increase in runoff during storm periods; however, this runoff is minimal and can be accommodated within existing curbs, gutters and stormdrains in the area. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the proposed project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of six, implementation of the project may result in a minor if any additional water demand associated with the increased size of the dwelling units, and the pool and spa areas. I-r'70 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ® Page 56 of 57 e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis, including the technical studies prepared for the project, indicates that the proposed 9 -unit condominium and appurtenant improvements would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City requirements and the recommended mitigation measures contained herein. Therefore, the following conclusions can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines: a) The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive plant or animal species on the project site and the proposed project would not 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, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. The proposed project will result in a new multiple family building with associated improvements, parking and landscaping on a site currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building and a single - family residence. Although the project could potentially generate adverse impacts, mitigation measures would decrease these potential impacts to a less than significant level. The project would not significantly impact environmental resources. C) Replacement of 14 older apartments and a single family residence with nine luxury condominium residences would result in a negligible difference in long -term environmental effects associated with occupancy of these homes. All of the effects related to energy consumption, traffic, water consumption, utility demand, solid waste disposal, use of public facilities, etc. would occur if the existing structures were to be reoccupied. This project would not generate new environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. d) The proposed project would not have environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on ® humans, either directly or indirectly, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would avoid potentially significant adverse impacts and would reduce the identified impacts less than significant levels. A -59 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 57 of 57 The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City will consider the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures as conditions of approval in the event that decision makers choose to approve the project. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 2. Final.Program EIR - City of Newport Beach General Plan 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. The following documents have been prepared specifically for this project, and are incorporated by reference within this IS /MND. The documents are available at the office of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. 1. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Neblett & Associates, August 5, 2005. 2. Phase I Environmental Assessment, P &D Consultants, May 26, 2005. 3. Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882, Hunsaker & Associates, March 27, 2007. 4. Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005. 5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005 (revised March 27, 2007. 6. Biological Constraints Analysis, P &D Consultants, June 10, 2005. 7. Marine Biological Field Survey, Coastal Resources Management, April 12, 2005. 8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches, LSA Associates, Inc., July 12, 2005. 9. Aerie Project Overview, Brion Jeannette Architecture, May 8, 2006. 10. Coastal Hazard Study, GeoSoils Inc., October, 5, 2006. 11. Air Quality Analysis, Planning Research Network, March 7, 2007 12. Bluff Face Development Study, GeoSoils, Inc„ June 11, 2007 Attachments: Project Plans J • ,s J