Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout15 - Beauchamp General Plan Amendment & Local Coastal Program (PA2009-067)W CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. !S May 25, 2010 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Makana Nova, Assistant Planner 949 - 644 -3249, mnova @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Beauchamp General Plan Amendment and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (PA2009 -067) 2000 -2016 East Balboa Blvd • General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 • Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 ISSUE: Should the City Council adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectively? RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt City Council Resolution No. adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 and approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 and Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment No. LC2009 -001 (Attachment No. CC 1). Beauchamp GP /CLOP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 2 VICINITY MAP Project Site GENERAL PLAN ZONING 1..., °., pi a LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE PR (Parks and R -1 (Single - Family Private Tennis Club F: Recreation Residential Ez e. NORTH RS -D (Single -Unit 1Jy� Residential Dwellings u e Detached Residential Residential l Q _ fl50 RS -D (Single -Unit R -1 (Single - Family SOUTH i uzart are _ x�a,or Residential Residential Dwellings EAST RS -D (Single -Unit R -1 (Single - Family Residential Dwellings Detached Residential ) esidential WEST RS -D (Single -Unit Detached Residential) R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Residential Dwellings ZONING 1..., °., pi a LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE PR (Parks and R -1 (Single - Family Private Tennis Club Recreation Residential NORTH RS -D (Single -Unit R -1 (Single - Family Residential Dwellings Detached Residential Residential RS -D (Single -Unit R -1 (Single - Family SOUTH Detached Residential Residential Residential Dwellings EAST RS -D (Single -Unit R -1 (Single - Family Residential Dwellings Detached Residential ) esidential WEST RS -D (Single -Unit Detached Residential) R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Residential Dwellings H Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject properties are located in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. The project site is 26,662 square feet (approximately 0.6 acres) and consists of six legal parcels. The property is adjacent to East Balboa Boulevard and is bounded by two private streets, L Street and East Bay Avenue. There is no direct coastal access from the project site. Background The existing development consists of a private tennis club with an 800 - square -foot clubhouse building and two, hard - surface tennis courts. The private tennis club was originally approved under Use Permit No. UP945 in 1963. The private tennis club does not provide off - street parking and members must park along East Balboa Boulevard or the adjacent private streets to access the site. As part of the 1988 General Plan update, the land use designation of the project site was changed from Single - Family Detached to Recreation and Environmental Open Space. It is not known if this land use change was made to reflect the existing recreational land use or as part of an effort to increase the inventory of land designated for recreational and open space land use designations throughout the City. This land use designation for the project site was then carried over as Parks and Recreation (PR) in the 2006 General Plan Update. Although the land use designation was changed, the zoning for the project site was never updated for consistency with the new General Plan land use designation and the project site remains within the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the City prepared a Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for property lying within the Coastal Zone of the City of Newport Beach. In October of 2005, the California Coastal Commission certified the CLUP and the City Council subsequently adopted it in December of 2005. The PR land use designation was applied to the project site for consistency with the General Plan. Project Description The applicant requests approval of a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program CLUP amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectively. The amendments would allow residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. The proposed land use changes are shown in the attached revised General Plan and Local Coastal Program CLUP maps as provided in Exhibits "C" and "D" of the draft City Council resolution (Attachment No. CC 1). 3 Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 4 The subject applications do not include a specific project for development at this time. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) includes a conceptual development plan to consider the potential environmental impacts of the land use change. The R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District allows for the development of a maximum of five dwelling units on the subject properties (based on the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet) and the conceptual development plan assumes that all units would be constructed concurrently. DISCUSSION: Analysis The proposed Single Unit Residential Detached land use designation applies to a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units. The conceptual development plan depicts single unit development on individual legal lots, which are consistent with this land use designation. The proposed Local Coastal Program CLUP amendment would designate the project site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). The representative density of the proposed conceptual plan, 8.17 dwelling units per acre, is also consistent with the RSD- B density limit of 6.0 -9.9 dwelling units per acre and is compatible with the density of surrounding development. Planning Commission Action On March 4, 2010, the Planning Commission voted (7 ayes and 0 noes) to recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council. As part of the Planning Commission's action, the following sentence was removed from Page 2 -6 of the MND: "While the proposed project currently includes only the proposed General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program amendment, and the subdivision tract map is not currently part of the proposed discretionary approval, this environmental document would cover this approval in the future as long as the conceptual development plan remains unchanged." At the concern of the Planning Commission, staff recommended the removal of this sentence to minimize confusion regarding the applicability of future projects under the MND. Several Commissioners questioned the density, orientation of lots, and the possibility of allowing future curb cuts off of East Balboa Boulevard. Staff explained that these issues would also be addressed at the time a tract map or parcel map is processed for the project site. In addition, the current conceptual plan is designed to minimize these impacts so that primary access to the properties is taken from the adjacent private y Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 5 streets and the lot sizes and widths are compatible with properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with General Plan policies and Zoning Code development standards. The Planning Commission minutes, staff report, and resolution from the March 4, 2010 meeting are included as Attachment Nos. CC 2, 3, and 4. Council Policy K-1 Council Policy K -1 requires the applicant to provide the reason for making the request. The stated reason provided by the applicant for the subject General Plan Amendment request is: "To bring the existing City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan designations into compliance with the R -1 Zoning designation. The amendment will also correct a land use change that may have been an inadvertent error in designating this private residential property as PR the 1988 General Plan update and was then carried over in the 2006 General Plan update." Council Policy A -18 — Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Council Policy A -18 (CPA -18) implements Charter Section 423 (Protection from Traffic and Density). CPA -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a General Plan amendment (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or exceeds 100 dwelling units in a statistical area beyond what is allowed in the General Plan, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the General Plan amendment. The General Plan does not provide a density /intensity limit for the proposed RS -D land use designation. However, the number of dwelling units permitted on the subject property would be limited by the minimum lot size specified in the Subdivision Code. Therefore, the amendment would allow up to five additional dwelling units. This is well below the 100 - dwelling unit threshold. Based on the trip rates for Tennis Courts and Single - Family Detached Housing provided in CPA -18, the amendment would result in an increase of 0.41 AM peak hour trips from 3.34 trips to 3.75 AM peak hour trips and a decrease of 2.71 PM peak hour trips from 7.76 trips to 5.05 PM peak hour trips. Since there is an increase of 0.41 peak hour trips, the 100 -peak hour trip threshold will not be exceeded. Refer to Table 1.1 on the following page to review the trip rate analysis for the proposed Amendment. 5 Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 6 Figure 1.1 Sectinn 423 Trin Rata and Fnfiflemenf Tahle' Afatiefical Araa nA The General Plan does not include a specific floor area limit or FAR for the Parks and Recreation land use designation but allows for incidental buildings. No increase in non- residential floor area is proposed by this amendment; therefore, the non - residential floor area threshold will not be impacted. This is the first General Plan amendment in Statistical Area D4 since the General Plan update in 2006. There are no prior amendments in this statistical area. In conclusion, none of the thresholds to require a vote pursuant to CPA -18 would be exceeded. CPA -18 requires information about any associated project to be included in the staff report that would help the City Council make an informed decision on the proposed Amendment. While there are no other projects in the same Statistical Area per the requirements of CPA -18, the upcoming Marina Park project is worth mentioning because it is located in the vicinity of the subject Amendment and involves the addition of recreational uses in the area. Both the proposed Amendment and the upcoming Marina Park project will reduce the number of tennis courts available in the area. However, the proposed project is a private recreational use and the Marina Park Project will expand other public recreational activities in the vicinity. Please refer to Section XIV, Recreation, and Pages 11 and 12 of Appendix B in the MIND for a full discussion of the proposed project's impact on recreational facilities. SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice on February 10, 2010. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. The response period ended on May 11, 2010 and no requests for consultation were received. 31 ITE Unit of AM AM Trips PM PM Trips Units Trip Trip Category Measure Generated Generated Rate Rate Current Use Tennis court No. 2 1.67 3.34 3.88 7.76 courts Single - family Dwelling Proposed Use 5 0.75 3.75 1.01 5.05 detached units housing The General Plan does not include a specific floor area limit or FAR for the Parks and Recreation land use designation but allows for incidental buildings. No increase in non- residential floor area is proposed by this amendment; therefore, the non - residential floor area threshold will not be impacted. This is the first General Plan amendment in Statistical Area D4 since the General Plan update in 2006. There are no prior amendments in this statistical area. In conclusion, none of the thresholds to require a vote pursuant to CPA -18 would be exceeded. CPA -18 requires information about any associated project to be included in the staff report that would help the City Council make an informed decision on the proposed Amendment. While there are no other projects in the same Statistical Area per the requirements of CPA -18, the upcoming Marina Park project is worth mentioning because it is located in the vicinity of the subject Amendment and involves the addition of recreational uses in the area. Both the proposed Amendment and the upcoming Marina Park project will reduce the number of tennis courts available in the area. However, the proposed project is a private recreational use and the Marina Park Project will expand other public recreational activities in the vicinity. Please refer to Section XIV, Recreation, and Pages 11 and 12 of Appendix B in the MIND for a full discussion of the proposed project's impact on recreational facilities. SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice on February 10, 2010. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. The response period ended on May 11, 2010 and no requests for consultation were received. 31 Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment May 25, 2010 Page 7 Environmental Review Prior to taking action on the requested General Plan and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan amendments, the City Council must first review, consider, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) provided as Exhibit "A" to the draft City Council resolution (Attachment No. CC 1). The MND is comprised of the Notice of Intent (NOI), Initial Study (IS), Environmental Analysis, and Appendices. The MND was completed and circulated for a mandatory 30 -day public- review period that began on January 12, 2010 and concluded on February 10, 2010. Several comment letters were received from advising agencies which are attached as Attachment No. CC 7. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Alternatives: The City Council may adopt the draft resolution approving the proposed project as requested, approve a revised project, or deny the application. Should the City Council choose to approve a revised project, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and /or conditions. Prepared by: Mak na Nq a, Assistanl Planner Attachments: Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director CC 1 Draft City Council Resolution CC 2 Planning Commission Minutes from March 4, 2010 Meeting CC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report CC 4 Approved Planning Commission Resolution CC 5 MND Comment Letters CC 6 Conceptual Development Site Plan and Topographic Survey 7 V Attachment No. CC 1 Draft City Council Resolution O RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2010 -001 AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2009 -001 AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. LC2009 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2000 THROUGH 2016 EAST BALBOA BOULEVARD (PA2009 -067). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by David Beauchamp of Peninsula Point Properties, LLC, with respect to property located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard and legally described as Lots 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22 of Tract 756, as shown on a map recorded in Book 23, Pages 7 & 8 of miscellaneous maps, records of Orange County, California in requesting approval of a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan amendment. 2. The applicant proposes the adoption of a General Plan amendment and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD- B, respectively. The property is currently used as a private tennis club and the Amendments would allow for future residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. 3. The subject property is located within the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is currently Parks and Recreation (PR). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan category is currently Parks and Recreation (PR). 5. A public hearing was held on March 4, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 6. At the March 4, 2010, hearing, the Planning Commission received public comments and voted (7 ayes and 0 noes) to recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment, and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. 7. A public hearing was held by the City Council on May 25, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place I City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 2 of 15 and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on January 12, 2010, and ending on February 10, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B ". The document and all supporting materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 5. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT. 1. Council Policy A -18 (CPA -18) requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a General Plan amendment (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) generates more than 100 peak hour trips, 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or exceeds 100 dwelling units in a statistical area beyond what is allowed in the General Plan, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the General Plan amendment. Tmpit: 01/14/10 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 15 2. The General Plan does not provide a density /intensity limit for the proposed RS -D land use designation nor does it include a specific floor area limit or FAR for the Parks and Recreation land use designation but allows for incidental buildings. No increase in non - residential floor area is proposed by this amendment; therefore, the non- residential floor area threshold will not be impacted. Since there is an increase of 0.41peak hour trips, the 100 -peak hour trip threshold will not be exceeded. The amendment would allow up to five additional dwelling units. This is well below the 100 - dwelling unit threshold. This is the first General Plan amendment in Statistical Area D4 since the General Plan update in 2006. There are no prior amendments in this statistical area. None of the thresholds to require a vote pursuant to CPA -18 would be exceeded. 3. The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the additional dwelling units under the proposed land use changes. 4. The amendment is in the public interest pursuant to Section 65358 of the California Government Code and CPA -18. The amendment would allow for five dwelling units which would contribute to the City's assigned share of moderate or above moderate dwelling units for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). 5. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on February 10, 2010. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. The response period ended on May 11, 2010 and no requests for consultation were received. SECTION 4. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT. 1. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the City prepared a Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) for property lying within the Coastal Zone of the City of Newport Beach. In October of 2005, the California Coastal Commission certified the CLUP and the City Council subsequently adopted it in December of 2005. 2. On February 17, 2010 and May 14, 2010, notices of the availability of a draft amendment of the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan were provided in accordance with Section 13515(c) of the California Code of Regulations. This notice was mailed to approximately 122 affected property owners, occupants, interested parties, and public agencies in order to provide public participation and comments. 3. This Amendment of the Local Coastal Program CLUP is intended to be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the California Coastal Act. Additionally, the Amendment meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) of the California Coastal Act. The current Tmplt: 01/14/10 0 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 15 use of the project site is a private recreational use within the Coastal Zone and the proposed General Plan and Local Coastal Program CLUP amendments allow the development of the property as was permitted prior to the 1988 General Plan update. The conceptual development plan would comply with the density requirement of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre as required by the Residential Single Unit Detached (RSD- B) land use designation of the Local Coastal Program CLOP. SECTION 5. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council hereby removes the final sentence of the first paragraph as shown on Page 2 -6 of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 that reads, "However, this environmental document would cover the approval of a future subdivision tract map and final development plan, provided they are in substantial conformance with the conceptual development plan." 2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Mitigation Monitoring Report Program as depicted in Exhibit "B" of this resolution. 3. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "C ". 4. Amendments to the General Plan and Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 5. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 to update the Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan as depicted in Exhibit "D ". 6. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for formal review and approval. 7. Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment No. LC2009 -001 shall not become effective until after California Coastal Commission approves it and subsequent action is taken to adopt the Amendment by the City Council. 8. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby directs the City Clerk to mail notice of this decision to the applicant within five working days of the date of this decision. Tmplt: 01/14/10 13 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 5 of 15 Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the May 25, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmpit: 01/14/10 ►LI City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 15 Exhibit "A" Mitigated Negative Declaration Tmplt: 01/14/10 15 I� V Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments City of Newport Beach Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to amend the existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single - Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and to amend the existing Coastal Land Use Plan designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B) for the properties located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. The proposed project would involve the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: • Amendment to General Plan. An amendment to General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). • Amendment to Local Coastal Program. An amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) to be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). Because the proposed land use changes would allow the conversion of the existing land use from a private tennis club to single -unit dwellings, the mitigated negative declaration includes the analysis of a conceptual development plan to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the land use change. The R -1 (single - family residential) Zoning District allows for the development of a maximum of five dwelling units on the subject properties. The project applicant, David Beauchamp, proposes a conceptual development plan for the construction of a maximum of five, detached, single -unit dwellings that would comply with the maximum floor area limit as required by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of an MND. The MND reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental evaluations, and standard construction and engineering practices, requiring review and reevaluation of future projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The MND is available for a 30 -day public review period beginning January 12, 2010 and ending February 10, 2010. Copies of the document are available for review at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can also be accessed online at: htto:// www. newr)ortbeachca .00v /index.asi)x ?oaae =942. Any written comments on the proposed project must be received no later than February 10, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. to the attention of Makana Nova at the address listed below. The City's Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to consider this item at a regular meeting to be held on March 4, 2010, at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For additional information, please contact Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, at (949) 644 -3249 or at mnova(o-newgortbeachca.aov. Makana Nova, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658 Contact: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner 949/644 -3202 Prepared bv: ICF Jones & Stokes 1 Ada, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Contact: Nicole Williams 949/333 -6600 January 2010 ICF Jones & Stokes. 2010. Initial studyldraft mitigated negative declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments. January. (ICF J &S 00846.07.) Irvine, CA. Prepared for City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, Newport, CA. Table of Contents Chapter1 Introduction ............................................................... ............................1 -1 Overview..................................................................... ............................1 -1 Authority...................................................................... ............................1 -1 Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration .....................1 -2 ImpactTerminology .................................................... ............................1 -2 Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration.................................................................. ............................1 -3 Chapter 2 Environmental Setting and Project Description .... ............................2 -1 Project Overview ......................................................... ............................2 -1 Objectives of the Proposed Project ............................ ............................2 -1 Proposed Project Location .............................................. ........................ 2 -1 Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ... ............................2 -2 RegulatorySetting ...................................................... ............................2 -3 California Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use Plan ..........................2 -3 City of Newport Beach General Plan .................... ............................2 -3 City of Newport Beach Zoning Code .................... ............................2 -4 Description of the Proposed Project ........................... ............................2 -4 Land Use Amendments ..................................... ................ ............... 2 -4 Conceptual Development Plan ............................. ............................2 -5 Construction Assumptions .................................... ............................2 -6 Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist .................... ............................3 -1 I. Aesthetics .......................................................... ............................3 -5 II. Agricultural Resources ....................................... ............................3 -7 III. Air Quality .......................................................... ............................3 -9 IV. Biological Resources ........................................ ...........................3 -18 V. Cultural Resources ........ .............................................................. 3 -21 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................. ...........................3 -23 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................... ...........................3 -27 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................ ...........................3 -32 IX. Land Use and Planning .................................... ...........................3 -37 X. Mineral Resources ............................................ ...........................3 -39 XI. Noise ................................................................. ...........................3 -40 XII. Population and Housing ............................. .................................. 3 -47 XIII. Public Services ................................................. ...........................3 -49 XIV. Recreation ........................................................ ...........................3 -52 XV. Transportation/ Traffic ........................................ ...........................3 -54 Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative j Declaration ICF Jas 00e46.os City of Newport Beach Table of Contents XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ............................ ...........................3 -57 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................. ...........................3 -61 Chapter 4 References ................................................................ ............................4 -1 Printed References ............................ ................ ................ ......... ....... ..... 4 -1 Personal Communications .......................................... ............................4 -4 Chapter 5 List of Preparers ....................................................... ............................5 -1 City of Newport Beach ................................................ ............................5 -1 ICFJones & Stokes .................................................... ............................5 -1 Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and Operational Emissions Calculations Appendix B General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Appendix C Noise Analysis Appendix D General Plan Noise Element Land use Noise Compatibility Matrix Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00846.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Tables Table Page 2 -1 Summary of Proposed Dwelling Units ........................ ............................2 -5 3 -1 Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions ........... ...........................3 -12 3 -2 Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions .......... ...........................3 -13 3 -3 Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions ............. ...........................3 -14 3 -4 Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions ............ ...........................3 -15 3 -5 Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pounds per day) ........................................................ ...........................3 -16 3 -6 Short Term Sound Level Measurements ................... ...........................3 -41 3 -7 Potential Noise Levels from Construction Phases ..... ...........................3 -43 3 -8 City of Newport Beach Public Tennis Courts ...... ......... ....... ................ ..3 -53 3 -9 City of Newport Beach Private Tennis Courts ........... ...........................3 -53 3 -10 Landfill Capacity ........................................................ ...........................3 -60 Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF AS 00846.09 City of Newport Beach Table of Contents Figures Figure Follows Page 2 -1 Regional Location ....................................................... ............................2 -2 2 -2 Local Vicinity Map ....................................................... ............................2 -2 2 -3 Existing Conditions ..................................................... ............................2 -2 2 -4 Existing Development ................................................. ............................2 -2 2 -5 Existing and Proposed General Land Use Plan Designations............................................................... ............................2 -6 2 -6 Existing and Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Designations............................................................... ............................2 -6 2 -7 Proposed Project — Conceptual Development Plan ...... ............................2 -6 3 -1 Designated Public Viewpoints .................................... ............................3 -6 3 -2a Surrounding Residential Uses .................................... ............................3 -6 3 -2b Surrounding Residential Uses .................................... ............................3 -6 3 -3 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Area ........ ...........................3 -24 3 -4 Flood Hazards ........................................................... ...........................3 -36 3 -5 Tsunami Evacuation Routes ........................ ....... ............................... ...3 -36 3 -6 Noise Measurement Locations .................................. ...........................3 -42 3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities ............... ...........................3 -50 Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative iv Declaration ICF AS 00846.09 Acronyms and Abbreviations ADTs Average Daily Trips AELUP Airport Envrions Land Use Plan APN Assessor's Parcel Number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan Basin South Coast Air Basin BMPs best management practices CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency Cal /OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CHn methane CNEL Community Noies Equivalent Level COZ carbon dioxide COZe equated carbon dioxide dBA A- weighted sound level DAMP Drainage Area Management Plan du /ac units per acre EIR environmental impact report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Study Area FTA Federal Transit Administration GHGs greenhouse gas emissions ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers IS /MND Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration IPS inches per second LOS level of service Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative v Declaration ICF Jas oosas.os City of Newport Beach Table of Content LST localized significance threshold MGD million gallons per day MLD most likely descendent MZR Mineral Resource Zones NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 03 ozone OCFCD Orange County Flood Control District OPR Office of Planning and Research OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed project Riverside Park Outdoor Development Project PPV peak particle velocity PR Parks and Recreation RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board RS -D Single -Unit Residential Detached General Plan Designation RSD -B Single -Unit Residential Detached Coastal Land Use Plan Desigation R -1 Single - Family Residential Zone SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SLM Sound Level Meter SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TMDLs total maximum daily loads TPO Traffic Phasing Ordinance V/C vehicle to capacity VMT vehicle miles traveled WQMP Water Quality Management Plan Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2010 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative yj Declaration iCF Jas oosas.os Chapter 1 Introduction Overview Authority Chapter 1 Introduction The City of Newport Beach has prepared this Initial Study /Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the Beauchamp General Plan Land Use Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments (proposed project), located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard, in the City of Newport Beach. As part of the permitting process for the City, and prior to consideration of the project by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The preparation of this IS/MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). One of the main objectives of CEQA is to disclose to the public and decision makers the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. CEQA requires that the lead agency determine whether a project is subject to CEQA review or exempt under statutory exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 18, Sections 15260 et seq.) or categorical exemptions (CEQA Guidelines, Article 19, Section 15300 et seq.). The City determined that the project is not exempt from CEQA and therefore proceeded to the preparation of an initial study to determine whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate. The City is the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA. The preparation of initial studies is guided by Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and Sections 15070-15075 of Article 6 guide the process for the preparation of an MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made to the statute, the State CEQA Guidelines, or appropriate case law. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 1. Introduction This IS /MND meets CEQA content requirements by including a project description; a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for any significant effects; discussion of consistency with plans and policies; and names of preparers. Scope of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration This IS/MND evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: • aesthetics, • agricultural resources, • air quality, • biological resources, • cultural resources, • geology and soils, • hazards and hazardous materials, • hydrology and water quality, Impact Terminology • land use planning, • mineral resources, • noise, • population and housing, • public services, • recreation, • transportation/traffic, and • utilities and service systems. The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts. ■ A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way. ■ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. ■ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of enviromnental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant. ■ An impact is considered potentially signifcant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 1.2 Declaration icF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 1. Introduction Organization of the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The report contains the following sections. ■ Chapter 1, "Introduction," identifies the purpose and scope of this IS/MND and the terminology used in the report. ■ Chapter 2, "Project Description and Environmental Setting," identifies the location, setting description, background, and planning objectives of the project and describes the proposed project in detail. ■ Chapter 3, "Initial Study Environmental Checklist," presents the CEQA environmental checklist and responses for each resource topic within the checklist. This section includes a brief setting section for each resource topic and identifies the impacts of implementing the proposed project. ■ Chapter 4, "References," identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this IS /MND. ■ Chapter 5, "List of Preparers," identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their roles in the project. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 1.3 Declaration icF Jas 00M&o9 Chapter 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting Chapter 2 Project Description and Environmental Setting Project Overview The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Costal Land Use Plan Amendment to two existing parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APNs] 048 - 240 -20 and 048 - 240 -23) located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and the existing Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD- B). These two land use amendments would be consistent with the current Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing parcels. Details regarding the project objectives, location, environmental setting, conceptual site plan, and discretionary actions are included in this chapter. Objectives of the Proposed Project The objectives for the proposed project include: ■ creating consistency between the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan land use designations and the Zoning Code; and allowing for the potential development of up to five single -unit dwellings on land currently zoned for such a purpose in accordance with the existing Zoning Code. Proposed Project Location The proposed project is located on the Balboa Peninsula at the Peninsula Point Racquet Club in the City of Newport Beach. Newport Bay, Balboa Island, and Pacific Coast Highway are located to the north of the proposed project site, the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -1 Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description Harbor entrance channel is located to the east of the proposed project site, the Pacific Ocean is located south of the proposed project site, and Balboa Peninsula and the terminus of the 55 Freeway are located to the west of the proposed project. Figure 2 -1 depicts the regional location of the project area. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club is located on two Assessor's parcels consisting of five lots and 26,662 gross square feet (approximately 0.6 acres) at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard. East Balboa Boulevard is located immediately south of the proposed project site. East Bay Avenue, a private drive, is located to the north, and L Street, also a private drive, is located to the west of the proposed project site and provides ingress /egress to East Balboa Boulevard. To the east of the proposed project site are single - family residential homes and Seville Avenue. Figure 2 -2 shows the local vicinity of the proposed project site. A detailed discussion of surrounding land uses follows. Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The entire site is occupied by the Peninsula Point Racquet Club, which is a private tennis club that was established by a use permit for a private tennis club in 1963. The site is flat and primarily covered with impervious surfaces. The site has minimal amounts of ornamental landscaping along the tennis court fences and to the west of the courts. Figure 2 -3 identifies the existing conditions on the project site and surrounding area. Facilities located on the site include: two hard - surface tennis courts, an 800 - square -foot clubhouse, and a 2,850- square -foot area identified as the "garden" to the west of the tennis courts with some ornamental landscaping. Court 1 is located on assessor's parcel number (APN) 048- 240 -20, and Court 2 is located on APN 048 - 240 -23. Figure 2-4 identifies the existing parcel configuration. The clubhouse consists of small men's and women's lockers /restrooms and a small space with a sink, refrigerator, and coffee machine. The club is open seven days a week and operates Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The club employs one person. Depending on the weather conditions, the tennis courts are cleaned with a water broom about every six weeks. The club has approximately 83 active, private members. Members park their vehicles on East Balboa Boulevard, as there is no designated parking for the tennis club. The clubhouse is also made available one evening per month to the Peninsula Point Neighborhood Association for monthly meetings. As shown in Figure 2 -3, the surrounding community is composed primarily of single - family detached residential homes. There is no direct coastal access from the Peninsula Point Racquet Club to Newport Bay or the Pacific Ocean. The nearest public coastal access point is approximately 0.25 mile east of the proposed project site, generally at the intersection of Channel Road and Granada Avenue (shown on Figure 2 -3). Two neighborhood parks are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project: L Street Park and M Street Park (also shown on Figure 2 -3). Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -2 Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9 nster Beach /_1I1 Costa San Joaquin Irvine Project Location CoronatlelMa fate Beach Ne po Coast PACIFIC OCEAN N A 0 0.5 1 2 Miles Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2008) ICFJones & Stokes Crystal Cove State Paoli Ocean USA MEXICO Figure 2 -1 Regional Location Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Newport Bay _ aSeo Irvine Terrace Park 1r �P - � Saatlrify�t.;`a Marapata 9if4 �a T Sa6^ ahr 9aL aiafa a\\a aaP a Pig 'Po e Pao a�,a Po INatar front �a far tak d� ea A al c ` Begonia Pan J- Ur 2 E Bay Ave ` Bay>ide Drive r 441 E Balboa Blvd OL 0, a a e Mtrah7a� �S e6tParkTwo v Granada 'L O� sa i I ay J Miramar Harbor a y Br slice r Oda eO'L ocean p Oceanfron t v Jetty Vie, P,,k v \ \ CiUrOJla del Mar Sta tc Ea. 1 PACIFIC OCEAN 1 N A 0 375 750 Feet Source: ESRI Streed0ap North America (2008) ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -2 Local Vicinity Map Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND N L C C L K a> a N U E O Balboa m tj Balboa N !E c0 o U The Grand Canal a n c n E rn Park Park m C m U N o U m o yfront n ¢ ¢ Bayfront Newport Bay _ aSeo Irvine Terrace Park 1r �P - � Saatlrify�t.;`a Marapata 9if4 �a T Sa6^ ahr 9aL aiafa a\\a aaP a Pig 'Po e Pao a�,a Po INatar front �a far tak d� ea A al c ` Begonia Pan J- Ur 2 E Bay Ave ` Bay>ide Drive r 441 E Balboa Blvd OL 0, a a e Mtrah7a� �S e6tParkTwo v Granada 'L O� sa i I ay J Miramar Harbor a y Br slice r Oda eO'L ocean p Oceanfron t v Jetty Vie, P,,k v \ \ CiUrOJla del Mar Sta tc Ea. 1 PACIFIC OCEAN 1 N A 0 375 750 Feet Source: ESRI Streed0ap North America (2008) ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -2 Local Vicinity Map Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND ones& Figure 2 -3 J 1 C F Stokes Existing Conditions Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND 1 j I � j � I r r O �EAUGkktF`P p E91pENoE 6X1°TI'IN� :•� 3'.•J:'I�'' .... BKIS'n NEp I &xlsl-ING REriloelJOF '{'ES(DeN�E 2ESID�NCE R55+/fioR I .e. l�" PAR�F7r I 0 I - WI�V11f POL0 I — — — ---- 0--'---------- --------------- - - - --- - ---- -- - - -- -' ?Ay AveNUZ; "_ __ -_- 1 /_______ - -__- �Pt�1VF't -E DR14B� � x o I r I I I "��• B D PnP -c�.l- m PAKCI -1 Exlsnt -Y� ZO (I wr) I 23 41.ors) RESIDENG$ SAK¢� TeNNS caUR M ?$NNISI CoUfz' 10- o 9 ,I N � i �i C4U6 H0 USE °o m I \ PUA PEA tl o :G. -- — .— .l�.b ..o. BAL "LVL. —.� 0 3 u z ICFJones& Figure 2 -4 Stokes Existing Development °f ^e Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach Regulatory Setting Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description California Coastal Act and Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451 -1464) declares it a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development 1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the Coastal Commission. The City has a Coastal Land Use Plan, which has been certified by the California Coastal Commission, which governs land use within the coastal area. However, the City of Newport Beach does not have the jurisdiction to issue coastal development permits because the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program. The City is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation Plan for the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Because the City does not have permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning regulations before an applicant can file for a coastal development permit with the California Coastal Commission. The City relies on the California Coastal Commission to issue development permits. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach. The private tennis club is currently designated as PR under the Coastal Land Use Plan. The PR category applies to land use for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks, golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities (City of Newport Beach 2009a). Surrounding properties are all designated RSD -B north of East Balboa Boulevard or RSD -C south of East Balboa Boulevard, allowing single -unit residential detached land uses at different densities. The RSD -B density requirement is 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The RSD -C density requirement is 10.0 to 10.9 dwelling units per acre. The policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan cannot be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances. City of Newport Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach approved a comprehensive update to the General Plan in November 2006. The General Plan has ten elements: Land Use Element, Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -3 Declaration icF Jas OOM&oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description Harbor and Bay Element, Housing Element, Historical Resources Element, Circulation Element, Recreation Element, Arts and Cultural Element, Natural Resources Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element. The General Plan and these elements present a vision for the City's future and goals and policies to implement that vision. The proposed project site is designated PR per the General Plan Land Use Element and is located within Service Area 2 for Recreational Facilities pursuant to the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The PR General Plan land use designation provides for active public or private recreational opportunities such as neighborhood parks and beaches and also provides for open space areas such as Upper Newport Bay. The surrounding property and neighborhoods all have a land use designation of RS -D, which is intended for single unit residential detached land uses. The proposed project site is not located within the airport zone of the John Wayne Airport as defined by the General Plan Safety Element and Noise Element. City of Newport Beach Zoning Code The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code is created to carry out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. It is the intent of the Zoning Code to promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social and economic vitality of the neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City. The proposed project site currently is zoned Single Family Residential (R -1), which is not consistent with the land use designations under the General Plan Land Use Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan of PR. The R -1 zoning district provides for detached single - family residential development. Description of the Proposed Project The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the proposed project site from recreational to single -unit residential land use. Because the proposed land use changes would allow the conversion of the existing land use from a private tennis club to single -unit dwellings, this environmental document includes the analysis of a conceptual development plan to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the land use change. Both the land use plan amendments and the conceptual development plan are discussed further below. Land Use Amendments The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing PR land use designations to RS -D Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2_4 Declaration iCF JaS OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description and RSD -B land uses, respectively. The RS -D land use under the City's General Plan would allow for single -unit dwellings. The RSD -B land use under the Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to provide primarily for single -unit residential detached development on a single legal lot and does not include condominiums or cooperative housing. Figure 2 -5 and 2 -6 shows the existing land use designations and the proposed land use designations. Conceptual Development Plan The conceptual development plan includes the development of five single -unit dwellings. Figure 2 -7 illustrates the conceptual development plan. Details of these dwelling units are shown in Table 2 -1 below. Table 2 -1. Summary of Proposed Dwelling Units Existing Parcel Proposed Buildable Maximum Floor Primary Parcel No. Size (sf) Lot No. Area (sf) Area Limit* (sf) Access 048 - 240 -20 6,462.5 1 4,112.5 8,225 L Street 4,700 2 2,975 5,950 L Street 4,700 3 2,800 5,600 L Street 048 - 240 -23 5,800 4 4,080 8,160 Bay Avenue 5,800 5 4,080 8,160 Bay Avenue *Maximum floor area limit is identified by Zoning Code Section 20.10.030 (M) as two times the buildable area for each parcel consistent with R -1 Zoning provisions. The five proposed single -unit dwellings of the conceptual development plan are based on the maximum allowable density of the R -1 zoning and would comply with the development standards of the R -1 Zoning District per Section 20.10.030 (Residential Districts: Property Development Regulations) of the Zoning Code, except as discussed below. The proposed five, single -unit dwellings would each comply with the 24/28 -foot height limitation zone as specified in Chapter 20.65 of the Zoning Code. Each single -unit dwelling would have minimum side yard setbacks of 3 or 4 feet; minimum rear yard setbacks of 10 feet; and, minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet. The proposed lot configuration would require a re- subdivision of existing lots and a deviation of design standards per Section 19.24.130 of the Zoning Code because proposed lot numbers two and three shown on the conceptual plan do not meet the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and proposed lot numbers two through five on the conceptual plan do not meet the minimum lot width of 50 feet. In order to approve the deviation of design standards as part of the Tract Map application, the findings in Section 19.24.130 (C) are required. The deviation would not include a separate discretionary action, and would be included as part of the subdivision tract map filing, analysis, and action, which is described below. Each single -unit dwelling Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2 -5 Declaration icF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 2. Environmental Setting and Project Description would provide the required two -car parking, as required by Chapter 20.66 (Off- Street Parking) of the Zoning Code. Should the applicant decide to pursue the conceptual development plan in the future, a subdivision tract map would need to be filed and approved by the City of Newport Beach prior to approval and construction. The proposed project currently includes only the proposed General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, the subdivision tract map is not currently part of the proposed discretionary approval. However, this environmental document would cover the approval of a future subdivision tract map and final development plan, provided they are in are in substantial conformance with the conceptual development plan. Construction Assumptions It is assumed for the purposes of analysis that construction of the proposed conceptual development plan would begin in 2010. All five single -unit dwellings are assumed to be constructed concurrently. Construction would last approximately eight months. The construction schedule generally would include the following activities: ■ Approximately two weeks for demolition of the tennis courts and clubhouse. ■ Approximately two weeks for general site grading. ■ Approximately seven months for construction of the five dwelling units. ■ Approximately two weeks for planting and post - construction activities to occur simultaneously with the final two weeks of construction. The current topography of the proposed project site is flat, and the proposed single -unit dwellings would not include subterranean parking; therefore, ground disturbance associated with construction would be minimal. Soil would not be imported or exported to or from the proposed project site. All single -unit dwellings would comply with all applicable codes, including those related to seismic activity. Construction crews would work no more than eight hours per day and would restrict their activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m, and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Per the Municipal Code, construction would not occur on Sundays or federal holidays. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 2.6 Declaration icF JaS OOM&os Existing General Plan Land Use Designations Legend / / _ Project Boundary General Plan Designation - j -v f ��. VV Parks and Recreation ltl — H as General Plan Designation - A.1'ENLJE CAST Single Unit Residential Detached r- R -' Zoning - Single Family y _ Residential BABLBOA BLVD EAST UJ s _aZA. DEL NORTE r Q OF art t� —J Proposed General Plan Amendments Legend Project Boundary General Plan Designation - I RS -D Single Unit Residential F- - Detached tA.ST R -7 Zoning - Single Family / Residential (to remain) BAM 130A BLVD EAST i LLLIJ LLJ i 0A l ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -5 Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations Legend Project Boundary . -- _ Parks and Recreation i W RSD -B AVENUE EAST Single Unit Residential Detached RSD -B RSD -B _ BAR! ROA BLVD EAST RSD -C RSD -C L _4ZA DEL NORTE i QI 4 A zi �£t ui LU ¢+ LU SUS RSD -C U' GF ?A J u] i4 4Q w W _ Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Legend Project Boundary w W RSD -B Single Unit Residential Detached AVENUE F- EAST RSD B RSD -B RSD B BABLBOA BLVD EAST RSD -C RSD -C to LA2A DEL NORTE z 4' LU — UiJ e. F J) (!! �NAOA p,V� RSD -C n rn L- m W X ICFJones & Stokes Figure 2 -6 Existing and Proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Designations Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND i i I L - - -� BEb7I V6 N MP KE5i0CE V'XI' ING RES 19E146% ICJones& Figure 2 -7 F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND N o to u 4o roo 80' ���r�9i. ���. �i17' G��ill'r•'W �%��� e'd."?fi�' �i.�7N ��G — S6ViQv!l�Ryir�r,�pics�w.�lil -I a��e�, u►�s�Fl� ' ;,mar ICJones& Figure 2 -7 F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND N o to u 4o roo 80' ICJones& Figure 2 -7 F Stokes Proposed Project Conceptual Development Plan Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Chapter 3 Initial Study Environmental Checklist 1. Project Title: 2. Lead Agency Name and Address 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 4. Project Location: 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: S. Description of Project: 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658 Makana Nova, Assistant Planner 949/644 -3249 rmiova@uewportbeachca.gov The proposed project site is located on two parcels comprising approximately 0.6 acres, at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard, on Balboa Peninsula, in the City of Newport Beach. The site is occupied by the Peninsula Point Racquet Club. David Beauchamp Beauchamp Enterprises 151 Kalmus Suite B 150 Costa Mesa CA 92626 Parks and Recreation (PR) Single - Family Residential (R -1) See Chapter 2, Project Description and Environmental Setting. See Chapter 2, Project Description and Environmental Setting. California Coastal Commission Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -1 Declaration ICF AS 00846.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by this project (i.e., the project would involve at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact), as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ TransportatiowTraflic ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or ® agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially significant' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and (2) has ❑ been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis, as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to ❑ applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. 01. om(t0 Signature Date Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -2 Declaration ICF JLS 00848.09 City of Newport Beach Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained if it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 4. "Less- than- Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated" applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less -than- Significant Impact " The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less - than - significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross - referenced.) Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following. (a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review. (b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. (c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less- than - Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -3 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -4 Declaration icF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ❑ but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista. Figure 3 -1 Designated Public View Points identifies the existing public view points and coastal view roads identified in the General Plan. There are no identified public view points on the proposed project site or in the surrounding area, and none of the surrounding streets are identified as coastal view roads (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project site is composed of two tennis courts, a clubhouse, a generally vacant area (identified as the "garden" on the conceptual plan, Figure 2 -7), and ornamental landscaping. The tennis courts are surrounded with fencing approximately 10 feet high. Nonnative vines are growing on the face of the fencing, and it is covered in green nylon fabric, typical of public and private tennis courts in other locations. Views of Newport Bay and Pacific Ocean in this area are currently blocked by the existing tennis court fence and/or by residences. There are no scenic vistas in the general proximity of the proposed project site and the proposed land use change and subsequent future development of the site with single -unit dwelling would not substantially alter or obstruct existing views of the bay or the ocean. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; impacts would be less than significant. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? No Impact. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (California Department of Transportation 2009). Furthermore, the proposed project site does not consist of any rock outcroppings that are of significant visual quality or historic buildings on site. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage a scenic resource along a scenic highway and no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -5 Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not affect the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because the proposed project is located in a developed residential area and would not damage any scenic resources. The proposed project site is located in an area that is primarily single - family residences and zoned for residential use. Figure 3 -2a and 3 -2b Surrounding Residential Land Uses depicts several of the existing residences in the immediate area. The proposed project site does not provide scenic qualities to the surrounding area, nor does the site provide any coastal access. The proposed project would include land use changes to allow single -unit dwellings, which would be aesthetically consistent with the surrounding residential community per the Zoning Code. There is an existing Home Owner Association (Balboa Peninsula Point Association), but it does not enforce Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions or apply design review committee conditions to which the proposed project would be subject. These land use changes and subsequent future development of the site also would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations for the surrounding properties. Although the aesthetic and visual quality of the proposed project site would change from that of a private tennis club to five, single -unit dwellings, the change does not represent a substantial degradation of the existing visual character of the area, as development would be consistent with surrounding land use designations and surrounding development patterns; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Less - than - Significant Impact. As mentioned in Response I(c) above, the project is located in an area that is primarily developed with single - family residences. The tennis courts are not currently lighted for nighttime use. Any lighting associated with the proposed single -unit dwellings would not add significant amounts of lighting to the project area and would consist of standard residential outdoor porch lighting. All lighting would be developed in accordance to Zoning Ordinance; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -6 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 rt xs weo Rr iR.ixe SAY EK i \ `C w:d Legend PreR 1 Public Vew POlnt ^4CIFIC OCEAN Coastal View Read w>onr cosy Shoreline Heigh[ � Limitation Zone ^/ City Boundary OCounty srAre PARK PAIAIP RAAK` n os i Source: City of Newport Beach, 2005 ICFJs & Stoonekes Figure 3 -1 Designated Public Viewpoints Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Southwest Corner of East Balboa Boulevard and Seville Avenue Northern view of L Street at East Balboa Boulevard and L Street ICFJones & Stokes Figure 3 -2a Surrounding Residential Uses Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Northern view of Seville Avenue at East Balboa Boulevard and Seville Avenue ICFJones & Stokes Figure 3 -2b Surrounding Residential Uses Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? Discussion Would the project: Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project would not convert any farmland to a non - agricultural use. The proposed project site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance (California Department of Conservation 2009). The proposed project site and the surrounding land are identified as "urban and built -up land" by the California Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Furthermore, the proposed project site is located in a developed urban setting with no agricultural uses on or surrounding the site; therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning or agricultural use. The proposed project site is currently zoned R -1 for single - family residential, which does not allow agricultural uses. The Williamson Act applies to parcels consisting of least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of farmland not designated as Prime Farmland. The proposed project Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3-7 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist site is not located in a Prime Farmland designation, nor does it consist of more than 40 acres of farmland. Therefore, the site is not eligible to be placed under a Williamson Act Contract, and no impacts would occur. c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non - agricultural use. The proposed project site is not currently used for agriculture. The proposed project site is not located near or adjacent to any areas that are actively farmed. Therefore, the proposed project would not disrupt or damage the operation or productivity of any areas designated as farmland, and no farmland could be affected by the proposed land use changes. No impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative g_g Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? Discussion Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality phut? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., ozone [03], and particulate matter equal to or less than 10 and less than 2.5 microns in diameter [PMte and PM2.5, respectively]). As such, the project would be subject to the SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3_9 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are used in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RCP and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Local Costal Program Amendment to two existing parcels in the City of Newport Beach. The existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D), and the existing Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B [6.0 - 9.9 DU /AC]). These two land use amendments would be consistent with the current Single - Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing parcels. Emissions generated by construction and operation would not exceed thresholds as described in the analysis below in III(b) and III(c). The thresholds in III(b) and (c) are based on the AQMP and are designed to bring the Basin into attainment for the criteria pollutants for which it is in nonattainment. Therefore, because the proposed project does not exceed any of the thresholds it will not conflict with SCAQMD's goal of bringing the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants and, as such, is consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute .substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Response III(a), the proposed project site is located in the Basin. State and federal air quality standards often are exceeded in many parts of the Basin. The proposed project involves amendments to the land use plans, which would not in themselves result in any construction or operational impacts. However, the proposed land use modifications could result in the future construction of five, detached, single -unit dwellings, as described in the conceptual development plan. Therefore, for the purposes of estimating construction and operational emissions, the conceptual development plan as described in Chapter 2 is used to determine potential impacts on air quality. A discussion of the project's potential short-term construction- period and long -term operational -period air quality impacts is provided below. Regional Construction Impacts The SCAQMD has established methods to quantify air emissions associated with construction activities such as air pollutant emissions generated by operation of on -site construction equipment; fugitive dust emissions related to grading and site work activities; and mobile (tailpipe) emissions from construction worker vehicles and haul/delivery truck trips. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. With respect to the proposed project, construction activities are expected to extend over a period of approximately eight months. Construction activities during this period would be completed in three main phases. The first phase would consist of the demolition of the tennis courts. The second phase would consist of general site grading. The third phase would consist of the construction of the five dwelling units. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -10 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist A mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled based on an estimate of construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing assumptions. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account: ■ combustion emissions from operating on -site construction equipment, ■ fugitive dust emissions from moving soil on site, and ■ mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel. For the purpose of estimating emissions associated with the construction activities, a project time frame of February 1, 2010, through September 30, 2010 was assumed. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model. The quantity, duration, and the intensity of construction activity have an effect on the amount of construction emissions, and related pollutant concentrations, occurring at any one time. As such, the emission forecasts provided herein reflect a specific set of conservative assumptions based on the expected construction scenario wherein a relatively large amount of construction is occurring in a relatively intensive manner. Because of this conservative assumption, actual emissions could be less than those forecasted. If construction is delayed or occurs over a longer time period, emissions could be reduced because of (1) a more modern and cleaner - buming construction equipment fleet mix, and /or (2) a less intensive buildout schedule (i.e., fewer daily emissions occurring over a longer time interval). A conservative estimate of the project's regional mass emissions during construction is presented in Table 3 -1 (Appendix A includes detailed results from the URBEMIS model). As shown in Table 3 -1 below, all criteria pollutant emissions would remain well below their respective SCAQMD daily significance thresholds; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -11 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -1. Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Construction Phase ROG NOx CO sox PM" PM's Demolition (2 -week 1.2 8.6 6.1 <0.1 1.3 0.7 duration) Grading/Excavation (2 -week 3.0 25.1 13.5 <0.1 3.2 1.6 duration) Construction (7 -month 6.3 27.1 15.1 <0.1 1.5 1.4 duration) Maximum Regional 6 27 15 <1 3 2 Project Emissions SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 (lbs /day) Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No ROG = reactive organic gas. NOx = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. Sox = sulfur oxides. PM,,= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM2,5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A. Localized Construction Impacts SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology guidelines are used to determine potential impacts on sensitive receptors that are located in the immediate vicinity of the activity emitting emissions, in this case residential receptors adjacent to the construction site. When quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on site are considered. As shown in Table 3 -2, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LST significance thresholds (Appendix A includes detailed results from the LST analysis); therefore, localized impacts that may result from air pollutant emissions during the construction phases would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -12 Declaration icF Jas 00e46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -2. Forecast of Localized Construction Emissions Construction Phase ROG Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) NOx CO sox PMtn PM,, Demolition (2 -week duration) 1.1 7.7 4.7 <0.1 1.3 0.7 Grading/Excavation (2 -week duration) 3.0 25.0 12.5 <0.1 3.2 1.6 Construction (7 -month duration) 6.3 26.9 13.0 <0.1 1.5 1.3 Worst Case On -Site Total 6 27 13 <1 3 2 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold -- 92 647 -- 4 3 (lbs/day)a Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No a These localized thresholds were taken from tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology guidance document based on the following: 1) The proposed project site is located in SCAQMD source Receptor Area No. 18, 2) sensitive receptors located within 25 meters ofconstruction activity, and 3) the maximum site area disturbed is l acre. ROG = reactive organic gas. NOx = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. Sox = sulfur oxides. PMio= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM2,5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A. Regional Operations Impacts The SCAQMD also has established significance thresholds to evaluate the potential impacts associated with long -term project operations. Regional air pollutant emissions associated with project operations would be generated by the consumption of electricity and natural gas and the operation of on -road vehicles. Pollutant emissions associated with energy demand (i.e., electricity generation and natural gas consumption) are classified by the SCAQMD as regional stationary- source emissions. Electricity is considered an area source because it is produced at various locations in and outside the Basin. Because it is not possible to isolate where electricity is produced, these emissions conservatively are considered to occur in the Basin and be regional in nature. Criteria pollutant emissions associated with the production and consumption of energy were calculated using emission factors from the SCAQMD's CEQ,4 Air Quality Handbook (appendix to Chapter 9). Mobile - source emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by applicable EMFAC2002 emissions factors.' The URBEMIS2007 model output and worksheets for calculating regional operational daily emissions are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 3 -3, the project's net regional emissions would not exceed regional SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, SOS, ROC, PMIn, or PM2_5; therefore, regional operations emissions would not result in a significant long- term regional air quality impact. 'Daily VMT estimate derived by applying LTRBEMIS2007 default trip generation and length estimates (per land use) to the proposed project land uses. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -13 Declaration iCF Jas 00646.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -3. Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Beauchamp ROG NOx CO sox PMta PM1.1 Mobile" 0.4 0.6 4.7 <0.1 0.8 0.2 Area Stationary b Total Operational Emissions SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold (lbs /day) Exceed Threshold? 1.1 0.2 2.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.I 1.5 0.9 6.9 <0.1 1.2 0.5 55 55 550 150 150 55 No No No No No No Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A. Mobile emissions calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model. Model output sheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix. b Emissions attributable to project- related electricity generation calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix, ROG = reactive organic gas. NOx = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. SOx = sulfur oxides. PMiu= particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM,. = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Local Operational Emissions In an urban setting, vehicle exhaust is the primary source of CO. Consequently, the highest CO concentrations generally are found close to congested intersections. Under typical meteorological conditions, CO concentrations tend to decrease as the distance from the emissions source (e.g., congested intersection) increases. For purposes of providing a conservative worst -case impact analysis, CO concentrations typically are analyzed at congested intersection locations. If impacts are less than significant close to congested intersections, impacts also would be less than significant at more distant sensitive - receptor locations. The SCAQMD recommends a hot spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when vehicle to capacity (V /C) ratios are increased by 2% or more at intersections with a Level of Service (LOS) C or worse. Project traffic during the operational phase of the project would not have the potential to create local area CO impacts; as discussed in Response XV(a) under Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would not significantly affect peak -hour traffic volumes. Thus, local intersections would not be affected by the proposed project, and there would be no impacts resulting from CO hot spots. With respect to the project's on -site mass emissions, Table 3 -4 shows that operations -period emissions would be below SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds; therefore, impacts from emissions of these criteria pollutants would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -14 Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3-4. Forecast of Localized Operational Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Beauchamp ROG NO, CO sox PMta PM2.1 On -Site Area Source Emissionsa 1.1 0.2 2.2 <0.1 0.3 0.3 SCAQMD Localized Significance Threshold (lbs /day)b -- 92 647 -- 1 1 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Emissions attributable to project - related electricity generation, calculated based on guidance provided in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Worksheets are provided in the Air Quality Appendix. These localized thresholds were taken from tables provided in the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds Methodology guidance document based on the following: 1) The proposed project site is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area No. 18, 2) sensitive receptors are located within 25 meters of the project, and 3) the maximum site are disturbed is I acre. ROG = reactive organic gas. NOx = oxides of nitrogen. CO = carbon monoxide. SOx= sulfur oxides. PM,o = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter. PM2 s = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes. URBEMIS 2007 cutouts are Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change or global warming. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on -road motor vehicles, off - highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately one -half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. Some greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere as a result of human activities are Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (C114), Nitrous Oxide (N20), and Fluorinated Gases. For purposes of analysis the global warming potential of each gas is equated to Carbon Dioxide (CO2e) and the Carbon Dioxide equivalent is identified in metric tons for each GHG. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research recently published suggested changes to the CEQA Guidelines that would require that greenhouse gases be evaluated in environmental documents. The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) June 2008 Technical Advisory (TA) is to: (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance. Neither the CEQA Statute nor Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. CARB (California Air Resources Board) has published draft preliminary guidance to agencies on how to establish interim significance thresholds for analyzing GHG emissions (California Air Resources Board 2008). That guidance, while still in draft form, does provide some assistance to Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -15 Declaration ICF J&s 00s46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist the City in evaluating whether project would impede the State's mandatory requirements under AB 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Until more guidance is provided from the expert agencies (CARB and/or SCAQMD), the City of Newport Beach intends to consider projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be a less -than- significant contribution to greenhouse gasses, thereby not requiring further analysis. For projects exceeding the screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year, the City will consider projects to have significant impacts if they either (1) are not substantially consistent with policies and standards set out in federal, state, and local plans designed to reduce GHGs, or (2) would emit more than 6,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Projects that do not meet these thresholds would be considered to have significant impacts, and thus could be expected to exceed the State's mandatory requirement under Assembly Bill 32 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A conservative estimate of the project's CO2C emissions during construction and operation is presented in Table 3 -5. As shown, emissions would remain well below the City's screening threshold of 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Table 3 -5. Estimate of Project - Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions (pounds per day) Exceed Threshold? No ' Value includes total annual operational emissions plus total construction emissions amortized over 30 years. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes 2009. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? Less - than - Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -16 Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os Carbon Dioxide Equivalent California Statewide Average Daily Emissions (year 2006) 479,800,000 Project Emissions Construction- Period Emissions 2010 96 Operations - period Emissions Mobile Sources 80 Stationary Sources 10 Area Sources 18 Total Operations- Period Emissions 108 Total Project Emissions' 112 City of Newport Beach Screening Level Threshold 1,600 Exceed Threshold? No ' Value includes total annual operational emissions plus total construction emissions amortized over 30 years. Source: ICF Jones & Stokes 2009. URBEMIS 2007 outputs are provided in Appendix A. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ? Less - than - Significant Impact. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response III(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -16 Declaration ICF JaS 00s46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist proposed project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region, and therefore, inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. With regard to climate change and GHG emissions, as discussed earlier in Response 1II(b), the amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative climate change GHG emissions would be less than significant. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less - than - Significant Impact. As described in Response IIl(b) above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial localized or regional air pollution impacts and therefore would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople? Less - than - Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project includes a land use amendment and a conceptual development plan of up to five single -unit dwellings. Therefore, the proposed project does not include any uses listed above and identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. The proposed project would not produce objectionable odors per the SCAQMD Handbook. Potential sources of odors during construction activities include equipment exhaust and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. Odors from these sources would be localized and generally confined to the proposed project site. The proposed project would utilize typical construction techniques, and the odors would be typical of most construction sites. Additionally, the odors would be temporary, occurring when equipment is operating and during painting activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 on nuisances. Additionally, SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings and solvents. Through mandatory compliance with SCAQMD rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors. As such, potential impacts during short-term construction would be less than significant. substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -17 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of ❑ ❑ ❑ Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of ❑ ❑ ❑ Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or D.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -18 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist No Impact. The proposed project would not modify or have an adverse effect on existing habitat. The proposed project site is fully developed with two tennis courts and a clubhouse and is located in a fully urbanized setting. The Coastal Land Use Plan identifies Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and Environmental Study Areas (ESA). Locations not within a designated ESA would not impact any designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(s). According to Map 4 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2009a, 2006a). The proposed project site is void of any native vegetation or wildlife habitat; therefore, the proposed project would not modify habitat or adversely affect sensitive biological resources, and no impacts would occur. b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat. According to Map 4 -1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan and Figure NR2 of the General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2009a, City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project site is fully developed and void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities. Therefore, the proposed project would not accommodate riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impacts would occur. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The proposed project site is fully developed and does not have federal wetlands present on site nor are there wetlands in the general vicinity of the proposed project site. Furthermore, the proposed project site is completely lacking any jurisdictional waters; therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife. The proposed project site is located in fully urbanized setting and is not connected to other undeveloped lands. According to Figures NRl and NR2 of the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed project site is not identified as a biological resources area or located in an ESA (City of Newport Beach 2006a) and is not connected to any wildlife corridors. Therefore, the proposed project site does not act as a wildlife corridor that would facilitate movement of wildlife species. It does not support daily movement of species from breeding, roosting, and nesting sites nor does it provide stopover habitat for migratory bird species; therefore, no impacts would occur. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The proposed project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies. The proposed project site has several ornamental trees. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located in Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -19 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist an area where sensitive and rare terrestrial and marine resources occur (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Furthermore, according to the County of Orange General Plan Resources Element, the proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of the Orange County Natural Communities Conservation Plan (County of Orange 2005). For additional details regarding local policies or ordinances, refer to Section IX, Land Use and Planning. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; therefore, no impacts would occur. f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach is a signatory to a Natural Resource Community Conservation Plan agreement. However, per Figure VI -5 of the Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan, the proposed project site is not located within a designated Natural Communities Conservation Plan area (City of Newport Beach 2006a, County of Orange 2005). Therefore, it not subject to the provisions of any local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan area and no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -20 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ® ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Historical Resources Element, the proposed project site does not have any structures listed on local, state, or federal historic resource lists or structures that are eligible for such lists (City of Newport Beach 2006a). There are no such historical structures adjacent to or in the general vicinity of the proposed project site (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Furthermore, according to Map 4 -4 in the Coastal Land Use Plan there are no historical resources or structures located onsite or within the general vicinity of the proposed project site (City of Newport Beach 2009a); therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less- than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, which is along the southwestern border of the City of Newport Beach and the Pacific Ocean. Along this border, sediments flowing from the two major drainage courses (the San Diego Creek and the Santa Ana River) that transect the mesa located generally to the north have formed beaches, sandbars, and mudflats of Newport Bay and West Newport. These areas were modified significantly during the last century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. The Balboa Peninsula was once the site of extensive low sand dunes but has experienced modification (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was formed between 1825 and 1862 with essentially nonnative soils and/or artificial fill. Furthermore, the proposed project site Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -21 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist is not listed as an area that has yielded archaeological resources (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and is currently developed. Ground disturbances from the previous development in the last century likely would have uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown archeological resources. No known recorded archeological resources are located in the proposed project site. The proposed project would involve minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown archaeological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed above in (b), the proposed project site is located in a lowland area that was formed in historic times and has been modified during the last century in order to form habitable islands with essentially non native or artificial fill. The proposed project site is currently developed. There are no unique geological features currently on site. Ground disturbances from previous development likely would have either uncovered or inadvertently destroyed any unknown buried paleontological resources. Furthermore, the proposed project site is not listed as an area that has yielded archaeological and paleontological resources (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The proposed project involves minimal surface soil disturbance and grading. Therefore, it is highly unlikely the proposed project would disturb any unknown paleontological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not a formal cemetery and it is not adjacent to a formal cemetery. The proposed project site is not known to contain human remains interred outside formal cemeteries. The proposed project site is not known to be located on a burial ground. The landform on which the proposed project site is located was formed during historic times. It is currently developed and has been disturbed in the past. The proposed project would involve grading and shallow soil disturbance. Discovery of human remains is governed by state law, which requires stopping work and reporting to authorities. Disturbance of human remains, including those of Native Americans, is highly unlikely, and there is remote possibility that construction activities could unearth human remains. Should human remains be uncovered during construction, as specified by State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, excavation or construction will halt in the area of the discovery, the area will be protected, and consultation and treatment will occur as prescribed by law. If the Coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she will contact the Native American Heritage Commission, who will appoint the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Additionally, if the bones are determined to be Native American, a plan will be developed regarding the treatment of human remains and associated burial objects, and the plan will be implemented under the direction of the MLD. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -22 Declaration icF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic groundshaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 3. Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? 4. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ topsoil? C. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on -site or off - site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion Would the project: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -23 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist al. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. There are no Alquist - Priolo zones in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, no impacts would occur (California Department of Conservation 2007). Fault rupture impacts generally occur near the fault line where the fault shears or slips and the ground is offset in some way; therefore, no impact would occur. a2. Strong seismicgroundshaking? Less- than - Significant Impact. All of Southern California, including the City of Newport Beach, is located in a seismically active area and is subject to strong seismic groundshaking. The City of Newport Beach is located in the northern part of the Peninsular Ranges Province, an area that is exposed to risk from multiple earthquake fault zones. The highest risks originate from the Newport- Inglewood fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the San Joaquin Hills fault zone, and the Elysian Park fault zone, each with the potential to cause moderate to large earthquakes that would cause ground shaking in Newport Beach and nearby communities. Policies contained in the Newport Beach General Plan (2006x) would ensure that adverse effects caused by seismic and geologic hazards such as strong seismic ground shaking are minimized. For example, Policy 54.1 requires regular update to building and fire codes to provide for seismic safety and design, and Policies 54.4 and 54.5 ensure that new development is not located in areas that would be affected by seismic hazards. Additionally, new development would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code Chapter 33 for construction of new buildings and /or structures, and specific engineering design and construction measures would be implemented to anticipate and avoid the potential for adverse impacts (City of Newport Beach 2006b). All proposed demolition and building would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specific by the City Building Department. All buildings would be constructed in compliance with the latest earthquake - resistant design available and relevant codes. All project components would be in compliance with the most up -to -date building codes and plans would be reviewed and approved by City Building Department prior to construction. Furthermore, the dwelling units would be inspected by a trained and qualified building inspector under the supervision of the Building Official prior to occupation; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a3. Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less - than - Significant Impact. Figure 3 -3 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas identifies areas of potential liquefaction in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located in an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subject to a seismic event (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Liquefaction is a geologic process that causes ground failure and typically occurs in loose, saturated sediments primarily of sandy composition (City of Newport Beach 2006a). A considerable part of the Balboa Peninsula is already built upon, mostly with residential development. It is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in the area. However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code and City policies in its General Plan Safety Element would minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. Specifically, Policies 54.1 through 54.6 include requiring new development to be in compliance with the most recent seismic and other geologic hazard safety standards (City of Newport Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -24 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants (2003) ICFJones & Stokes Figure 3 -3 Existing Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Legend �/ City Boundary _Areas with liquefaction potential �osrn nes. - Areas with landslide potential Fault Disclosure Zone for uvoE" -real - estate disclosure purposes `w'o 10. °' "` Fault Line BAY Major fault traces as y mapped by Morton, 1 Presumed active, except except where shown otherwise based on e� geological studies (� J Southward projection of ` U Southwark traces based on a subsurface study on the west bank of the \ Santa Ana River 1 _ _ ^/ Highway Local Road County \ PACIFIC O CAN 1 Source: City of Newport Beach and Earth Consultants (2003) ICFJones & Stokes Figure 3 -3 Existing Liquifaction and Seismic Hazard Areas Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Beach 2006b). All proposed project components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards; furthermore, the foundations would be engineered to address liquefaction potential. Therefore, impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction, are less than significant. a4. Landslides? No Impact. The proposed project would have no impact related to landslides. Figure 3 -3 Existing Liquefaction and Seismic Hazard Areas identifies areas with landslide potential and the proposed project site is not located within any area with landslide potential. The proposed project site is generally flat and implementation of the project would not require slope cuts that could result in landslides; therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site does not contain substantial amounts of topsoil. The proposed project site is currently developed and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces (tennis courts and clubhouse). Small amounts of exposed on -site soils would be prone to soil erosion during the construction phase of the proposed project. However, the proposed project involves minimal cut and fill and therefore loss of topsoil is greatly minimized. As required by the City's Municipal Code, grading activities will obtain a grading permit from the City's Building Official (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Chapter 15.10 contains grading, fill, drainage, and erosion control standards that will be applied to the corresponding construction activity (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The project will implement standard erosion control measures and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would minimize impacts; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an on -site or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site has been developed and is located in an area identified by the City of Newport Beach General Plan as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subjected to a seismic event. As discussed above in VI(a3), it is likely that a nearby moderate to strong earthquake would cause extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in the area. However, compliance with the standards set forth in the current California Building Code and City policies in its General Plan Safety Element (2006a) would minimize risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage caused by earthquake hazards or geologic disturbances. All proposed project components would occur in accordance with building and safety standards. Furthermore, as discussed in Response VI(a4), no impacts would occur on people or structures as a result of landslide. Impacts on people or structures as a result of seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction (as discussed in Response VI(0), lateral spreading, subsidence or collapse are less than significant. d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less- than - Significant Impact. Fine - grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. These minerals can undergo significant volumetric changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -25 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements (Earth Consultants International 2003). Most of Newport Mesa and Corona Del Mar areas are underlain by marine terrace deposits and young alluvial /alluvial fan sediments that are compressed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel) (Earth Consultants International 2003 and USGS 1965). Such units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, thick soil profiles developed on the older marine deposits exposed west of Newport Bay are typically clay -rich and will probably fall in the moderately expansive range. Areas underlain by beach and dune sands have very little expansion potential (Earth Consultants International 2003). The proposed project would involve a minimal amount of cut and fill. As discussed in Response V(b), the proposed project site is primarily underlain by nonnative soil and/or artificial fill with identified alluvial sediments (USGS 1965). Typically fill is made to have low expansive potential because it is designed to support the structures which are built upon it. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed project site is located in an area with low expansive soil potential. All project elements would occur in accordance with building and safety standards, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site would tie into the existing sewer line; therefore, no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -26 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: miles of a public airport or public use airport, a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or people residing or working in the project area? disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ and accident conditions involving the release of with an adopted emergency response plan or hazardous materials into the environment? emergency evacuation plan? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste including where wildlands are adjacent to within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed school? with wildlands? d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ® ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? It. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion NN ould the project: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -27 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project may require the disposal of hazardous substances as a result of the demolition of two tennis courts and existing clubhouse that was built in the early- 1960s. No extensive renovations to the existing structure have occurred since that time; therefore, asbestos - containing building materials or lead -based paint may be present. Mitigation Measure HM -1 would ensure proper disposal of any hazardous materials, if discovered, as directed by the City of Newport Beach Building Department and Fire Department. Impacts therefore are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation Measure: MM HM -1. Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site, an asbestos - containing materials and lead - based paint assessment will be performed by a qualified environmental professional and conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements, including those established by National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). A report will be furnished to the Building Department by said qualified environmental professional and will outline the occurrence of hazardous materials on the proposed project site. ■ If asbestos - containing materials are discovered during site investigations, all potentially friable asbestos - containing materials will be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to SCAQMD regulations. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to asbestos- containing materials. ■ If lead -based paint is discovered during on -site investigations, all building materials containing lead -based paint will be removed in accordance with CaUOSHA lead in construction standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed of. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction workers and /or the public to lead -based paint. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less - than - Significant Impact. Operation and construction of the project would not result in the reasonably foreseeable upset or release of any hazardous materials. The Newport Beach Fire Department is an all risk Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -28 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist disaster (City of Newport Beach 2009b). Furthermore, the Fire Department enforces city, state, and federal hazardous materials regulations for Newport Beach. City regulations include Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, Chapter 9.04 of the City's Municipal Code, and implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Elements of these programs include spill mitigation and containment and securing of hazardous materials containers to prevent spills. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory as standard permitting conditions and would minimize the potential for the accidental release or upset of hazardous materials, helping to ensure public safety. Construction equipment that would be used to build the proposed project has the potential to release oils, greases, solvents, and other finishing materials through accidental spills. Spill or upset of these materials would have the potential to affect surrounding land uses. However, the consequences of construction - related spills are generally reduced in comparison to other accidental spills and releases because the amount of hazardous material released during a construction- related spill is small as the volume in any single piece of construction equipment is generally less than 50 gallons. Construction - related spills of hazardous materials are not uncommon, but the enforcement of construction and demolition standards, including BMPs by appropriate local and state agencies (e.g., Newport Beach Fire Department), would minimize the potential for an accidental release of petroleum products and /or hazardous materials or explosions during construction. Federal, state, and local controls have been enacted to reduce the effects of potential hazardous materials spills. The occupancy of dwelling units is generally not associated with the use or storage of large amounts of hazardous substances. Therefore, the proposed project would not use or store large amounts of hazardous substances and an upset of those types of materials would not be reasonably foreseeable. The construction and operation of the proposed project would not create significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or require handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The closest school to the proposed project site is Newport Elementary, located 2.3 miles west of the proposed project site at 1327 West Balboa Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions within one - quarter mile of a school, and no impacts would occur. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The proposed project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites that complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Furthermore, the proposed project site is not identified in any of the California hazardous materials databases. A search of 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) Cortese List as a Department of Toxic Substances and Control Hazardous Waste site did not yield any results, and the proposed project site address is not in the EnviroStor database of hazardous substances release sites (CalEPA 2009a, 20096). Geotracker, the California database of leaking underground storage tanks, does not report any leaking underground storage tanks at the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -29 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist proposed project site or in the vicinity of the proposed project site (Geotracker 2009). Finally, there are no active Cease and Desist Orders or Clean Up and Abatement Orders for hazardous materials /facilities in the project vicinity or at the proposed project site (CalEPA 2009c). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impacts would occur. e. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less - Than - Significant Impact. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport, which is approximately 6.5 miles north of the proposed project site. The proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (2006a), the proposed project site is not located in the John Wayne Airport Accident Potential Zone. The proposed project site is identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element as an area of increased vulnerability to fires caused by an aviation hazard. The Safety Element identifies this vulnerability because a fire caused by an aviation accident could spread quickly throughout the Balboa Peninsula. However, accidents involving commercial aircraft are very rare events, and the proposed project would not result in an increased safety hazard for people residing in the project area; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less - than - Significant Impact. As described above in (e) the John Wayne Airport is located approximately 6.5 miles north of the proposed project site. There is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing the project area, and impacts would be less than significant. g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not impair or physically affect any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not require the closure of any public or private streets or roadways and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the project or any surrounding areas during construction or operation. In the event of any temporary closures of the private streets adequate access would be maintained for the residents and emergency vehicles. Further, the proposed project would provide all required emergency access in accordance with the requirements of the Newport Beach Fire Department during plan review by the Fire Department. For additional information regarding the tsunami evacuation plan please refer to Section VII10), Hydrology and Water Quality. No impacts on emergency response would occur. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The proposed project site is not located in an area adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element (2006b) identifies Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -30 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist the proposed project site as Low/None Fire Susceptibility. Therefore, people or structures would not be exposed to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the proposed project. No impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -31 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Less than Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ® ❑ ❑ discharge requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed ❑ E ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? It. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -32 Declaration icF JaS 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Discussion Would the project: Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Newport Beach is included in four watersheds: Newport Bay, Newport Coast, Talbert, and San Diego Creek (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Each of these watershed areas is under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and BMPs requirements established in the Sana Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Under the provisions of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality), any discharge that would result in or contribute to degradation of water quality via stormwater runoff is prohibited. New development or redevelopment projects are required to comply with provisions set forth in the DAMP, including the implementation of appropriate BMPs identified in the DAMP, to control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing beneficial uses of water (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Newport Bay is designated as "water quality - limited" for four impairments under the Federal Clean Water Act's Section 303(d) List. Under Section 303(d), states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters, establish priority rankings for waters on the lists, and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for these waters. For these water quality limited bodies, the SARWQCB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have developed TMDLs for the following substances in Newport Beach: sediment, nutrients, fecal coliform, and toxic pollutants (City of Newport Beach 2009a). Furthermore, a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit is provided to the City by the SARWQCB under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) to regulate the amount of stormwater contaminants that are delivered into the City's waterways (City of Newport Beach 2009a). MS4 permits require an aggressive water quality ordinance, specific municipal practices to maintain city facilities, and the use of BMPs in residential development activities to further reduce the amount of contaminants in urban runoff (City of Newport Beach General Plan 2006b). The existing site consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. There is a 2,850 — square foot vacant area known as the garden. The proposed project would not increase the impervious area. During construction, Mitigation Measure WQ -1 would ensure the proposed project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would result in impacts that are less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project also will prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), per Mitigation Measure MM MQ -2. The WQMP would manage stormwater runoff of the proposed project post - construction. Operation of the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's NPDES MS4 Permit and the Orange County DAMP. Therefore, Mitigation Measures WQ -1 and WQ -2 would reduce water quality impacts to a level less than significant during construction and operation. Mitigation Measures: MM WQ -1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which includes BMPs. The runoff from the proposed project site would be managed by the SWPPP using the BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -33 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist MM WQ -2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare a WQMP for project operations and submit to the City Building Department and Code Enforcement & Water Quality Division for review and approval. The WQMP shall meet the City's water quality ordinance requirements and include project measures related to site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed and is not considered a source for groundwater recharge (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The proposed project would not increase the impervious area on the site. The proposed project also would not directly withdraw groundwater from beneath the site. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed project would not directly affect the flow of a river or stream. The project would involve some minor grading for construction. These activities would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The proposed project would not increase the impervious area on the site as the existing site is largely paved for the tennis courts. Therefore, impacts from erosion, either on site or off site would be less than significant. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The low -lying areas of the City, such as the Balboa Peninsula, are very flat and are affected by ocean tides (City of Newport Beach 2003). A system of bayfront bulkheads and tide valves (gates) on storm drain outlets to Newport Bay are in place to protect these low -lying areas from flooding as a result of high tides (City of Newport Beach 2003). The City has installed 6- to 36- inch - diameter tide valves on 89 storm drain outlets to Newport Bay to prevent seawater from backing through the storm drain pipes during high tide events. The valves must be closed when the tide elevation reaches street elevations at each installation. When the tide elevation drops below street elevation, the gates are reopened. When rain occurs simultaneously with a high tide, stormwater cannot be released until the tide has dropped sufficiently to open the tide gates. As a result, urban runoff is in effect dammed by these tide valves, and the low -lying streets in the City can become inundated. In order to minimize this problem, portable pumps are used to discharge urban runoff collected at street ends into the ocean. Overall, urban street flooding rarely is considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach. (City of Newport Beach 2003). No streams or rivers are located on site, and therefore, the proposed project would not directly affect the flow course of a river or stream. Because of the urban character of the area and the existing use of the proposed project site as a private tennis club, substantial amounts of stonnwater are not readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -34 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist the site but would not increase the impervious area. During construction, runoff from the proposed project site would be managed by BMPs as identified by MM WQ -1. Storm runoff generated through project operations would be diverted into the existing stormwater drainage system and would comply with the WQMP as identified in MM WQ -2. Therefore, with MM WQ -1 and MM WQ -2 incorporated, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on site or off site. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff? Less - than - Signiflcant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above in Section VIII(d), portable pumps are used to discharge urban runoff collected at street ends into the ocean, when the tide is too high for the tide gates and valves to release collected stormwater. Overall, urban street flooding rarely is considered a problem in the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2003). Also as described above, the urban character of the area and the existing use of the proposed project site as a private tennis club does not allow stormwater to be readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the impervious area. The proposed project would not generate a substantial increase in runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage system because the City currently has tidal valves, gates, and portable pumps to control stormwater and flooding generated on the Balboa Peninsula. Furthermore, with the incorporation of MM WQ -t and MM WQ -2 the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, increased runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing storm drain systems or generate polluted runoff. Impacts on stormwater, therefore, would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not substantially degrade water quality. See Response VIII(e). Impacts on water quality would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. g. Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Less-than-Significant Impact. Parts of Balboa Peninsula are susceptible to 100 -year flood conditions. Figure 3 -4 Flood Hazards identifies the flooding hazards in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project is located in an area of a 500 -year flood but is in an area that is protected from the 100 -year flood by levees according to the City of Newport Beach General Plan (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The levees consist of sand dunes in Newport Beach and flood control measures in the upper watershed. Most sand dunes located on the Balboa Peninsula can be modified as needed using earth- moving equipment. Environmental reason dictates that vegetated dunes are preferable, however, in some areas raked and level beaches are considered to have a greater value due to their recreational potential (Earth Consultants International 2003). In the more heavily used beaches of Newport Beach where vegetation cannot be established due to intense foot and vehicular traffic, bulldozers can be used to build a temporary protective dune. This requires access to equipment in Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -35 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist short notice. Also, beach nourishment programs to maintain the protective wide beaches and sand dunes (Earth Consultants International 2003). Furthermore, various flood control measures have helped reduce flood damage in the City (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Administered by the Orange County Resources & Development Management Department, the Orange County Flood Control District ( OCFCD) provides, operates, and maintains public facilities and regional resources for the residents of Orange County (City of Newport Beach 2006b). OCFCD operates and maintains flood control channels, dams, retarding basins, pump stations, and other flood control infrastructure that the OCFCD designs and constructs (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Specifically, in the City, OCFCD is responsible for maintaining the regional drainage facilities such as the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and Buck Gully (City of Newport Beach 2006b). These structures help regulate flow in the Santa Ana River, San Diego Creek, and smaller streams and hold back some of the flow during intense rainfall periods that otherwise could overwhelm the storm drain system in Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach 2006b). In addition, as described above in Section VIII(d), the City's storm drain system includes mechanisms that minimize flood hazards resulting from high tide events (City of Newport Beach 2006b); therefore, impacts would be less than significant. h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII(g), the proposed project is located in an area of a 100 -year flood but is in an area that is protected from the 100 -year flood by levees (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, the proposed project would not impede or redirect 100 -year floodflows, and impacts would be less than significant. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less - than - Significant Impact. As discussed in Section VIII(g), the proposed project is in an area that is protected by levees operated and maintained by OCFCD. Implementation of the flood protection policies contained in the General Plan and City Municipal Code would reduce impacts from flooding as a result of levee failure, and impacts would be less than significant. j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in a 100 -year zone for tsunami inundation at extreme high tide (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Figure 3 -5 Tsunami Evacuation Routes identifies the City of Newport Beach evacuation routes in the event of a tsunami. The City also has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Implementation of the proposed project could result in a maximum of five additional single -unit dwellings within the identified tsunami inundation zone. This would not substantially increase exposure to existing hazards, or substantially affect evacuation of the Balboa Peninsula in the event of a tsunami; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -36 Declaration icF Jas oosas.oe Legend - Speeial FI-d Hazard A,— nc ndated by lN, flwd =q flr -Rrea5 of 500. —llootl ; arealI 1N year hood wlth average \ tle0th5 ofl ee5 [Fan I loot or wl[h ..I,mile: g areas less Man 1 square �� antl areas prNeRetl by levee V, b—I yeatflootl Zone V &—,i `7 fl� zonewith .ebcM naaba� nip. nos flood db eons aver inee. cara.ni covarxnre ..... Source: City of Newport Beach (2006) ICFJones & Stokes Figure 3 -4 Flood Hazards Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Tsunami Run Up Area City of Newport Beach 1( 1/ PI PACIFIC OCEAN��_ .. a NPML Source: City of Newport ICFJones & Stokes KPohnoel iywew RUOIIp(eleatll 0.m @ax) KE,ev.pon lPP R.mgeeler Eac t,,,Rmk Plm SV�ioa 0 Libevy } Alepiu�l Fedlilf I Gly FxiIIN ♦ Poin[o(Imercn d PoI -Siam m Rvrea�ional C-1, j $eh"I � Gly BminJUy Puk[ Figure 3 -5 Tsunami Evacuation Routes Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion Would the project: a. physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project involves an amendment to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to change the land use categories from Parks and Recreation (PR) to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD) and Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B), respectively. The amendment would provide consistency between the land use designations and the current Single - Family Residential (R -1) zone. The amendment also would allow the construction and occupancy of the conceptual development plan (five, detached, single -unit dwellings). The amended General Plan Land Use Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan for the proposed project site would be compatible with the adjacent residential uses, all of which are designated single- family detached. The construction of five single -unit dwellings and the revised land use designations associated with the proposed project would not divide the existing community; therefore, no impacts would occur. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project involves a General Plan Land Use Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use categories of the proposed project site from recreational to residential land use. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing PR land use categories to RS -D and RSD -B land uses, respectively. The RS -D land use category under the City's General Plan would allow for five, detached, single -unit dwellings. The RSD -B land use category under the Coastal Land Use Plan is intended to provide for detached single -unit dwelling development with a density range of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling du/ac. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -37 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Generally, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of both the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan, as discussed in Appendix B which provides a detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the policies of both the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. However, the proposed project is inconsistent with Coastal Land Use Policy 3.2.1.1: protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. The proposed project would not expand or protect recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. The proposed project would amend the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to be consistent with the existing zoning. These amendments could result in the development of the conceptual development plan, which includes a maximum of five single- family detached dwelling units. The inconsistency of the proposed project with Policy 3.2.1.1 would not result in significant environmental impacts. As discussed in all other resource sections (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, Agriculture, etc.) the environmental impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Furthermore, these policies were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Thus, while the proposed project is not consistent with the policy, this inconsistency does not represent a significant physical environmental impact. As discussed in Appendix B, the proposed project also would require a deviation of design standards per Section 19.24.130 of the Subdivision Code for the lot sizes; however, the deviation would not result in a significant physical environmental impact as discussed in each resource section of this Initial Study Checklist, and the inconsistency would not represent a significant environmental impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; impacts would be less than significant. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized setting, and no locally designated species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. See Response IV(f). No impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -38 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist X. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally ❑ ❑ ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Discussion Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Natural Resources Element, the Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) in the City either are classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ -1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ -3). The proposed project is located in an area designated as MRZ -3 (California Department of Conservation 1994 and USGS 2009). The proposed project site is surrounded by land uses that are not compatible with pit mining (residential and roads), all of which would preclude it from being developed as a mine, even if there is indeed an extractable mineral resource present. Therefore, no impacts associated with the loss of a mineral resource would occur. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. The site is not delineated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan as containing a locally important mineral resource (City of Newport Beach 2006a); therefore, no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -39 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ Less than ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundbom e noise levels? Significant Potentially with Less -than- ❑ Significant Mitigation Significant No XI. NOISE Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ® ❑ ❑ in excess of standards established in the local ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable levels existing without the project? standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne vibration or groundbom e noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use land ❑ ❑ ® ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion Prior to addressing the checklist questions, the discussion below provides an overview of the existing conditions and regulations relative to noise impacts. A more detailed discussion of noise terminology is included in Appendix C. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid -range frequencies. This frequency- dependent modification is called A- weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound -level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels. Although the A- weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -40 Declaration icF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist particular source is identifiable. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a way of describing the 24 -hour weighted average noise level. Existing Conditions at Proposed Project Site Noise - sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project site include single - family residences immediately to the north, south, east, and west of the proposed project site. Short-term attended sound level measurements were conducted on November 10, 2009, with a Larson Davis Type 812 Sound Level Meter (SLM), which is classified as a Type 1 ( "Precision" grade) instrument. Noise was measured at three representative noise - sensitive locations near the project area. Figure 3 -6 Noise Measurement Locations identifies the measurement locations. During the field measurements, physical observations of the predominant noise sources were noted. The noise sources in the project area typically included traffic along East Balboa Boulevard and landscaping management activities. The results of the attended short-term sound level measurements are summarized in Table 3 -6. As shown in Table 3 -6, measured noise levels during daytime hours in and around the proposed project site ranged from 60 to 62 dBA L.q. These noise levels are typical of a suburban residential area. Table 3 -6. Short-Term Sound Level Measurement Measurement Period Measurement Results (dBA) Measurement Start Duration Noise Site ID Location Date Time (mm:ss) Sources Legl L.. L,,,;,, Lso L5o Lm ST -1 2006 East 11/10/09 9:55 15:00 People 59.5 76.8 44.4 49.4 54.4 63.3 Balboa playing Boulevard tennis, traffic, distant construction ST -2 450 Belvue 11/10/09 10:15 15:00 People 59.7 70.7 42.0 46.2 53.6 64.4 Lane talking, traffic, distant aircraft, distant landscaping ST -3 2020 East 11/10/09 10:35 15:00 Traffic, 62.2 82.3 41.6 45.1 51.1 63.9 Balboa distant Boulevard aircraft, distant landscaping 'Leq is a 15- minute measurement duration and is commonly accepted as representative of a 1 -hour level. It is used as the basis for CNEL calculations. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -41 Declaration iCF Jas ooeas.o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Regulatory Background: Noise Standards The project is subject to the Noise Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Noise Ordinance incorporated therein. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for exterior sound levels based on land use categories. The City of Newport Beach also has established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could adversely affect its citizens and noise - sensitive land uses. The noise element states that an outdoor noise exposure level of 65 dBA CNEL is considered "normally compatiblei3 for single - family residential development (City of Newport Beach 2006a). The General Plan noise element also references the Municipal Code which is described below. Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code specifies exterior noise standards for single - family residential units from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. at 55 dBA Leq and from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at 50 dBA Leq. Construction noise, however, is exempt from the above noise standard, pursuant to Section 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. Section 10.28.040 of the Municipal Code specifies permitted hours for construction activities. Construction or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity may occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity may occur on Sundays or federal holidays. Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed below in Construction Noise, although sensitive receptors in the area would be exposed to a temporary increase in noise from construction activities, the proposed project does not involve construction activities such as pile - driving or extensive extraction. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code exempts construction activities from noise restrictions during specific hours, and due to the limited duration of construction activities, City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise standards would not be exceeded. Operational noise impacts, discussed below under Operational Noise, would not exceed City of Newport Beach General Plan noise element standards and would be less than significant. Construction Noise Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code is the standard used to determine whether construction impacts are significant. It is assumed for the purposes of analysis that construction of the proposed project would begin in 2010. Noise - producing project activity will comply with local noise control regulations affecting construction activity. All five, single -unit dwellings are assumed to be constructed concurrently. Construction would last approximately eight months and would be temporary. Construction would include the following phases and time lengths: ■ demolition of the tennis courts and clubhouse,—approximately two weeks; ■ site grading— approximately two weeks; ■ construction— approximately seven months; and 'Normally acceptable is defined in the land use noise compatibility matrix in the City's General Plan and is included as Appendix D to this document. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -42 Declaration icF Jas 00s4s.09 ones& Figure 3 -6 J 1 C F Stokes Noise Measurement Locations Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist ■ planting and post - construction— approximately two weeks. Noise from construction activity is generated by the use of a broad array of powered mechanical equipment. In order to assess the potential noise effects of construction, a list of typical construction equipment was assumed for each phase of construction. The list of assumed construction equipment can be found in Appendix A. Analysis of construction phases for the proposed project was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration's Roadway Construction Noise Model. Noise levels associated with various construction phases where all pertinent equipment is present and operating are shown in Table 3 -7. The closest noise - sensitive receptors to the project are residential land uses to the east of the proposed project site approximately 50 feet from the acoustical center° of the proposed project site. This information indicates that the overall average noise level generated on a construction site could be 86 dBA at the closest sensitive receptor during Demolition and Plaming/Post- construction phases. Therefore the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to a noise level of 86 dBA Ley. This noise level is substantially higher than the typical ambient daytime noise levels. Noise levels of this magnitude would be readily audible in the residential area during construction activities. The City's Municipal Code exempts construction from the noise restrictions discussed above as long as it occurs only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays and does not occur at any time on federal holidays or on Sundays. However, noise from construction could cause annoyance at nearby receptors; therefore, noise control measures are recommended (Mitigation Measures N -1 through N- 7) to reduce the noise levels to the extent practicable. Table 3 -7. Potential Noise Levels from Construction Phases Average Sound Level at Construction Phase Closest Sensitive Receptor (dBA LQ,)H Demolition 86 Site Grading 85 Construction 83 Planting and post - construction 86 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model. Mitigation Measures: MM N -1. All noise - producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines will be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or other noise- reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc - welders, air compressors) will be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. "Acoustical center is the idealized point from which the acoustical energy from construction would be produced. It is determined by taking the square root of the distance from closest receiver to the nearest point where construction equipment could be multiplied by the distance to the farthest point. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -43 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist MM N -2. All mobile and fixed noise - producing equipment used on the project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency will comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity. MM N -3. Electrically powered equipment will be used instead of pneumatic or internal combustion — powered equipment, where feasible. MM N -4. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas will be located as far as practical from noise - sensitive receptors. MM N -5. No project - related public address or music system will be audible at any adjacent receptor MM N -6. The on -site construction supervisor will have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the project proponent will be established prior to construction commencement that will allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor. MM N -7. During construction activities, temporary noise barriers, such as noise- attenuating blankets, will be erected at the construction fence lines. With the mitigation measures provided, impacts from construction noise would be reduced. Additionally, the application of the City's Municipal Code would limit the hours of construction in the evenings and prevent noise impacts at night when people's sensitivity to noise is heightened. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Operational Noise The General Plan noise element is the standard used to determine whether operation impacts are significant. The proposed project would generate vehicle trips on the surrounding roadways. Currently, 39 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) per court are designated to the existing private tennis club based on trip generations rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8`s Edition. Therefore, the existing private tennis club would be expected to generate a total of 78 ADTs with two tennis courts. The ITE ADT rate for a single -unit dwelling is 9.57 ADTs. The proposed project would result in a maximum of five single -unit dwellings and therefore would generate approximately 48 ADTs. The proposed project would result in a net decrease of 30 daily trips than the current use as a private tennis club. Because the project would produce a net decrease in the number of traffic trips, there would be a small corresponding decrease in traffic noise on local roadways. Therefore impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant. The proposed project would introduce new sensitive receptors to the area in the form of new residences. Current noise sources in the area include East Balboa Boulevard, onto which the proposed project site fronts. Other noise sources include aircraft approaches to and departures from John Wayne Airport, located approximately 6.5 miles to the north/northeast, as well as typical residential noise such as landscaping activities. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Guidelines for Noise Compatibility Land Use (Appendix D) states that an exterior Day/Night Average noise level that ranges between 60 and 65 dBA CNEL is considered Normally Compatible for single - family residential land uses. As shown in Table 3 -6 above, existing ambient noise measured 62.2 dBA and below for each of the measurement locations. Based on the reduction in traffic volumes associated with the change in land use, the proposed project would not experience noise that would exceed the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -44 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist General Plan Guidelines for Noise Compatibility Land Use; therefore, operational noise impacts would be less than significant. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with grading and excavation may result in some minor amount of ground vibration. Construction of the project would not involve special construction methods such as pile driving or blasting. Vibration from conventional construction activity is typically below a level of human perception and well under levels that would cause damage to existing buildings, when the activity is more than approximately 50 feet from the receiver. For this project, conventional construction activities could take place at distances closer than 50 feet from sensitive receptors. Based on data from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), small bulldozers (which are representative of the size of construction equipment that would be on site) produce vibration levels of 0.003 inches per second (IPS) peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet. This level is well below widely accepted levels of perception thresholds (for example, Caltrans has identified a PPV of between 0.0059 and 0.019 IPS PPV as the threshold of human perception.) The FTA maintains a 0.12 ITS PPV threshold for potential damage to "extremely fragile historic buildings" (US Department of Transportation 2006). Additionally, vibration from these activities would be short-term and would end when construction is completed; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less - than - Significant Impact. Noise associated with single -unit dwellings would be generated primarily by traffic, with some additional ancillary noise generated by landscaping maintenance and residents utilizing their yards. However, the proposed project would decrease the amount of traffic in the project vicinity by approximately 30 trips per day because of the change in land use; therefore, noise from traffic associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. As stated in Section a (above), the proposed project would introduce sensitive receptors to the area. However, based on the reduction in traffic volumes, any new sensitive receptors would not experience noise levels that would exceed the City's General Plan Guidelines for Noise Compatibility Land Use; therefore, impacts would be less that significant. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise Levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As stated above, the construction of the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in noise levels. These levels would be readily audible at the closest sensitive receptors; however, the City exempts construction provided that it occurs only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and at no time on federal holidays or Sundays. Noise control measures are included as mitigation measures N -1 through N -11. These measures would reduce construction noise levels to the greatest extent practical; therefore, impacts from construction would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -45 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist e. For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within a 2 -mile radius of an airport or within an airport land use plan. The closest airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 6.5 miles to the north. The proposed project site is located outside the noise contours of the airport, but may experience some distance airplane noise as identified in table 3 -6 (City of Newport Beach 2006a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of an airstrip, private or public; therefore, no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -46 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XI I. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed land use amendments to the City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan could allow for the construction and operation of the conceptual development plan. The conceptual development plan would increase the total housing units available (42,711) in the City of Newport Beach by five, single -unit dwellings. This is less than 1% (approximately 0.001 %) of the current total housing available (California Department of Finance 2008). There are approximately 80,000 people in the City of Newport Beach and 2.19 persons per household in the City of Newport Beach; therefore, the proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 11 people (California Department of Finance 2008). A less than 1% increase in population and housing is negligible to the overall growth of the City and is not considered substantially growth inducing. In addition, the proposed project site is surrounded by existing residential development and would not result in growth inducing efforts caused by the extension of utilities, roads, or other infrastructure into undeveloped area. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would amend the existing land use designations, which could allow for the construction and operation of the conceptual development plan. The proposed project site is currently a private tennis club and does not consist of housing. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -47 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. As discussed in (b) above, the proposed project site is currently developed with a private tennis club and no people currently live on the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing or people, and no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -48 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 3. Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 4. Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 5. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Discussion Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with: al. Fire protection? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Fire Department service area. The City of Newport Beach Fire Department is considered an all risk Fire Department. This means it has the resources to respond and provide services to all types of emergencies including: fires, medical emergencies, hazardous materials problems, beach rescues, traffic accidents, high rise incidents, wildland fires, major flooding and disaster operations (City of Newport Beach 2009b). The proposed project site is served by Balboa Peninsula Fire Station #1, which is located at 110 East Balboa Boulevard at the intersection of East Balboa Boulevard and Island Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles to the west of the proposed project site. The existing Peninsula Point Racquet Club currently contributes to fire and emergency demands. The club has approximately 83 active members and is open 7 days a week. Should an emergency or fire occur at the existing tennis club, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department would be first responders. As discussed in Section XII(a) above, the proposed project would add five additional residential structures and approximately 11 people (California Department of Finance 2008). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significantly more demands than the existing tennis club on fire and emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -49 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach a2. Police protection? Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in the City of Newport Beach Police Department and the Orange County Sherriff Department service area. The Newport Beach Police Department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, approximately 7 miles from the proposed project. The Orange County Sheriff's Department Harbor Patrol/Marine Operations Bureau provides around - the -clock law enforcement, marine fire fighting, and search/rescue services in Newport Harbor (Orange County Sheriffs Department 2008). The proposed project site is located in Newport Beach Police Department Patrol Area 1 (Newport Beach Police Department 2009). The existing tennis club generates a demand for police services. As discussed above, the proposed project would add five residential structures and approximately 11 people to the neighborhood. The proposed project would not place a significant added burden on the Newport Beach Police Department and would not require new or additional police facilities; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. a3. Schools? Less - than - Significant Impact. School services in the City are provided by the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. The demand for new schools is generally associated with population increases or impacts on existing schools. The proposed project would increase the number of children housed at the proposed project site, and therefore would increase the number of students attending schools. The 2006 -2008 American Community Survey indicates there are 13,249 children between the ages of 5 and 19 living in Newport Beach; therefore, approximately 16% of the City population is school age children (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). In the City of Newport Beach, the average household size is 2.19 and approximately 19% of the households have an individual living in the household under 18 years of age (i.e., school -age child) (California Department of Finance 2008; U.S. Census Bureau 2008, 2000). The proposed project would include five households and approximately 11 people (2.19 persons per household). Therefore, based on U.S. Census data, it is reasonable to assume the proposed project would generate approximately two school -age children (18% of the 11 persons in the five households of the conceptual development plan would have school -age children). Although the proposed project may increase the number of school age children in the City by two, this would not place a significant added burden to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District; therefore impacts would be less than significant. a4. Parks? Less- than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a private tennis clubhouse and two tennis courts and the construction of five single -unit dwellings. As such, the proposed project would increase the number of people by 11 including two children housed at the proposed project site (see discussion XIII(a5) above). According to the Newport Beach General Plan Recreation Element there are two parks in the project vicinity: L Street Park and M Street Park (Figure 3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities). It is expected that these two parks would be able to handle the increased demand, and the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts on parks requiring the need for new facilities in order to maintain acceptable performance standards. See Section XIV(a) and (b) Recreation for additional discussion on parks and recreation. hnpacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -50 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach ICFSt k& AM or MIAMISMAIME Paris, Figure 3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND Legend • Private Tennis Facilities _ Park • Public Tennis Facilities 1 Newport Harbor High School Public Beach 2 Mariners Park Marine Protected Areas 3 Bonita Canyon Sports Field Crystal Cove State Park 4 Grant Howald Field Cosin nun Upper Newport Bay 5 Irvine Terrace Field State Marine Park 6 Las Arenas Park ^/ City Boundary T West Newport Park B San Joaquin Hills Park OCounty Boundary g Corona Del Mar High School I ee IN 1 D Balboa Bay Racquet Club .... Is. 11 Palisades Tennis Club ! 12 Newport Beach Tennis Club NEI 0 as I / saw an wae.PAnwm, Sea p A F 38M Street Park ® Anoy Pah (� \• - ® BEEN Bay View Park (a aBaltoa over —ry Cents "�• ' ®Banide Park _ OBeyviaw Park .--1 ALAN. - ® Btgond Park ®lalerear, Po nr ®Pio Canyon Park ®Irvine Terrace Park ` ®Bob Henry Park ® laarene Creek Park Be. Pairs ® qys lead Yew Park Project Location _ Bonita Canyon Snake Park ® L Srreat Park ® Bonita Creek Park ®Iza Nenas Park - ®BnRaIOHIIIaPark ®11do Park uCA, Ak ®bnyon Wald Park ®Lincoln PMlNic Ceav /Crym ®old SC Pr Park ® dwell I Camm Center ®LOaFput PWT Mery PUF ®Peninsula Park ®bsevers Park ®WSTran— Canyon New Park ® San Joaquin Nills Park ®OanM Place BEEN ®M 1d. Park on, k NPark ® curneive PaM/COmm Center Mai rw Park ®daylee Hill Park ®car da Mar Stale fined, ® Maircrs serve, Cnmm Censer ®spyes. Hll aandedir Park ® berehark ark ® kii Par ® yakes. ASAMS, Pah sa, New Par, a Nawpert Sar if Center ® UPPer New qrr y Ba Nature Preserve , ®6a Wy View Par ® Newport DUnes Aquatie Paris ® yNalan Memorial Par ®fired, And ® Newed lslantl Par ®Weil lady Vies, Par ® Grzrrt Howald Park End ® Newport Snores Par ® West Newryrt ... C.vvNGym ® Hartor Vkw as— Par ®Nartr Star Beacn ®West Nervport Par ®Hand, Warm Park ® W9s Senior Center ®sandoflPar, SOURCE: City of Newport Beach ICFSt k& AM or MIAMISMAIME Paris, Figure 3 -7 Existing Recreational and Tennis Facilities Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments IS /MND City of Newport Beach a5. Other public facilities? Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - Than - Significant Impact. Other public facilities located in the City of Newport Beach include libraries and senior centers. The City of Newport has four libraries and one senior center (Newport Beach Public Library 2009, City of Newport Beach 2009c). The closest library and senior center to the proposed project site are the Balboa Branch at 100 East Balboa Boulevard and OASIS Senior Center at 800 Marguerite Avenue, approximately 1.2 miles and 7.8 miles from the proposed project site, respectively. The proposed project would negligibly increase the local permanent population by 11 people (see discussion XIII (al) above). The proposed project would remove the clubhouse, which is currently available one evening per month to members of the Peninsula Point Neighborhood Association for monthly meetings. The monthly Peninsula Point Neighborhood Association meetings could be held in a wide variety of existing meeting places including community centers, senior centers, libraries, and private homes identified below. • Balboa Branch Library located at 100 East Balboa Boulevard • OASIS Senior Center located at 800 Marguerite Avenue • Balboa Community Center located at 1714 Balboa Boulevard • Bonita Creek Community Center located at 3010 La Vida • Cliff Drive Park located at 301 Riverside Avenue • Community Youth Center located at 3000 Fifth Avenue • West Newport Community Center located at 883 15 Street The closest alternative location would be the Balboa Branch Library. Existing libraries, senior centers, and other public facilities would be able to absorb the slight increase in demand attributable to the proposed project's negligible increase in the local population and the removal of the clubhouse. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse impacts on other public facilities or require new facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards, and impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -51 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse nhvsical effect on the environment? Discussion a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly affect neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed project site is located in Service Area 2 (Balboa Peninsula), which currently supports a total of 50.5 acres of combined park/beach area, and exceeds the 25.5 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's current requirements in the Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. The increase in housing as a result of the proposed project would negligibly increase the local population by 11 people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in Newport Beach. The three neighborhood parks (L Street Park, M Street Park, and West Jetty View Park) and active beach recreation area in the general vicinity of the proposed project as identified by Figure 3 -1 could absorb the slight demand placed on them by 11 new residents. The proposed project would result in the demolition of a private recreational facility. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club is a private tennis club, not providing open public use. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club has 83 active members, therefore, the removal of the private tennis club would increase the use of tennis facilities at other parks and recreation facilities throughout the City. Some of the members likely would use existing local public tennis courts, and others may become members of other local private tennis clubs. Public tennis courts in the City of Newport Beach are listed in Table 3 -8, and private Newport Beach tennis clubs are listed in Table 3 -9. Figure 3 -7 identifies the locations of both public and private tennis clubs in relation to the proposed project site. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -52 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Table 3 -8. City of Newport Beach Public Tennis Courts Public Tennis Court Location Newport Harbor High School Tennis Courts 600 Irvine Ave Mariners Park 1300 Irvine Ave Bonita Canyon Sports Field 1990 Ford Rd Grant Howald Field 3000 Fifth Ave Irvine Terrace Field Seadrift Dr. Las Arenas Park 1520 Balboa Blvd West Newport Park 6804 Seashore Dr. San Joaquin Hills Park 1560 Crown Dr. Corona Del Mar High School 2101 East Bluff Dr. Table 3 -9. City of Newport Beach Private Tennis Courts Private Tennis Courts Location Balboa Bay Racquet Club 1602 East Coast Hwy Palisades Tennis Club 1171 Jamboree Rd. Newport Beach Tennis Club 2601 Eastbluff Dr. The local pubic tennis courts would be able to absorb the small additional demand resulting from the removal of the Peninsula Point Racquet Club. Membership fees associated with private tennis clubs would offset any additional demand on private facilities by contributing to funds to provide necessary upgrades and maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less -than- Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreation facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. As indicated above, this area of the City currently provides combined park/beach acreage in excess of the need for this area. For impacts associated with the demolition of an existing private recreational facility, see response to XIV(a). Impacts would be less than significant. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -53 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design ❑ Less than ® ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous Significant Potentially with Less -than- Significant Mitigation Significant No XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: ❑ ❑ ® a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of ❑ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ the street system (i.e., result in a substantial ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design ❑ ❑ ® ❑ feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less - than - Significant Impact. Pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department does not require a traffic study if a project would generate 300 or fewer new daily trips. Currently, 39 ADTs per court are expected to be generated to the existing private tennis club based on trip generations rates in the ITE Trip Generation, 8`h Edition. Therefore, the existing private tennis club would generate a total of 78 ADTs. The ITE ADT rate for a single -unit dwelling is 9.57 ADTs. The proposed project would result in a maximum of five single -unit dwellings and therefore would generate approximately 48 ADTs. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -54 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist The proposed project would generate 30 fewer daily trips than the current use as a private tennis club. Therefore, East Balboa Boulevard would experience a small decrease in ADTs, and operational impacts on traffic volumes and flow would be less than significant. There is generally more traffic congestion and parking deficiencies on Balboa Peninsula during the summer months due to a heavy increase in tourists to the area. It is unknown during what season(s) construction would occur; however, construction equipment delivery, construction personnel commuting, and material delivery haul trips would add slightly to the summer traffic should construction occur during summer months. Given that only a maximum of 5 residential homes would be constructed concurrently, the construction traffic would be negligible and would not be perceptive in the context of tourist traffic on the Peninsula. Construction traffic is expected to be less than the existing traffic generated by the tennis club (78 daily trips), and also fewer than the estimated 48 daily trips from the proposed 5 single -unit dwellings. Construction traffic activities and equipment movement at the site would be controlled by construction flag persons and the temporary or partial closure of any street would be previously approved by City Public Works and the City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards. Construction would be temporary and normal traffic levels would resume once construction was over. Therefore, construction impacts on traffic volumes and flow would be less than significant. b. Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less - than - Significant Impact. The area surrounding the proposed project site is primarily single unit dwellings. The main route of access to the proposed project site is East Balboa Boulevard, which is classified as Commuter Roadway. Primary ingress /egress to the proposed dwelling units would be off the private drives of East Bay and L Street. The proposed project would result in a decrease of daily trips as discussed above in response XV(a). Impacts would be less than significant. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project includes land use designation amendments and the construction and operation of the conceptual development plan (five, detached, single- family dwellings). The proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of the AELUP for John Wayne Airport, restricting any specific land uses because of aircraft operations. The proposed project would result in a population increase of approximately 11 persons. Due to this minimal population increase of less than 1 %, the proposed project would not cause an increase in air traffic levels or create a physical impediment that would necessitate an alteration of flight patterns; therefore, no impacts would occur. d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less -than- Significant Impact. The project would not alter the shape of any of the adjacent roads. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department would review and approve all driveway plans prior to construction, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -55 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact. Construction or operation of the project would not affect streets or otherwise affect emergency access routes. The project would be designed to incorporate all required City of Newport Beach Fire Department standards to ensure that its implementation would not result in hazardous design features or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas surrounding the site; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less - than - Significant Impact. Currently, patrons of the tennis club must park on East Balboa Boulevard or surrounding residential streets. There is currently enough street parking to accommodate the patrons of the tennis club. The proposed project would provide a two -car garage for each of the five, single -unit dwellings. There would be a total of 10 parking spaces designed per the Zoning Code. The proposed project would not require curb cuts or any other street modification that would result in fewer street parking spaces. Therefore, because the proposed project would include 10 parking spaces, it would result in fewer needed street parking spaces than the existing use. Impacts would be less than significant. g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed project includes land use designation amendments and the construction and operation of a conceptual development plan (five single -unit dwellings). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -56 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&os City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Potentially Significant Impact Lessthan Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ® ❑ ❑ stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ® ❑ treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Discussion Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. The City of Newport Beach requires NPDES permits, as administered by the RWQCB according to Federal regulations, for both point source discharges and nonpoint source discharges to surface waters of the United States. In addition, wastewater service in the project vicinity is provided by the City of Newport Beach (City of Newport Beach Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -57 Declaration icF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist 2006b). Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The majority of the City's wastewater flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, which has a design capacity o£276 million gallons per day (mgd). It treats on average a flow of 153mgd and operates at 55% of its capacity (City of Newport Beach General 2006b). The existing land use currently generates wastewater from the daily use of the Peninsula Point Racquet Club and has existing sewer ties into OCSD sewer lines. The proposed project site currently generates wastewater from washing down the tennis courts approximately every 6 weeks and from the kitchen and restrooms in the clubhouse. The proposed project would increase wastewater generation above the current wastewater generation, as single -unit dwellings would be expected to generate more water than a two -court private tennis club. Approximately 200 gallons of wastewater per dwelling unit per day are produced for the project area (Kayiran pers. comet.). Therefore, the proposed project would generate approximately 1,000 gallons of wastewater per day. This would equate to approximately 365,000 gallons per year or approximately 1 acre -foot per year of wastewater. The project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB and would comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and applicable wastewater discharge requirements issued by the State Water Resources Control Board as discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality. Furthermore, the project would comply with the NPDES Phase I and Phase II requirements that would regulate discharge from construction (also described in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). Finally, since OCSD Plant No. 2 operates at 55% of its capacity, the additional wastewater generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by OCSD. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause any violation of standards set forth by OCSD, and impacts would be less than significant. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less - than - Significant Impact. Water service for the proposed project site is provided by the City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the City is supplied by imported water, groundwater and recycled water. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to the existing OCSD sewer system. OCSD, as stated above, manages and oversees all wastewater in Orange County and is expected to be able to accommodate the wastewater generated by the proposed project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less - than - Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The existing site is mostly impermeable to stormwater because of the impermeable surfaces on site. The proposed project would minimally alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and would not increase the impervious area. During construction, runoff from the proposed project site would be managed by BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements per MM WQ -1. BMPs would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of a SWPPP to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains per MM WQ -1. Stone runoff generated through project operations would be diverted into the existing stormwater drainage system and would not generate additional polluted runoff per MM WQ -2. Therefore, Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -58 Declaration iCF Jas oosas.oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? Less - than - Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is required to evaluate the appropriate level of water reliability sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers (e.g., residential, industrial, etc.) during normal, dry, and continuously dry years. The California Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires the City to evaluate the water supply and demand within its service area in the Urban Water Management Plan every 5 years in the years ending in 0 and 5 (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City receives 34% of its water through water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 64% of its water from groundwater managed by the Orange County Water District, and 2% from recycled water managed by Orange County Water District (City of Newport Beach 2005). The Urban Water Management Plan uses historical normal year, wet year, and dry year, and then multiple dry and wet years, as well as water usage over time in the service area, to establish a baseline for demand and supply (City of Newport Beach Plan 2005). It then evaluates present and future conditions of water reliability in the City (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City used 18,648 acre -feet of water in 2005 (City of Newport Beach 2005). The City's demand for water includes all types of categories of customers— large industrial users, municipal uses such as irrigating parks, offices, and residential consumers who use water for drinking and landscaping purposes. The Urban Water Management Plan identifies that the City's demands for water can be met in average, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2030 based on current and projected water supplies and the demands forecast for normal, a single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios (City of Newport Beach 2005). The fixture supply projection assumes that the City will continue to produce groundwater and purchase local water from the Metropolitan Water District, which is projected to meet 100 percent of the City's imported water needs until the year 2030. Beyond that date, improvements associated with the State Water Project supply, additional local projects, conservation, and additional water transfers would be needed to adequately serve the City. The proposed project site currently uses water to wash down the tennis courts approximately every 6 weeks and in their kitchen and restrooms in the clubhouse. The proposed project would increase water demand over the current water use, as single -unit dwellings would be expected to use more water than a two -court private tennis club. Based on water sales records from the City of Newport Beach, the average water use in the area is approximately 235 gallons per dwelling unit per day (Kayiran pers. comm.). Therefore, the proposed project would use approximately 1,175 gallons per day. This would equate to approximately 428,875 gallons per year or approximately 1.31 acre feet per year. Because the Urban Water Management Plan for the City identifies that the demand for water can be met, the increase in the water demand by the proposed project would not result in a significant impact. Therefore, based on the City's evaluation and planning for reliability of water supplies and the anticipated proposed project water demand, no new or expanded entitlements would be required to serve the proposed project site, and impacts would be less than significant. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -59 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less -than- Significant Impact. See Response XVI(b). f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less - than - Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate an increase in solid waste production as a result of the proposed residences. The majority of residential solid waste generated in the City of Newport Beach is collected by the City's Refuse Division and then remaining solid waste is collected by waste haulers and transported to a City -owned transfer station. Refuse is consolidated and transported to a materials recovery facility where recyclable materials are sorted from refuse by machines and other methods. The remaining solid waste is then taken to one of three County landfills (City of Newport Beach 2006b). Currently only the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill serves the City of Newport Beach. Closure is currently estimated at year 2022; however, Integrated Waste Management Department is preparing an EIR to expand the landfill and extend its closure date to 2053 (City of Newport Beach 2006b). The permitted daily tonnage limit for the Bowerman Landfill is 8,500 tons per day of refuse except for 36 days per year when a higher tonnage of 10,625 tons per day is allowed. Currently, the landfill receives 2,332,576 tons per year or approximately 6,390 tons per day. Therefore, there is currently a surplus of landfill capacity of 2,110 tons per day. If the expansion is approved, the landfill would accept 11,500 tons per day (City of Newport Beach 2006b). A study of the Frank R. Bowerman landfill and its remaining capacity is presented in Table 3 -10 below. Table 3 -10. Landfill Maximum Current Remaining Maximum Estimated Daily Load Annual Usage Landfill Capacity (Tons Capacity (Tons) Close Date (Tons) (Tons) Frank R. 44,560,000 81,600,000 2022 8,500 2,332,576 Bowerman Source: Citv of Newoort Beach General Plan EIR Section 4.14 Utilities and Service Svstems 2006. Residential municipal solid waste would be generated by the proposed project; however, the existing land use is already generating municipal solid waste, which must be disposed of in a landfill. The proposed project involves the construction of five, single -unit dwellings. Assuming each single -unit dwelling produces 12.23 pounds of solid waste per day (City of Newport Beach 2006b), the proposed project as a whole would produce, on average, 61 pounds of solid municipal waste per day. Construction waste generation by the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in the total construction and demolition waste. The Frank R. Bowerman landfill is expected to be able to accommodate the increase in solid waste generated by construction and operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste produced by the proposed project would be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and city recycling programs; therefore, no impacts would occur. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -60 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist In. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less -than- Significant Impact. The project area is urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the project. Additionally, no cultural resources, either historic or prehistoric, are expected to be affected by the construction or operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -61 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less -than- Significant No Impact Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? In. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C. Does the project have environmental effects that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less -than- Significant Impact. The project area is urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the project. Additionally, no cultural resources, either historic or prehistoric, are expected to be affected by the construction or operation of the project; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -61 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist Less - than - Significant Impact. The project would not result in impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. The City of Newport Beach identified twelve individual projects within the City. The projects are listed below: ■ Newport Beach Country Club, located at 1600 East Coast Highway. This development includes five residential dwelling units, 27 hotel units with a 2,048 gross square foot concierge and guest center, 3,523 gross square foot tennis club with a 6,718 gross square foot spa, 41,086 gross square foot golf club with accessory facilities, seven tennis courts and a swimming pool. ■ Mariner's Medical Arts, located at 1901 Westcliff Drive. This development includes 12,245 gross square feet of a medical office addition. ■ City Hall & Park Development, located at 1100 Avocado Avenue. This development includes 98,000 gross square feet for City Hall, 17,135 gross square feet of library expansion, 450 -space parking structure, and a 15 acre park. ■ WPI- Newport, LLC, located at 4699 Jamboree Road and 5190 Campus Drive. This development includes 43,951 gross square feet of new office building, 5,744 gross square feet of bank uses, 2,214 gross square feet of retail uses, and 2,263 gross square feet of restaurant uses. ■ Banning Ranch, located at 4520 West Coast Highway. This development includes 1,375 dwelling units, 75,000 gross square feet of commercial retail, 75 -room accommodations, parks, and open space. ■ Sunset Ridge Park, located at 4850 West Coast Highway. This development includes 13.67 acres of active park land. ■ Old Newport GPA, located at 328 -340 Old Newport Boulevard. This development includes 25,725 gross square feet of medical office uses. ■ Marina Park, located at 1700 Balboa Boulevard. This development includes 10.45 acres of public marina, beach, park with recreational facilities as follows: 26,990 gross square feet of Balboa Center Complex, 23 slips for Visiting Vessel Marina, 1,328 gross square feet of Marina Services Building, 5,500 gross square feet of Girl Scout House, and 153 parking spaces. • PRES Office Building B, located at 4300 Von Karman. This development includes 16,742 gross square feet of office building. • Conexant/Koll Conceptual Plan, located at 4343 Von Karman Avenue. This development includes 974 residential dwelling units. • AERIE, located at 201 Carnation Avenue. This development includes 6 -unit condominium with subterranean parking which would include 25,500 cubic yards of grading. • Coast Community College District, located at 1505 -1533 Monrovia Avenue. This development includes 67,000 gross square feet of a higher education learning center. The analysis of cumulative projects addresses only those environmental issues that have the potential to be affected by the combined cumulative project list. This environmental document provides a determination of whether or not a significant cumulative impact exists, and whether the proposed project would contribute to such a significant cumulative impact to a considerable Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -62 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist degree. Only project impacts that are deemed cumulatively considerable are considered potentially significant impacts in the context of this analysis. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase dust levels in the project area. SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response HI(a), the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.5 In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project (Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions and Forecast of Regional Operational Emissions) are less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. The regional daily significance thresholds take into account other activity occurring in the region, and therefore, inherently address a project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. With regard to climate change and GHG emissions, as discussed earlier in Response III(b), the amounts of GHG emissions that would result from development and operations of the proposed project are less than the applicable screening level threshold set by the City of Newport Beach. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the state's goals of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative climate change /worldwide GHG emissions would be less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative hazard and hazardous materials impacts. As discussed previously, the proposed project may result in the disposal of asbestos - containing building materials and lead based paint. The mitigation measure identified in Response VII(a) would reduce the significance of the project's impacts associated with disposal of hazardous materials to a less- than- significant level. Hazardous waste that may be found at other proposed project sites would be disposed of according to local, state, and federal requirements. Implementation of the mitigation measure provided as part of the proposed project and implementation of other safety measures in the cumulative scenario would reduce the cumulative contribution of impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality from the generation of storrawater runoff. The mitigation measure identified in Response VIII(a) would reduce the significance of project impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Other project in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute WQMPs and implement BMPs. Implementation of the WQMPs s CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -63 Declaration iCF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 3. Initial Study Environmental Checklist and BMPs in a cumulative scenario would reduce the cumulative contribution of impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to excessive noise levels from construction. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Response XI(a) would reduce impacts from noise exposure to a less - than- significant level. Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute similar measures if they were found to expose people to excessive noise. None of the cumulative projects are located in the immediate vicinity to be audible together with the proposed project construction activities. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels. Furthermore, the proposed project does not exceed thresholds that require analysis pursuant to Newport Beach City Charter Section 423. Charter Section 423requires voter - approved development if it exceeds three specific thresholds regarding peak hour trips, intensity, and density. Charter Section 423, as implemented by the methodology set forth in City Council Policy A -18, establishes the thresholds which cause a General Plan Amendment to be subject to a vote of the electorate. Accordingly, the proposed development does not generate an increase of 100 or more peak hour trips. The intensity of allowed uses on the subject property will not increase beyond the thresholds identified in Policy A -18.. The proposed project meets the density allowed by statistical area (134). Therefore, the proposed project is not subject to Measure S (City of Newport Beach 2000). The proposed project would result in less - than - significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the impacts from the proposed project when combined with the list of cumulative development projects would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although construction of the proposed project is expected to create temporary adverse effects related to construction noise and hazardous materials during construction demolition, these impacts will be mitigated to a less - than- significant level. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 3 -64 Declaration iCF Jas OOM&oe Chapter 4 References Chapter 4 References Printed References California Code. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID= 0023264528 +0 +0 +0 &WAISactionzetrieve. Accessed: November 23, 2009. California Department of Conservation. 2007. California Geological Survey - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Available: http: / /www.consrv.ca.gov/ cgs /rghm/ap /Pages /affected.aspx. Accessed: November 11, 2009. — . 2009. Orange County Important Farmland 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Sacramento, CA. August 2009. California Department Finance. 2008. Table 2: E -5 City /County Population and Housing Estimate, 1/1/2008. Sacrament, CA. California Department of Transportation. 2009. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways. Available: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov/ hq /LandArch /scenic_ highways /index.htm. Accessed: November 12, 2009. California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List —Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available: http: / /www. envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/ public /search.asp ?cmd = search &reporttype =CORTE S E &site_typ e =CSITE S %2 COPEN %2 CFUD S %2 CCLO SE &status = ACT %2CBKLG %2CCOM &reporttitle = HAZARDOUS ° /u20 WASTE %20A ND %20SUBSTANCES %20SITE %20LIST. Accessed: November 10, 2009. . 2009b. Find Cleanup Sites and Hazardous Waste Permitted Facilities. Available: http: / /www. envirostor. dtsc. ca. gov /pub li c /search. asp ?cmd= search &city =New port%20Beach& zip = &county= Orange &federal_ superfund= True &state_re sp onse = True &voluntary_ cleanup= True &school cleanup= Tme &permitted=Tru e &pc _permitted= True &hist_ nonoperating = &corrective_ action= True &displa y_results= Report &pub =True. Accessed: November 10, 2009. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -1 Declaration ICF Jas 00M&oe City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References 2009c. List of "active" CDO and CAO from Water Board. Available: http: / /www.calepa .ca.gov /SiteCleanup /CorteseList/. Accessed: November 10, 2009. California Air Resources Board. 2008. Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases Under the California Environmental Quality Act. October 24, 2008. City of Newport Beach. 2000. Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423. Available: http: / /www.newportbeachca.gov /Modules /ShowDocument. aspx ?documentid =2516. Accessed: December17. 2009. City of Newport Beach. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study. Cited in City of Newport Beach (2006b). 2005. 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. CA. 2006a. Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006. 2006b. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental Impact Report General Plan 2006 Update. State Clearing Housing Number: 2006011119. April 2006. 2009a. City of Newport Beach, California Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. 2009b. Fire Operations Division. Available: htt p:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1131. Last Updated: July 15, 2009. Accessed: November 6, 2009. 2009c. City of Newport Beach: Senior Services--OASIS Senior Center. Available: http:// www .newportbeachea.gov /index.aspx ?page =218. Accessed: November 10, 2009. County of Orange. 2005. County of Orange General Plan. Available: http:// www. ocpianning .net/GeneralPlan2005.aspx. Accessed: November 10, 2009. Department of Conservation. 1994. DMG Open -File Report 94 -15. Division of Mines and Geology. Earth Consultants International. 2003. Hazards Assessment Study City of Newport Beach, California. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4.2 Declaration iCF Jas 00e46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References Geotracker. 2009. GeoTracker. Available: http s: / /geotracker.waterbo ards. ca.gov /map / ?CMD= runreport&myaddress =20 00 +east +balboa +blvd. Accessed: November 10, 2009. Harris, C. M. (ed.). 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. 2 "d edition. New York: McGraw -Hill, Inc. Newport Beach Police Department. 2009. Patrol and Traffic. Available: http: / /www.nbpd.org/insidenbpd /divisions /pat_ trf/default.asp. Accessed: November 6, 2009. Newport Beach Public Library. 2009. Hours and Locations. Available: http://www.city.newport-beach.ca.us/nbpl/ HoursAndLocations /Hours And Locations.htm. Accessed: November 10, 2009. Orange County Sheriffs Department. 2008. Harbor Patrol /Marine Operations Bureau. Available: http: / /ocsd.org/ divisions /homeland_ security /harbor /. Accessed: November 6, 2009. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. DP -1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics. Available: http : / /factfinder.census.gov /servlet/ QTTabl e ?_bm= y &- gr_name= DEC_2000_SF1_U DPI& - ds_ name =DEC_ 2000_ SF 1_U & -_ lang= en &- geo_id= 16000US0651182. Accessed: November 9, 2009. —. 2008. Newport Beach City, California —ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2006 -2008. 2006 -2008 American Community Survey 3 -Year Estimates. Available: http: / /factfinder.census.gov /servletl ADPTable? bm= y &- geo_id= 16000US0651182 &- qr _name= ACS_2008 3YR GOO DP3YR5 &- ds_name= ACS_2008_3YR G00_ &- _Iang= en &- _sse =on. Accessed: November 6, 2009. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Federal Transit Authority. U.S. Geologic Survey. 1965. National Geologic Map Database Rogers, T.H., 1965 Geologic map of California: Santa Ana sheet: California Division of Mines and Geology, scale 1:250000. Accessed on: January 5, 2010. Available at: http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngm- bin/ILView.pl?sid-452 _ l . sid &vtype =b &sfact = l .5. U.S. Geologic Survey. 2009. Mineral Resources On Line Spatial Data Orange County. Last Modified: December 9, 2009. Accessed on: January 5, 2010. Available at: http: // tin. er. usgs. gov /mrds /select.php ?place= f06059 &div =fips. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -3 Declaration icF Jas 00e46.os City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. References Personal Communications Kayiran, Zeki. Consultant. AKM Consulting Engineers. Irvine, CA. November 16,2009—Email. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 4 -4 Declaration iCF JaS 00e46.os Chapter 5 List of Preparers City of Newport Beach Assistant Planner ICF Jones & Stokes Project Director Project Manager Chapter 5 List of Preparers Makana Nova Chad Beckstrom, AICP Nicole Williams Agriculture, Biological Resources, Cultural Tanya Jones Resources, Hazards and Hazard Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Nicole Williams and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Tanya Jones Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems, Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Victor Ortiz Noise Peter Hardie Graphics Soraya Mustain Editor Darle Tilly Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative 5 -1 Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9 Appendix A Air Quality URBEMIS2007 Model Outputs and Operational Emissions Calculations I South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396 -2000 o www.aqmd.gov SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Mass Daily Thresholds' Pollutant Construction b Operation ` NTOx 100 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day V OC 75 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day 131\1110 150 Ibs /day 150 Ibs /day PM2.5 55 Ibs /day 55 Ibs /day Sox 150 Ibs /day 150 Ibs /day CO 550 Ibs /day 550 Ibs /day Lead 3 Ibs /day 3 Ibs /day Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) and Odor Thresholds TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk? 10 in I million (including carcinogens and non- carcinogens) Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ? 1 in I million) Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment) Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402 Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants NO2 SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 1 -hour average 0.18 ppm (state) annual average 0.03 pain (state) 131\110 24 -hour average 10.4 µg/111' (construction)e & 2.5 ag /m' (operation) annual average 1.0 m, PM2.5 24 -hour average 10.4 pg /nta (construction)` & 2.5 pg /ma (operation) Sulfate 24 -hour average I gg /m3 CO SCAQivID is in attainment project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: I -hour average 20 ppm (state) 8 -hour average 9.0 ppm (state/federal) `Source: SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (SCAQMD; 1993) Construction thresholds apply to both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley (Salton Sea and Mojavc Desert Air Basins). ` For Coachella Valley, the mass daily thresholds for operation are the same as the construction thresholds. ° Ambient air quality thresholds for criteria pollutants based on SCAQMD Rule 1303; Table A•2 unless otherwise stated. `Ambient air quality threshold based on SCAQMD Rule 403. KEY: Ibslday = pounds per day (Rev. March 2009) ppm = parts per million palm` = microgram per cubic meter 2 greater than or equal to CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (pounds per day) ROC NO, CO SOx PM10a PMZS' CO, Demolition Emissions On -site Total 134 70 4.68 - 1,27 0.68 700.30 Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.68 0.14 - Off -Road Diesel 1.14 7.68 4.68 - 0.59 0.54 700.30 Off -site Total -Iff 0.10 0.94 1.39 - 0.05 0.03 243.60 On -Road Diesel 0.07 0.88 0.34 - 0.04 0.03 119.21 Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 124.39 Grand Total 1.24 8.62 6.07 1..32 0.71 943.90 Site Grading Emissions On -site Total 3.00 24.99 12.46 - 3.21 1.56 2,247.32 Fugitive Dust - - - - 1.96 0.41 - Off -Road Diesel 3.00 24.99 12.46 - 1.25 L 15 1247.32 Off -site Total � 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 124.39 On -Road Diesel - - - - - - - Worker Trip 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 124.39 Grand Total 3.03 25.05 13.51 3.22 1.56 2,371.71 Building Erection /Finishing Emissions On -site Total 6.28 26.85 13.03 - 1.46 1.34 2,608.03 Off -Road Diesel, Bldg Gist 1.21 9.16 4.81 - 0.58 0.53 893.39 Arch Coatings Off -Gas 3.01 - - - - - - Asphalt Off -Gas - - - - - - - Off -Road Diesel, Planting 2.06 17.69 8.22 - 0.88 0.81 1,714.64 Off -site Total 0.06 0.24 _ 2.04 - 0.03 0.01 254.63 Worker Trips, Bldg Cost 0.02 0.04 0.75 - 0.01 - 89.56 Vendor Trips, Bldg Cost 0.01 0.13 0.10 - 0.01 0.01 2151 Worker Trips, Arch Coatings - 0.01 0.14 - - - 17.17 On -Road Diesel, Asphalt - - - - - - - Worker Trips, Planting 0.03 0.06 1.05 - 0.01 - 124.39 Grand Total 6.34 27.09 15.07 1.49 1.35 2,8620 On -site Emissions Totals Demolition 1.1 7.7 4.7 - 1.3 0.7 700.3 Site Grading 3.0 25.0 12.5 - 3.2 1.6 2,247.3 Building Erection/Finishing 6.3 26.9 13.0 - 1.5 1.3 2,608.0 Maximum On -site Emissions 6 27 13 - 3 2 2,608 Localized Significance Threshold' -- 92 647 -- 4 3 -- Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No No Regional Emissions Totals Demolition 1.2 8.6 6.1 - 1.3 0.7 943.9 Site Grading 3.0 25.1 13.5 - 3.2 1.6 2,371.7 Building Erection/Finishing 6.3 27.1 15.1 - 1.5 1.4 2,862.7 Maximum Regional Emissions 6 27 15 - 3 2 2,863 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 -- Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No No Notes: URBEMIS print -out sheets and fugitive PM calculation worksheet are included in Appendix A. ' Fugitive PM,O and PMis emissions estimates take into account compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression, which require that no visible dust be present beyond the site boundaries. n The project site is located in SCAQMD SRA No. 18. These LSTs are based on the site location SRA, distance to nearest sensitive receptor location from the project site (25 meters), and project area that could be under construction on any given day (one acre). Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM PM10 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 3.21 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: G: \Los Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality \Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924 0.00 104.33 Project Name: Beauchamp CO2 0.16 500.86 Project Location: South Coast AQMD CO2 0.16 605.19 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 2010 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.34 27.10 15.08 0.00 1.96 1.46 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.33 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.38 0.51 4.72 0.01 0.84 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.71 0.59 4.97 0.01 0.84 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust Time Slice 2 /112010- 2 /12/2010Aclive 1.24 8.62 6,07 0.00 0.69 0.63 Davis : 10 Demolition 02/01/2010 - 02/14/2010 1..24 8.62 6.07 0.00 0.69 0.63 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 3.21 0.41 1.35 1.56 2,862.67 PM2.5 CO2 0.00 104.33 PM2.5 CO2 0.16 500.86 PM2.5 CO2 0.16 605.19 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 1.32 0.14 0.58 0.72 943.90 1.32 0.14 0.58 0.72 943.90 Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 Demo Off Road Diesel 1.14 7.68 4.68 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 700.30 Demo On Road Diesel 0.07 0.88 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 119.21 Demo Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.39 Time Slice 2/15/2010- 2/26/2010 Active 3.04 25.05 13.51 0.00 1.96 1.25 3.21 0.41 1.15 1_56 2,371.71 nave 10 Mass Grading 02/15/2010- 3.04 25.05 13.51 0.00 1.96 1.25 3.21 0.41 1.15 1.56 2,371.71 n9/98/901n Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.96 0.00 1.96 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.00 24.99 12.46 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.25 0.00 1.15 1.15 2,247.32 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.39 Time Slice 3 /1/2010 - 8/31/2010 Active 1.24 9.34 5.67 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 1,006.46 navy 137 Building 03101/2010- 09130/2010 1.24 9.34 5.67 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 1,006.46 Building Off Road Diesel 1.21 9.16 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.53 0.53 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 23.51 Building Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.56 Time Slice 9 /1/2010 - 9/14/2010 Active 4.25 9.35 5.81 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 1,023.63 Days1n Building 03101/2010- 09/30/2010 1.24 9.34 5.67 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 1,006.46 Building Off Road Diesel 1.21 9.16 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.53 0.53 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 23.51 Building Worker Tnps 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.56 Coating 09/01 /2010- 09/3012010 3.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 Architectural Coating 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 Time Slice 9115/2010- 9/30/2010 Active 6.34 27_10 15_08 0.00 0.01 1.46 1.48 0.00 1.35 1.35 2,862.67 Davc'12 Building 03/01/2010- 09/30/2010 1.24 9.34 5.67 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.59 0.00 0.54 0.54 1,006.46 Building Off Road Diesel 1.21 9.16 4.81 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.53 0.53 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.01 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 23.51 Building Worker Tnps 0.02 0.04 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.56 Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM Coating 09 /01/2010- 09/30/2010 3.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 Architectural Coating 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.17 Trenching 09/15/2010- 09130/2010 2.09 17.75 9.26 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.89 0.00 0.81 0.81 1,839.03 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.06 17.69 8.22 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.81 0.81 1,714.64 Trenching Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.39 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 2/1 12010 - 2/14/2010 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 16200 Building Volume Dally (cubic feet): 1620 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 28.12 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Concrete /Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Mass Grading 2/1512010 - 2128/2010 - Default Mass Site Grading /Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 0.62 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.16 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 12.22 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders It 74 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 9/15/2010 - 9130/2010 - Default Trenching Description Off -Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 31112010-9/30/2010 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 911/2010 - 9/3012010 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 6/3012008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/112008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 111/2005 ends 12131/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.97 Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.04 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,36 Consumer Products 0.26 Architectural Coatings 0.02 TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 0.33 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 104.33 Area Source Changes to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing 0.38 0.51 4.72 0.01 0.84 0.16 500.86 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.38 0.51 4.72 0.01 0.84 0.16 500.86 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2011 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Summary of Land Uses Land Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing 1.67 9.57 dwelling units 5.00 47.85 483.42 47.85 483.42 Vehicle Fleet Mu Vehicle Type Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 51.6 0.8 99.0 0.2 Light Truck 13750 Ibs 7.3 2.7 94.6 2.7 Light Truck 3751- 57501bs 23.0 0.4 99.6 0.0 Med Truck 5751 -8500 lbs 10.6 0.9 99.1 0.0 Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 lbs 1.6 0.0 81.2 18.8 Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 60.0 40.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 22.2 77.8 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 lbs 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 2.8 64.3 35.7 0.0 Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:32 PM School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 0.9 0.0 88.9 11.1 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:27 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: G: \Los Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality\Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924 Project Name: Beauchamp Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust 2010 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.34 27.10 15.08 0.00 1.96 1.46 3.21 0.41 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.07 0.15 2.20 0.01 0.34 0.32 199.11 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 0.41 0.62 4.51 0.00 0.84 0.16 453.79 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 1.48 0.77 6.71 0.01 1.18 0.48 652.90 PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 1.35 1.56 2,862.67 Page: 1 11/1112009 12:02:22 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: WLos Angeles \3_Projects \_Air Quality\Beauchamp \Beauchamp.urb924 Project Name: Beauchamp Project Location: South Coast AQMD On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust 2010 TOTALS (tons /year unmitigated) 0.16 0.99 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.00 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.70 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.07 0.10 0.85 0.00 0.15 0.03 88.54 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (tons /year, unmitigated) 0.14 0.11 0.93 0.00 0.15 0.03 108.24 PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 0.05 0.06 105.30 Beauchamp Existing Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Existing Project Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Project Net Project Emissions Net Mobile Net Area Net Stationary Total Net SCAQMD Significance Threshold Difference Significant? Regional Emission Calculations (Ibs /day) ROC NOx CO sox PM10 PM2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 6.9 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 4.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.9 691 0.0 1.2 0.5 55 55 550 150 150 55 (54) (54) (543) (150) (149) (55) Nol No No Nol No No 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Regional Beauchamp Electricity Usage Stationary Sources Summary of Stationary Emissions CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Total Existing Emissions (Ibs /day) Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -11 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD ,1993. Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -12 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993. ° The emission factors for NOx in be per million w8 of natural gas are 120 for nonresidential uses and 80 for residential uses. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.09 D.00 0.01 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Stationary Electricity Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) ° Usage Rate ° Total Electricity Usage CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Land Use 1.000 Soft IkWhlsa.ftivrl IKWhlvearl IMWhIDavl 2_2 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Existing Emissions from Electricity Consumption (lbs/day) Office 0.0 12.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Retail 0.0 13.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hotel /Motel 0.0 9.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Restaurant 0.0 47.45 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Food Store 0.0 53.30 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Warehouse 0.0 4.35 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 College /University 0.0 11.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 High School 0.0 10.50 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Elementary School 0.0 5.90 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hospital 0.0 21.70 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miscellaneous 0.0 10.50 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Residential (DU) 0.0 5,627 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Existing 0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Project Office 0.0 12.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Retail 0.0 13.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hotel /Motel 0.0 9.95 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Restaurant 0.0 47.45 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Food Store 0.0 53.3 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Warehouse 0.0 4.35 D 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 College /University 0.0 11.55 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 High School 0.0 10.5 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Elementary School 0.0 5.9 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Hospital 0.0 21.7 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Miscellaneous 0.0 10.5 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Residential (DU) 5.0 5,627 28,133 0.077 0.015 0.001 0.089 0.003 0.009 Total Project 28,133 0.077 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 Net Emissions From Electricity Usage 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 Summary of Stationary Emissions CO ROC NOx PM10 sox Total Existing Emissions (Ibs /day) Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9 -11 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -11 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD ,1993. Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. ° Emission Factors from Table A9 -12 -B, CEQA Air Quality Handbook SCAQMD, 1993. ° The emission factors for NOx in be per million w8 of natural gas are 120 for nonresidential uses and 80 for residential uses. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.09 D.00 0.01 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls Stationary Beauchamp Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Calculations (lbs /day) Existing Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Existing Project Condition Mobile Area Stationary Total Project Net Project Emissions Net Mobile Net Area Net Stationary Total Net SCAQMD Significance Threshold Difference Significant? COz CH, N,O COze 500.86 0.11 0.10 535.35 199.11 - - 199.11 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 761.98 0.11 0.10 796.49 500.86 0.11 0.10 535.35 199.11 - - 199.11 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 761.98 0.11 0.10 796.49 Nol Nol Nol No 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Regional Beauchamp Electricity Usage Stationary Sources Summary of Stationary Emissions CO, CHs N20 CO2e Total Existing Emissions (lbs/day) - - - - Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) 6201 . 0.00 - 62.03 Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 ' Electricity Usage Rates from Table AV 1 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. d Emission Factors from Table C.1 and Table 0.2, General Reoodinu Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. ` Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH. and 310 for N20, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. d Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9 -12 -A, CEQAAir Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. ` Emission Factors from Table C.5 and Table C.6, General Reporting Erato.% California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. r 1 Cubic Foot of natural gas= 1,026 Btu. Energy Information Administrator. Available http: /Mrsvi eia.doe.gov /basics /cony mion_basics.html 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations'Emissions.xls GHG Stationary Electricity Emission Factors (Ibs /MWh) s Usage Rate' Total Electricity Usage CO, CHd N20 CO,c Land Use 1.000 Soft (kWhlsa.RWr) fKWhWead (MWhWav) 804.54 0.0067 0.0037 21/310` Existing Emissions from Electricity (Ibs /day) Office 0.0 12.95 - - - - - - Retail 0.0 13.55 - - - - - - Hotel/Motel 0.0 9.95 - - - - - - Restaurant 0.0 47.45 - - - - - - Food Stare 0.0 .53.30 - - - - - - Warehouse 0.0 4.35 - - - - - - College /University 0.0 11.55 - - - - - - High School 0.0 10.50 - - - - - - Elementary School 0.0 5.90 - - - - - - Hospital 0.0 21.70 - - - - - - Miscellaneous 0.0 10.50 - - - - - - Residential (DU) 0.0 5,627 - - - - - - Total Existing - - - - - - Project Office 0.0 12.95 - - - - - - Retail 0.0 13.55 - - - - - - Hotel/Motel 0.0 9.95 - - - - - - Restaurant 0.0 47.45 - - - - - - Food Store 0.0 53.3 - - - - - - Warehouse 0.0 4.35 - - - - - - College /University, 0.0 11.55 - - - - - - High School 0.0 10.5 - - - - - - Elementary School 0.0 5.9 - - - - - - Hospital 0.0 21.7 - - - - - - Miscellaneous 0.0 10.5 - - - - - - Residential (DU) 5.0 5,627 28,132.50 0.08 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 Total Project 28,132.50 0.08 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 Net Emissions From Electricity Usage 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 Summary of Stationary Emissions CO, CHs N20 CO2e Total Existing Emissions (lbs/day) - - - - Total Project Emissions (Ibs /day) 6201 . 0.00 - 62.03 Total Net Emissions (Ibs /day) 62.01 0.00 - 62.03 ' Electricity Usage Rates from Table AV 1 -A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. d Emission Factors from Table C.1 and Table 0.2, General Reoodinu Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. ` Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH. and 310 for N20, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. d Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9 -12 -A, CEQAAir Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. ` Emission Factors from Table C.5 and Table C.6, General Reporting Erato.% California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. r 1 Cubic Foot of natural gas= 1,026 Btu. Energy Information Administrator. Available http: /Mrsvi eia.doe.gov /basics /cony mion_basics.html 11/11/2009 12:43 PM Regional Operations'Emissions.xls GHG Stationary Beauchamp Mobile Sources Vehicle Type Existing Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751 -5750 lbs Men Truck 5751- 85001bs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501- 10,000 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,0001bs Med-Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,00016s Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000165 Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Vehicle T Project Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751- 575016s Mod Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001- 14,000 Ibs Med -Heavy Truck 14,001- 33,0001bs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 Its Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Percent Type VMT by Type Emission Factors 0 0 CH4 N20 0.0 - 0.06 0.08 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.18 0.09 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.42 0.01 0.0 - 0.08 0.05 0.0 - 0.11 0.14 Total Existing 0.00 1.75 1.03 Percent Type VMT by Type Emission Factors' 100 483.42 CH4 N20 Mobile Sources CH4 N20 coi 21/310" Emissions from Mobile Sources (Ibsiday) CH, N20 coi 21/310° 51.6 249.44 01 0.08 0.03 0.04 14.33 7.3 35.29 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.01 3.56 23.0 111.19 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.03 11.20 10.6 51.24 0.18 0.09 0.02 0.01 3.58 1.6 7.73 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.5 2.42 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.9 4.35 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.5 2.42 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.1 0.48 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.1 0.48 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.8 13.54 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.36 0.1 0.48 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.9 4.35 01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.44 Total Project 1.75 1.03 0.11 0.10 34.49 Net Emissions From Mobile Sources 0.11 0.10 34.49 ° Emission factors from Table CA General Reportina Protocol California Climate Action Registry , March 2007. Global Warming Potential is 21 for CH4 and 310 for N,O, General Reporting Protocol, California Climate Action Registry, March 2007. 11/11/2009 12:44 PM Regional Operations Emissions.xls GHG Mobile Appendix B General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Policy I Consistency Analysis GENERAL. PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Policy LU 1.1 Unique Environment Maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the different neighborhoods, business districts, and harbor that together identify Newport Beach. Locate and design development to reflect Newport Beach's topography, architectural diversity, and view sheds. Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Page 1 of 12 The proposed land use amendments would allow for the future subdivision of the property with residential lots that would be consistent with the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed conceptual development plan would complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula as a residential neighborhood. The architectural diversity of the conceptual development plan would be consistent with the Zoning Code development standards and General Plan design standards, with minor deviations to allow a smaller lot size and width per Section 19.24.130 of the Zoning Code. The conceptual development plan would fit in with the area's flat topography and would not obstruct any existing views from surrounding residences or specific viewsheds designated by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would maintain and enhance the beneficial and unique character of the existing neighborhood. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would amend the land use plans from parks and recreation to single -unit dwellings for five legal lots, and would allow for the infill development of a maximum of 5 single -unit dwellings on a site that is currently occupied by two private tennis courts. The proposed land use amendments would be consistent with surrounding land use designations and existing zoning, and would be consistent with the density of the proposed land use designations and the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed density and intensity of the project would be consistent with the Coastal Land Use designation throughout the neighborhood, as discussed below in Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram below. As discussed in Section XIII, "Public Services," and Section XVI, "Utilities and Service Systems," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the conceptual development plan would have adequate infrastructure and public services and would not exceed existing service levels for public services or utilities. Furthermore, as discussed in Section XV, "Transportation/Traffic," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would decrease the volume of traffic and allow for a reduction of trips associated with the amended land use of single - family detached dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project would result in complementary type, form, and scale of the existing neighborhood, and would be adequately served by the existing infrastructure and public services. Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Policy I Consistency Analysis Accommodate land use development consistent with the Land Use Plan. Figure LUI depicts the general distribution of uses throughout the City and Figure LU2 through Figure LU15 depicts specific use categories for each parcel within defined Statistical Areas. Table LUI (Land Use Plan Categories) specifies the primary land use categories, types of uses, and, for certain categories, the densities /intensities to be permitted. The permitted densities /intensities or amount of development for land use categories for which this is not included in Table LUI, are specified on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15. These are intended to convey maximum and, in some cases, minimums that may be permitted on any parcel within the designation or as otherwise specified by Table LU2 (Anomaly Locations). The density/intensity ranges are calculated based on actual land area, actual number of dwelling units in fully developed residential areas, and development potential in areas where the General Plan allows additional development. To determine the permissible development, the user should: a. Identify the parcel and the applicable land use designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure LU4 through Figure LU15 b. Refer to Figure LU4 through Figure LU 15 and Table LUI to identify the permitted uses and permitted density or intensity or amount of development for the land use classification. Where densities /intensities are applicable, the maximum amount of development shall be determined by multiplying the area of the parcel by the density/intensity. c. For anomalies identified on the Land. Use Map by a symbol, refer to Table LU2 to determine the precise development limits. d. For residential development in the Airport Area., refer to the policies prescribed by the Land Use Element that define how development may Policy LU 4.2 Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Page 2 of 12 The existing General Plan land use category of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and the existing Coastal Land Use Plan category of Public Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). These two land use amendments would be consistent with the current Single Family Residential (R -1) zoning of the existing parcels. The proposed General Plan land use amendment would develop a maximum of 5, single - family, detached dwelling units. As defined in Table LU 1 of the General Plan, Single Unit Detached Residential land use does not have a density /intensity. The project is proposed to comply with the Maximum Floor Area Limit as identified in Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code allows for a density of one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet. The project site is approximately 26,000 square feet as defined in Chapter 2 of this document. This would allow for a maximum of five dwelling units on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the land use designation and the Maximum Floor Area Limit. The project site is not located in an anomaly area. As defined by Map 1 of the Coastal Land Use Plan, the RSD -B land use designation allows a density of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre. The conceptual development plan results in a maximum of five dwelling units located on approximately 0.6 acre of the project site, which equates to approximately 8.3 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with the density requirements of the Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment and would require review and approval to re- subdivide five existing underlying legal lots previously zoned for residential development through a subdivision tract map prior to construction. The proposed conceptual development plan would be consistent with the proposed land use amendments, including density requirements, and would be compatible with surrounding land use designations and existing residential neighborhoods. The lot orientation as proposed in the conceptual development Dian would require lot size and lot width deviations Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 3 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis conceptual development plan would not result in a physical environmental impact. Furthermore, the General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment would allow for consistency between the land use and the existing zoning. Policy LU 5.1.5 Character and Quality of Single - Family Residential Dwellings The proposed Project is consistent with this policy. Require that residential units be designed to sustain the high level of architectural design quality that characterizes Newport Beach's neighborhoods in consideration of the following principles: The architectural diversity of the conceptual development plan would be consistent ■ Articulation and modulation of building masses and elevations to avoid the with the Zoning Code as described in the Project Description. The proposed project appearance of "box -like" buildings would complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula as a neighborhood ■ Compatibility with neighborhood development in density, scale, and street through articulation of building mass. facing elevations ■ Architectural treatment of all elevations visible from public places ■ Entries and windows on street facing elevations to visually "open" the house to the neighborhood ■ Orientation to desirable sunlight and views Policy LU 5.1.6 Character and Quality of Residential Properties The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that residential front setbacks and other areas visible from the public street be attractively landscaped, trash containers enclosed, and driveway and parking paving minimized. The proposed project would comply with the zoning code requirements for setbacks of residential districts. Each residential unit would have minimum side setbacks of 3 or 4 feet, minimum rear setbacks of 10 feet, and minimum front setbacks of 20 feet. There is also a 5 -foot setback along East Balboa Blvd. as specified on the districting map. The proposed project includes a two -car garage for each unit and would not require substantial paving for driveways and parking. All trash containers would be enclosed in the garages. Policy LU 5.1.8 Parking Adequacy The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that new and renovated single - family residences incorporate adequate enclosed parking in consideration of its number of bedrooms. Future residential development would comply with the Zoning Code requirements described in Section 20.66.030, and provide a minimum of two- parking spaces including one covered space for each unit. Therefore, parking would be in accordance with Zoning Code requirements. Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the Detailed designs are not currently available for the conceptual development plan, use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive but the applicant does not proposed the use of styles, colors, or materials that illumination of adjoining properties and open s aces, or adversely modify wind unusually impact the design character and quality of their location; or the use of Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 4 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis patterns. surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The proposed single -unit dwellings would be compatible with the existing neighborhood scale, density, and varying architectural styles. Policy LU 5.6.4 Conformance with the Natural Environmental Setting The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that sites be planned and buildings designed in consideration of the property's topography, landforms, drainage patterns, natural vegetation, and relationship to the Bay and coastline, maintaining the environmental character that The proposed project would fit in with the area topography and would not disrupt distinguishes Newport Beach. the existing drainage patterns, as described in Sections VI, "Geology and Soils," and VIII, "Hydrology and Water Quality," in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The project site is fully developed with the existing tennis club, has completely flat topography, and is generally void of vegetation. The project site is not located directly on Newport Bay and therefore would not affect the Balboa Peninsula's relationship to the Bay and coastline. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Newport Beach's natural setting. GENERAL PLAN HARBOR AND BAY ELEMENT Policy HB 8.2 Water Pollution Prevention The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Promote pollution prevention and elimination methods that minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural water bodies. (Policy NR 3.2) The proposed project would be in compliance with all objectives, water quality standards, and Best Management Practices established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan as discussed in Section VIII, "Hydrology and Water Quality," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. Furthermore, the proposed project would comply with City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Chapter 14.36 (Water Quality) and provisions set forth in the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 permit through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) incorporating Best Management Practices for operation and the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program for construction as described in MM WQ -1 and MM WQ -2. The project would not directly discharge surface water to the bay, and would control runoff from the site. Therefore, the proposed project would protect water quality of Newport Bay. Best management practices would be incorporated into the proposed project as part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains. Furthermore, the proposed project would prepare a Water Quality Management Plan incorporating Best Management Practices for operation. Therefore, the proposed project would promote pollution prevention and minimize the introduction of pollutants into natural waters. Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 5 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy HB 8.4 Storm Drain Sewer System Permit The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require all development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm sewer system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Policy NR 3.4) See response to Policy HB8.2. The proposed project would comply with requirements of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System through the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Policy HB 8.5 Natural Water Bodies The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that development not result in the degradation of natural water bodies. (Policy NR 3.5) See response to Policy HB8.2. The project would not result in direct or indirect alterations to, or other impacts on, natural water bodies. Policy HB 8.7 Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Update and enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance. (Policy NR 3.7) See response to Policy 11138.2. The City would enforce the Newport Beach Water Quality Ordinance, and the proposed project would comply with the ordinance requirements. Policy HB 8.9 Water Quality Management Plan The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require new development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and post - construction. (Policy NR 3.9) See response to Policy 11138.2. Implementation of the conceptual development plan would require a WQMP to be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction and operation as identified by Mitigation Measure MM WQ -2. Policy HB 8.10 Best Management Practices The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Implement and improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. (Policy NR 3.10) See response to Policy HB8.2. The project would identify and implement BMPs during construction as identified in Mitigation Measure MM WQ -1. Policy HB 8.16 Siting of New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that development be located on the most suitable portion of the site and designed to ensure the protection and preservation of natural and sensitive site resources that provide important water quality benefits. (Policy NR 3.16) Natural and sensitive site resources do not currently exist on the project site. The project site is primarily impervious surfaces, and the proposed project would result in a similar amount of impervious surfaces; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial change in the volume of stormwater runoff generated. All stormwater runoff would be routed into the existing stormwater collection system. Therefore, the entire site would be developed under the conceptual development plan and the proposed project would be located on the most suitable portion of the Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Policy I Consistency Analysis Require new development and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area of pervious surfaces, where feasible. (Policy NR 3.20) The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Page 6 of 12 See response to Policy HB8.2and Policy HI3 8.16. The proposed project would allow for the construction of 5 single -unit dwellings. The surrounding neighborhood is urban and built out. The existing site is comprised of two hard - court tennis courts, an 800 - square -foot club house, a 2,850 -square-foot vacant area known as the "garden," side planting, and landscaping. Therefore, the existing site is primarily impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not result in a substantial change in the volume of stormwater runoff generated and would . continue to be impervious surfaces. The proposed project would include maintained landscaped areas, which would provide for small amounts of pervious area. GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT Policy R 5.1 Non -City Facilities and Open Space Utilize non -city recreational facilities and open space (e.g., Newport-Mesa Unified school District, county, and state facilities) to supplement the park and recreational needs of the community. Maintain the use of existing shared facilities, and expand the use of non -city facilities /amenities where desirable and feasible. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project would include land use amendments, which could accommodate the conceptual development plan for replacing the existing private tennis club with 5 single - family detached dwelling units. The existing private tennis club is not a county, state, or local jurisdictional (e.g.: school district) recreational facility. It is not considered a shared facility with joint use managed by a jurisdictional authority such as the county, state, or school district. It is owned and operated by a private resident of Newport Beach and it requires membership application and payment of membership dues. Therefore, the change in land use and the potential development of this property would not result in a restriction of a shared use. GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT Policy CE 2.2.1 Safe Roadways Provide for safe roadway conditions by adhering to nationally recognized improvement standards and uniform construction and maintenance practices. Policy CE 2.2.4 Driveway and Access Limitations Limit driveway and local street access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement The proposed project is consistent with this policy. The proposed project does not include improvement to or alteration of any existing roadways, thus compromising the safety of the local roadway system. Therefore, the proposed project would not compromise existing roadway conditions. The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 7 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels. Roadway, would be via one ingress /egress point along L Street, a private drive. Each of the five lots would take access from either L Street or Bay Avenue, via a private drive via L Street. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any new ingress /egress points onto public local streets thereby compromising the quality of traffic flow. Policy CE 2.2.6 Emergency Access The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. The proposed project would not alter any existing roadways. The proposed project would allow for efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. Emergency access would be maintained around the residential structures, and would be provided via the private drives on L Street and Bay Avenue. GENERAL PLAN NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT See Harbor and Bay Element Consistency Analysis above for the natural resource policies relevant to the Harbor and Bay as identified in parentheses (e.g., NR8.1). Policy NR 1.1 Water Conservation in New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce water conservation measures that limit water usage, prohibit activities that waste water or cause runoff, and require the use of water — efficient landscaping and irrigation in conjunction with new construction projects. The proposed project would include design features for water conservation. Efficient landscaping features would be incorporated Policy NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require grading /erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. The site does not contain substantial amounts of topsoil. The proposed project site is currently developed and consists of mostly impermeable surfaces. Small amounts of exposed onsite soils would be prone to soil erosion during the construction phase of the proposed project. The project would implement standard erosion control measures and construction BMPs, including the required grading/erosion control plan, that would minimize potential impacts as described in Section VIII, "Hydrology and Water Quality," and Section VI, "Geology and Soils," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The proposed project is not located on steep slopes and grading and soil disturbance would be minimal. Policy NR 8.1 Management of Construction Activities to Reduce Air Pollution The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require developers to use and operate construction equipment, use building Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 8 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis materials and paints, and control dust created by construction activities to minimize air pollutants. As discussed in Section III, "Air Quality," in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, a mass emissions inventory for the construction period was compiled based on an estimate of construction equipment as well as scheduling and phasing assumptions. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account: • combustion emissions from operating onsite construction equipment, • fugitive dust emissions from moving soil onsite, and • mobile - source combustion emissions from worker commute travel. As discussed in response III(b) of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would not create substantial air pollutant emissions. The proposed project would comply with all City regulations. Policy NR 22.1 Regulation of Structure Mass The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Continue to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. See response to Policy LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment, Policy LU 5.6.3 Ambient Lighting, Policy LU 5.6.4 Conformance with Natural Environmental Setting. The proposed project supports this policy because it would comply with the maximum floor area limit, height limit, and open space as required by Chapter 20.10 and 20.65 of the Zoning Code, the General Plan design criteria, as well as the density of the proposed land use amendments. Furthermore, the proposed project would complement the unique character of the Balboa Peninsula. It would not conflict with the visual scale of Newport Beach's natural setting because of the height restrictions and because the project would be compatible with the scale of surrounding single - family residential land uses with different architectural designs and aesthetic treatments. Policy NR 24.2 Energy - Efficient Design Features The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Promote energy- efficient design features. The conceptual development plan is purely conceptual at this point and it would be speculative to identify specific energy- efficient design features it would incorporate. However, per the California Building Code, . Title 24, 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards, the proposed project would include energy - efficient design features where feasible. GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT Policy N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 9 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise standards shown in Table N3. The proposed project would be compatible with the noise environment and would comply with Tables N2 and N3. The proposed project includes the construction of a maximum of 5 single unit dwellings in an urban and built out neighborhood. The proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would comply with all interior and exterior noise standards as required during building plan review and approval by the City prior to construction. Policy N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, Sensitive noise receptors would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from and air conditioning equipment. stationary noise sources. All heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment would be appropriately screened for each dwelling unit in the conceptual site plan. Policy N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities. The proposed project would comply with the Noise Ordinance limits on construction activities. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures MM N -1 through MM N -11 to minimize temporary construction noise impacts. And as identified in the Project Description, construction hours would be limited to daytime hours specifically identified by the Municipal Code. Policy N 5,1 Limiting Hours of Activity The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Enforce the limits on hours of construction activity. As identified in the Project Description and Section XI, "Noise," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, Title 10, Chapter 10.28, Section 10.28.040, of the Municipal Code specifies permitted hours for construction activities. Construction or other noise - generating activity that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction that would disturb a person of normal sensitivity shall occur on Sundays or federal holidays. GENERAL PLAN SAFETY ELEMENT Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 10 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis Policy S 2.7 Residential Design The proposed project is consistent with this policy. Require new or remodeled residential structures in areas susceptible to storm surge to raise floor elevations as required by building codes. Newport Beach is susceptible to low - probability but high -risk events such as tsunamis and, more commonly, isolated hazards such as storm surges. The most common problem associated with storm surges is flooding of low -lying areas, including structures. This is often compounded by intense rainfall and strong winds. If a storm surge occurs during high tide, the flooded area can be significant. As discussed in Section VUL "Hydrology and Water Quality," of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, the City of Newport Beach has a complex stormwater and flood control system. Furthermore, OCFCD is responsible for flood control infrastructure within the City and in the upper reaches of the San Diego Creek Watershed. The proposed project would comply with the flood damage prevention provisions of the City's Zoning Code. Furthermore, the applicant and future residents would be made aware of the City's tsunami contingency plan and evacuation mutes. Prior to construction and occupancy, the conceptual development plan would be reviewed and approved by the City. The building plan review and approval would ensure the proposed project would comply with all building codes, including appropriate floor elevations. RELEVANT COASTAL LAND USE POLICIES 2.2.1 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and The proposed project is consistent with this policy. adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. See responses to Policy LU 3.2 Growth and Change and Policy LU 4.1 Land Use Diagram. The proposed project would allow for consistency between the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations and the Zoning Code. Furthermore, the conceptual development plan would comply with the density requirement of 6.0 to 9.9 dwelling units per acre as required by the Residential Single Unit Detached (RSD -B) land use designation of the Coastal Land Use Plan. This density and the proposed land use designations are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. 2.2.2 -3 Prior to approval of any coastal development permit, the City shall make The proposed project is consistent with this policy. the finding that the development conforms to the policies and requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan. The City of Newport Beach would make the finding that the proposed project conforms to the policies and requirements contained in the Coastal Land Use Plan through the Approval in Concept process described in Chapter 2 (California Coastal Act and Local Coastal Land Use Plan) . Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 11 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis 2.3.1 -4 Protect oceanfront land designated for visitor- serving and/or recreational The proposed project is consistent with this policy. uses for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided in the area. The proposed project site is not along the oceanfront, and is not designated for visitor - serving or public recreational uses. Although the proposed project includes demolition of an existing private tennis club to construct five single - family detached dwelling units, it would allow for consistency between the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan land use designations and the Zoning Code. As discussed in Section XIII, "Public Services." of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, current and future demand for recreational tennis activities could be accommodated by existing local public and private tennis courts. The project site is located in Service Area 2 (Balboa Peninsula), which currently supports a total of 50.5 acres of combined park/beach area, and exceeds the 25.5 acres of parkland "needs" based on the City's current requirements in the Recreational Element of the General Plan. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with an increase of housing or population in an area. The increase in housing as a result of the proposed project would negligibly increase the local population by I 1 people, based on an average of 2.19 persons per household in Newport Beach. The three neighborhood parks (L Street Park, M Street Park, and West Jetty View Park) and active beach recreation area in the general vicinity of the proposed project could absorb the slight demand placed on them by I 1 new residents. The proposed project would result in the demolition of a private recreational facility. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club is a private tennis club, not providing open public use. The Peninsula Point Racquet Club has 83 active members; therefore, the removal of the private tennis club would increase the use of tennis facilities at other parks and recreation facilities throughout the City. Some of the members likely would use existing local public tennis courts, and others may become members of other local private tennis clubs. Public tennis courts in the City of Newport Beach are listed in Table 3 -8 in Section XIII, "Public Services" and private Newport Beach tennis clubs are listed in Table 3 -9 in Section XIII, "Public Services. ". The local pubic tennis courts would be able to absorb the small additional demand resulting from the removal of the Peninsula Point Racquet Club. Membership fees associated with private tennis clubs would offset any additional demand on private facilities by contributing to funds to provide necessary upgrades and maintenance. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical Appendix B. General Plan and Coastal Land Use Consistency Analysis Page 12 of 12 Policy Consistency Analysis deterioration of the facilities would occur. 2.3.3 -4 Encourage visitor - serving and recreational development that provide The proposed project is consistent with this policy. public recreational opportunities. See response to 2.3.1 -4. The existing land use is not a visitor - serving or recreational development that provides public recreational opportunities. It is a private tennis club that requires membership applications and dues. Therefore, although the proposed project could result in the conversion of an existing private recreational opportunity to residential uses, it would not restrict or reduce visitor - serving and public recreational opportunities in Newport Beach. 3.2.1 -1 Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities The proposed project is inconsistent with this policy. in the coastal zone. The proposed project would not expand or protect recreational opportunities in the coastal zone. The proposed project would amend the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan to be consistent with the existing zoning. These amendments could result in the development of the conceptual development plan, which includes a maximum of five single - family detached dwelling units. As discussed in response to 2.3.1 -4 and 2.3.3 -4, the existing recreational opportunity is a private tennis club within the coastal zone that is not visitor oriented or publicly accessible. Therefore, although the public cannot use or access this recreational opportunity within the coastal zone, the proposed land use amendments and conceptual development plan would remove recreational opportunities from the coastal zone. However, the inconsistency with this policy does not result in a significant environmental impact. As discussed in all other resource sections of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, Agriculture, etc.) the environmental impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. 3.2.1 -3 Provide adequate park and recreational facilities to accommodate the The proposed project is consistent with this policy. needs of new residents when allowing new development. As discussed in Section XIII, "Public Services." of the Initial Study Environmental Checklist, current and future demand for recreational tennis activities could be accommodated by existing local public and private tennis courts. Appendix C Noise Analysis Noise Terminology Noise Terminology Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. It may be loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound typically associated with human activity that interferes with or disrupts the normal noise - sensitive ongoing activities of others. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance and suitability of the noise in a particular setting, the time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. The response to vibration is similar: First, the vibration needs to be of sufficient magnitude to be perceived, and, second, it typically would have to interfere with a desirable activity to cause annoyance. Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium such as air that are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz); intensity describes the sound's level, volume, or loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Sound frequency is a measure of how many times each second the crest of a sound pressure wave passes a fixed point. For example, when a drummer beats a drum, the skin of the drum vibrates at a certain number of times per second. Vibration of the drum skin at a rate of 100 times (or cycles) per second generates a sound pressure wave that is said to be oscillating at 100 Hz, and this pressure oscillation is perceived as a tonal pitch of 100 Hz. Sound frequencies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz are within the range of sensitivity of the best human ear. Sound from a tuning fork contains a single frequency and may therefore be referred to as a pure tone. However, most sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but rather a broad band of frequencies differing in individual sound levels. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than at the mid -range frequencies. This frequency- dependent modification is called A- weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A- weighted sound level (dBA. In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. For informational purposes, typical community sound levels are presented in Figure 1. A sound level of 0 dBA is the approximate threshold of human hearing. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120 dBA begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually pain at still higher levels. When evaluating noise increases in the environment, the following relationships to quantifiable increases are used as a basis for assessing impacts. • A change of 1 dBA is difficult to perceive in the outside environment. • In the outside environment, a 3 dBA change is considered noticeable General Noise Level Home Speech Motor Vehicles Type of dBA Extremes Appliances at 3 Ft at 50 Ft Community Environment Jet aircraft at 500 It Chain saw Threshold of hearing Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 2003. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Warm Springs Extension Project Draft report. February. (HMMH Report No. 298760 -01.) Burlington, MA. Prepared for Jones & Stokes. Figure I Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (dBA) Diesel truck Power lawn mower (not muffled) Diesel truck Shop tools Shout (muffled) Automobile Blender Loud voice at 70 mph Major metropolis Automobile Urban Dishwasher Normal voice at 40 mph (daytime) Normal voice Automobile Suburban Air conditioner (back to listener) at 20 mph (daytime) Rural Threshold of hearing Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 2003. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Warm Springs Extension Project Draft report. February. (HMMH Report No. 298760 -01.) Burlington, MA. Prepared for Jones & Stokes. Figure I Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments (dBA) ■ An increase of 5 dBA is readily perceived as "louder" and is generally required before a change in community response would be expected. ■ A 10 dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of noise. Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, a simple rule of thumb is useful in dealing with sound levels: If a sound's physical intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dB plus 60 dB equals 63 dB, and 80 dB plus 80 dB equals 83 dB. As mentioned earlier, however, a perception of doubling of sound level requires about a 10- decibel increase. Although the A- weighted sound level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a mixture of noise from distant sources that create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. A single descriptor called the Leg (equivalent sound level is used to describe the average acoustical energy in a time - varying sound. Lq is the energy -mean A- weighted sound level present or predicted to occur during a specified interval. It is the "equivalent" constant sound level that a given source would need to produce to equal the fluctuating level of measured sound. It is often desirable to also know the range of acoustic levels of the noise source being measured. This is accomplished through the Lam,. and L,o;,, noise descriptors. They represent the root - mean - square maximum and minimum obtainable noise levels measured during the monitoring interval. The Lm;,, value obtained for a particular monitoring location represents the quietest moment occurring during the measurement period and is often called the acoustic floor for that location. Likewise, the loudest momentary sound during the measurement is represented by L.�. To describe the time - varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors Lio, L50, and L90 (or other percentile values) may be used. They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded 10, 50, and 90 percent, respectively, of the time during the measured interval. The percentile descriptors are most commonly found in nuisance noise ordinances to allow for different noise levels for various portions of an hour. For example, the L5o value would represent 30 minutes of an hour period, the L25 would be associated with 15 minutes of an hour, and so on. Of particular interest in this analysis are other descriptors of noise that are commonly used to help determine noise /land use compatibility and to predict an average community reaction to adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic- generated and industrial noise. One of the most universal descriptors is the Day -Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). As recommended by the state health department and state planning law, planning agencies use this descriptor. The Ldn noise metric represents a 24 -hour period and applies a time - weighted factor designed to penalize noise events that occur during nighttime hours, when relaxation and sleep disturbance is of more concern than during daytime hours. Noise occurring during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is penalized by adding 10 dB to the measured level. In California, the use of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) descriptor is still permitted (and is used by the City of Moreno Valley). CNEL is similar to Ldn except CNEL adds a 5 dB penalty for noise occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Ldn and CNEL are approximately equal to the Leq peak hour under normal traffic conditions (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] Field Sheets Jones & I C F Stokes Noise Measurement Locations Beauchamp GPA and LCP Amendment IS /MND FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA PROJECT: Beauchamp GP and LCP Amendments PROJ. # 646.09 OBSERVER(S): Perer Hardie END DATE / TIME: Jones & Stokes IETEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: TEMP: -q-L{ °F HUMIDITY: ;7t %R.H. WIND' CALM LIGHT MODERATE VARIABLE WINDSPEED:o�LMF4�� DIR: N NE E SE S SW W NW STEADY GUSTY SKY: ,BURRY Q[,gAR/ OVRCST PRTLY CLOUDY FOG RAIN OTHER. ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS: INSTRUMENT: t _ r7 L2- TYPE.-d7)2 SERIAL Z CALIBRATOR: I -A-L-2,20 CALIBRATION CHECK: PRE -TEST r dBASPL POST-TEST j dBASPL SERIAL #: d 6 <1 WINDSCREEN SETTINGS: A•WEIG SLO FAST,�FVNTAL ND �$NSi�• ^ OTHER: REC# START END L,y Ll"; L� L, Lio _I OTHER: (TYPE?) COMMENTS. WURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC CO S: PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: Z AF I AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL MB N OTH£ • t?ta_ (1> 'Ly h { ROADWAY TYPE: cl S t7. 1 :k. } .au TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: MIN SPEED #2 COUNT SPEED NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SS /WB NB /EB SB /WB NB /EB SBIWB AUTOS: MED. TRUCKS: HVY TRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES. SPEED ESTIMATED BY' RADAR I DRIVING I OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES DIST. AIRC I RUSTLING LEAVES / DIST. BARKING DOGS / BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING / DIST. TRAFFIC / 1I.STT LAN SCAPING ACTIVITIES / QTHER: < -.' . "\ -i Ha -b>ill l -. I _ . 'f• I A r i{ IG -\ /! n'�- i MI %ED FLAT OTHER: Pe5'i— C6 0 3 Tiz -c7k'u-j PROJECT. Beauchamp FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA GP and LCP Amendments PROJ. # 846.09 )oDes&stolces ITEIDENTITATION: :/L OBSERVER(S): Peter Hardie Q qt z— JDRESS: `{'S� '(3 .L TYPE: 19 2 SERIAL #. y-/ 3 z CALIBRATOR: FARTDATE /TIME: _[o 401 END DATE /TIME. SERIAL #: ETEROLOGICAL CONDITIONS: d9A SPL POST -TEST dBAASSPL WINDSCREEN TEMP:',- I °F HUMIDITY: 55- %R.H. WIND: CALM-- GII MODERATE VARIABLE WINDSPEEO:a?MPH DIR: N NE E SE S SW W NW STEADY GUSTY SKY: OVRCST PRTLY CLOUDY FOG RAIN OTHER: OTHER: (TYPE ?) a ACOUSTIC MEASUREMENTS: INSTRUMENT: t, Q qt z— TYPE: 19 2 SERIAL #. y-/ 3 z CALIBRATOR: L- i.o7 SERIAL #: CALIBRATION CH -TEST d9A SPL POST -TEST dBAASSPL WINDSCREEN SETTINGS: A -W D fl SLOW" FAST FRONTAL RANDO iAR51 a' ' "I-to OTHER: START END Leq L,,,,,, _ Lmin L" Lso�_•-- OTHER: (TYPE ?) �R`E�C�# PRIMARY NOISE SOURCE: ROADWAY TYPE. TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: NBIEB AUTOS: MED. TRUCKS' HVYTRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL MBIE THE Yea (c L t/ JN -MIN SPEED SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB #2 COUNT SPEED NBIEB SB /WB NB /8B SB /WB SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR I DRIVING I OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES: D4i�igW I RUSTLING LEAVES / DIST BARK[NGDOGS— I,BIRDS / DIST. INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILD G / DIST. TRAFFIC SST• CAANDSCAPIN / OTHER: PROJECT: ENTIFICATIC SS: I-Jzz� DATE / TIME TEMP: 114_ °F IAlimm Iappm, i. Rn INSTRUMENT: CALIBRATOR CALIBRATION FIELD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Jones &Stokes GP and LCP Amendments PPOJ. # 846.09 OBSERVER(S): Peter Hardie /=-Q 4 END DATE /TIME: HUMIDITY: %R.H, WIND: CAL}," -SIG T_ MODERATE VARIABLE DIR: N NE E SE S SW W W-' STEADY GUSTY I?-- C. SETTINGS: - WEIGHTED LSO �FAT FRONTAL RErC�# START END Lam, Lm;ry Lyq -DIST //q-,O dd'BBAASPL WINDSCREEN, KNhU�M �ANSL/ OTHER: /{Lso Lio OTHER: (TYPE ?) /nom SOURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC_CAU�JS: PRIMARY NOISE SOURCX: TRAFf AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL AMBIE OTHER: ROADWAY TYIrE: TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED 42 COUNT SPEED NBIEB SBIWB NB /EB SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB AUTOS: MEO. TRUCKS: HVY TRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: _ SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR DRIVING /OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES: -DIST. AIRCRAFT I RUSTLING LEAVES / D - DOGS / BIRDS I DIST, INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING I DIST. TRAFFIC / D LAND G ACTIVITIES / OTHER: SERIAL #: �y Tj 2 -TYPE-&2 S SERIAL #: r-- l( S SOURCE INFO AND TRAFFIC_CAU�JS: PRIMARY NOISE SOURCX: TRAFf AIRCRAFT RAIL INDUSTRIAL AMBIE OTHER: ROADWAY TYIrE: TRAFFIC COUNT DURATION: _ -MIN SPEED 42 COUNT SPEED NBIEB SBIWB NB /EB SB /WB NBIEB SB /WB NB /EB SB /WB AUTOS: MEO. TRUCKS: HVY TRUCKS: BUSES: MOTORCYCLES: _ SPEED ESTIMATED BY: RADAR DRIVING /OBSERVER OTHER SOURCES: -DIST. AIRCRAFT I RUSTLING LEAVES / D - DOGS / BIRDS I DIST, INDUSTRIAL DIST. CHILDREN PLAYING I DIST. TRAFFIC / D LAND G ACTIVITIES / OTHER: Appendix D General Plan Noise Element Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix Residential Residential Residential Commercial Regional, District Single Family, Two Family, Mot Mixed Use Mobile Home Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging Noise Element V� N O I(1 O t[1 roA A A B C C D D A A A C C C D ....................................... ............................... ---------------------------------------------- Commercial Regional, Village Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theatre A A A A B B C District, Special ........ ........ .... ... ........ ......... ........ .... -- ..... Commercial Industrial Office Bulltling, Research and Development, A A A B B C D Institutional Professional Offices City Office Building ........................................................... ......... ......... Commercial Recreational Amphitheatre, Concert Hall Auditorium, Meeting Hall B B C i C D D D Institutional Civic Center Commercial Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Golf Course, A A A i B B D D Recreation Go -cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, General Special Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale Utilities A A A A B B B Industrial, Institutional Institutional nos ital Church Librar , Schools Classroom A A B C C D D Open Space ;Parks A A A I B C D D ... Open Space Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers Wildlife A A A B C ! C Reserves Wildlife Habitat .............. . ............... Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A SOURCE: Newport Beach, 2006 Zone A: Clearly Compatible — Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible ' —New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice, Zone C: Normally Incompatible —New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible —New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Newport Beach General Plan Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Appendix E Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Introduction The California Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6, requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) when approving or carrying out a project when a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identifies measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to less - than- significant levels. As lead agency for the proposed project, the City is responsible for adoption and implementation of the MMP. An IS/MND has been prepared for the project that addresses the potential environmental impacts, and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, an MMP is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented. This document plan lists each mitigation measure, describes the methods for implementation and verification, and identifies the responsible party or parties. Project Overview The project proponent proposes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the project site. The existing General Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D) and the existing Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Parks and Recreation (PR) would be amended to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B). These proposed land use changes would allow the development of a conceptual development plan which includes the conversion of an existing private tennis club to five, detached, single -unit dwellings on the project site. The project involves the demolition of an 800 - square -foot clubhouse and two, hard - surface tennis courts and the construction of five, detached, single -unit dwellings. The proposed physical improvements related to the project include: ■ Development of five, detached, single -unit dwellings ■ Landscaping improvements Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -1 Declaration ICF Jas 00M&o9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Additional details regarding the project description are contained in Chapter 2, "Project Description." Monitoring and Reporting Procedures The MMP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The City will be responsible for administering the MMP and ensuring that all parties comply with its provisions. The City may delegate monitoring activities to staff, consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation Table 4 -1 lists, by resource area, each mitigation measure included in the draft IS /MND. Certain inspections and reports may require preparation by qualified individuals and these are specified as needed. The timing and method of verification for each measure is also specified. Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E_2 Declaration iCF JaS 00e46.os MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROJECT NAME: Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments PROJECT LOCATION: 0.6 acre located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, northern corner of East Balboa Boulevard/ L Street intersection PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project proposes to demolish and remove the existing club house and two hard - surface tennis courts and prepare the site for the construction of five detached single -unit dwellings. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the project site from recreational to single -unit residential land use. LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, (949) 644 -3249 APPLICANT: David Beauchamp, Beauchamp Enterprises CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: David Beauchamp, (949) 851 8087 Table 4 -1. Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Implementation Monitoring Agency & Monitoring Hazards and Hazardous Materials HM -1 Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site, Prior to issuance City of Newport an asbestos - containing materials and lead- of demolition Beach Building based paint assessment shall be performed permits Department by a qualified environmental professional and conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements, including those established by National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). A report shall be furnished to the Building Department by said qualified environmental professional and shall outline the occurrence of hazardous materials on the project site. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E Declaration ICF J&S 00846n9 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring • If asbestos - containing materials are discovered during site investigations, all potentially friable asbestos- containing materials shall be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal /OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to SCAQMD regulations. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations shall avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to asbestos - containing materials. • If lead -based paint is discovered during on -site investigations, all building materials containing lead - based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA lead in Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -4 Declaration ICF J&S O0846 49 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring construction standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed of Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations shall avoid significant exposure of construction workers and /or the public to lead -based paint. Hydrology and Water Quality WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport applicant shall prepare a Stormwater of grading permits Beach Public Works Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which Department includes BMPs. The runoff from the project site would be managed by the SWPPP using the BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains. WQ -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport applicant shall prepare a Water Quality of grading permits Beach Public Works Management Plan (WQMP) for project Department operations and submit to the City Building Department and Code Enforcement & Water City of Newport Quality Division for review and approval. Beach Code Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -5 Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring The WQMP shall meet the City's water Enforcement & Water quality ordinance requirements and include Quality Division project measures related to site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. Noise N -1 All noise - producing project equipment and During final City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines design and prior to Beach Code shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet plan check Enforcement silencers where appropriate, and any other approval shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing City of Newport features in good operating condition that Beach Building meet or exceed original factory Department specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc - welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing During grading, City of Newport equipment used on the project that is site preparation, Beach Code regulated for noise output by a local, state, and construction Enforcement or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project City of Newport activity. Beach Building Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be During final City of Newport used instead of pneumatic or internal design and prior to Beach Code combustion— powered equipment, where plan check Enforcement feasible. approval City of Newport During grading, Beach Building site preparation, Department Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -6 Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring and construction N -4 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During grading, City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas site preparation, Beach Code shall be located as far as practical from and construction Enforcement noise - sensitive receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -5 No project- related public address or music During grading, City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent site preparation, Beach Code receptor. and construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -6 The on -site construction supervisor shall During final City of Newport have the responsibility and authority to design and prior to Beach Code receive and resolve noise complaints. A plan check Enforcement clear appeal process to the project proponent approval shall be established prior to construction City of Newport commencement that shall allow for During grading, Beach Building resolution of noise problems that cannot be site preparation, Department immediately solved by the site supervisor. and construction N -7 During construction activities, temporary Prior to and during City of Newport noise barriers, such as noise - attenuating grading, site Beach Code blankets, shall be erected at the construction preparation, and Enforcement fence lines. construction City of Newport Beach Building Department Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -7 Declaration ICF J&S 00846 49 City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 15 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program Tmplt: 01/14/10 1-7 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PROJECT NAME: Beauchamp General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendments PROJECT LOCATION: 0.6 acre located at 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, northern corner of East Balboa Boulevard/ L Street intersection PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project proposes to demolish and remove the existing club house and two hard - surface tennis courts and prepare the site for the construction of five detached single -unit dwellings. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations of the project site from recreational to single -unit residential land use. LEAD AGENCY: City of Newport Beach CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, (949) 644 -3249 APPLICANT: David Beauchamp, Beauchamp Enterprises CONTACT PERSON/ TELEPHONE NO.: David Beauchamp, (949) 851 8087 Table 4 -1. Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring Hazards and Hazardous Materials' HM -1 Prior to demolition of the clubhouse on site, Prior to issuance City of Newport an asbestos- containing materials and lead- of demolition Beach Building based paint assessment shall be performed permits Department by a qualified environmental professional and conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements, including those established by National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). A report shall be furnished to the Building Department by said qualified environmental professional and shall outline the occurrence of hazardous materials on the project site. Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -3 Declaration ICF J &$ 00946.09 W City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Implementation Responsible Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring • If asbestos - containing materials are discovered during site investigations, all potentially friable asbestos - containing materials shall be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to SCAQMD regulations. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations shall avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to asbestos - containing materials. • If lead -based paint is discovered during on -site investigations, all building materials containing lead - based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal /OSHA lead in Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E-4 Dedaration ICF J85 06846.09 N City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Com Hance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring construction standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed of Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations shall avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to lead -based paint. H drolo and Water Quality WQ -1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport applicant shall prepare a Stormwater of grading permits Beach Public Works Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) which Department includes BMPs. The runoff from the project site would be managed by the SWPPP using the BMPs and as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from construction sites from entering the storm drains. WQ -2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Prior to issuance City of Newport applicant shall prepare a Water Quality of grading permits Beach Public Works Management Plan (WQMP) for project Department operations and submit to the City Building Department and Code Enforcement & Water City of Newport Qualitv Division for review and approval. I Beach Code Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -5 Declaration ICF J&S 00846.09 RUN City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring The WQMP shall meet the City's water Enforcement & Water quality ordinance requirements and include Quality Division project measures related to site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs. Noise N -1 All noise - producing project equipment and During final City of Newport vehicles using internal combustion engines design and prior to Beach Code shall be equipped with mufflers, air -inlet plan check Enforcement silencers where appropriate, and any other approval shrouds, shields, or other noise - reducing City of Newport features in good operating condition that Beach Building meet or exceed original factory Department specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc- welders, air compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that pe of equipment. N -2 All mobile and fixed noise - producing During grading, City of Newport equipment used on the project that is site preparation, Beach Code regulated for noise output by a local, state, and construction Enforcement or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project City of Newport activity. Beach Building Department N -3 Electrically powered equipment shall be During final City of Newport used instead of pneumatic or internal design and prior to Beach Code combustion — powered equipment, where plan check Enforcement feasible. approval City of Newport During grading, Beach Building site preparation, Department Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E-6 Declaration ICF AS 00846.09 City of Newport Beach Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. Mitigation Measure Time Frame for Responsible Verification of Compliance Implementation Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks & Monitoring and construction N -4 Material stockpiles and mobile equipment During grading, City of Newport staging, parking, and maintenance areas site preparation, Beach Code shall be located as far as practical from and construction Enforcement noise- sensitive receptors. City of Newport Beach Building Department N -5 No project - related public address or music During grading, City of Newport system shall be audible at any adjacent site preparation, Beach Code receptor. and construction Enforcement City of Newport Beach Building Department N -6 The on -site construction supervisor shall During final City of Newport have the responsibility and authority to design and prior to Beach Code receive and resolve noise complaints. A plan check Enforcement clear appeal process to the project proponent approval shall be established prior to construction City of Newport commencement that shall allow for During grading, Beach Building resolution of noise problems that cannot be site preparation, Department immediately solved by the site supervisor. and construction N -7 During construction activities, temporary Prior to and during City of Newport noise barriers, such as noise - attenuating grading, site Beach Code blankets, shall be erected at the construction preparation, and Enforcement fence lines. construction City of Newport Beach Building Department Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan January 2009 Amendments Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative E -7 Declaration ICF J85 OO846.09 0 LPi City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 13 of 15 Exhibit "C" General Plan Land Use Map Amendment Tmplt 01/14/10 a5 m Y .. ./ n.r, v GVTTAnnl man rebu.h:OrJ CITY of NEWPORT BEAC GENERAL PLAN Figure LUf GENERALPLAN OVERVIEW MAP R.btleM41 N.pRpOrlwotlt be •r.pV�E •.aw.•.r DrW.ee yw.11u Raas.uY 4.arrwJ • rir.YRMNY — r.Vik JM RbynY _ r.. Yyi.WUrraub WY'.faY:MO - WIIY-rAY RewY MY r ConYwrcW DwlrYw .M COmtleb w wyNyvee Ca�er.Y w arm Cenawrrw - parlrY CEarraruY - W b SE^n0 Cmrnr.w - Yenawnrvr vJ Nvrn Comrnraur _ Rape�ur CC -m.roY C.w ONn. rb k - OevrY lErrMA.r Gr<a � Y.ekY cY•••.nY or. YtlrwYYl Mb.:Y — FpryfJ •IIRM Lrppwprrp ewYYb _ 4gnr CYa •.e Ymulry Lvr YhW LM Dsbc4 Mba Jra r.rvu.4 uaoe wa rvlr. Rr.ar.e RW IE. Lm -0uWC .r4lnarnwwnw w RJI. r.r.xa - A.4 4MUf:rt _ evb nJ 0.r.rcY.M _CEF ipw Raa,y�W wa.I MwW +M b {wmnal rqn rpNEl H Tby.a nOSMn.rpN l�ti W %o u. mY..oerr ea.w ne�rr '1. •AYtY Y.a IF.n�faY I 9-:1 00- � ` lUT_le[tlpr 4vp (rp�pppppl mN ivbwy:pt0 Y ITV of NEWPORT BEACH GENERALPLAN Figure LU2 INDEX MAP RRS�WrRW NrWRpeMRpOv �nya1 �.UrnnamW YYV»J y fir�br. W RMewFI4vNa [F.IM IIMrO/ -4MWPn w � +paw W wFa�+n o-t�we wbk- u+x.ua..enF CommvrtW Onblvb pM CwrCwv u lyyyNNCHwwWI 4 LurWr[em�rcw - (M.rrrl Cnim�rrw _ RvuerbrVl W MYra CoT.wr;M _ urTnrl4awnwal cwnn.rcw ONSe oaprra � u.a.w can.w�atos,r w,a.ar onRRn •wort puppwwp ona<a 41vrJ LN Wbl[n w 4bay U[n V�VJ ..x w.e u. wimu +.rF a.a u. tvR.r Rdnp Rwl1e. GmiuNc vM 1nRMWww r' N24 Fwbr - Avm iww»an -P V a nJ Rwwsn —Cbn rAVrr w WFn Spo RwgntJ Wyr Mw6nN iur Jmlµq/v0 � F�nwvJ upm prcrl H r9RVa /'J 3�t "nPJ L�s �oY Jr Nrw.{r ^brvn H fvv 7 1111 vs Cl G1 1 CITY of NEWPORT BEAC GENERALPLAN R5.D Pp Figure LU4 }64 7�pair AiCi -";TL. '� STATISTICALAREA ® ®�� \ D3, D4. E1 -E3 ® , \ j Ra4KlnKW MepDDDlRODOP ® ®t \ f 1 Y` //A* Pi MZ 4vea RM vv4 MUM2 - d+l GYman4 W rMM1Ktl Pn0 Lenten / ID Du IMF ��� 1 O .lnj�pprMpn cem+.cJ R TC V i' -N4v'xnnO CanMrtul RM annKew.,!lww. R _ 4 Recreation •• Parks R4 •.� camK.wlortKV DKDKn ! M RT ^ } Ju PF . RM F�eu4DUi onM1Kn 36 iec !1 na..lr AIryM SUDpeNnD Unlnoh Mo.t OR. rn'+ucv.vrq \RT ` clue 4iu otlM1Kn �M .M'MIn a.hhJ RS -D PICY[. een..PUWC PM uneDn,,.... M PLY i.:Yw - Pxtl- YslLY4x -OGen `9..e h tylyp �l5..1r• +pM.- r M�0 Uv eI N+W ^B...l BtnOF Fl • W41n �'^^JIIyi W 31(0.) City of Newport Beach City Council Resolution No. _ Page 15 of 15 Exhibit "D" Local Coastal Program CLUP Amendment Tmplt: 01/14/10 3I (c,� OA ISLAND LITTLE BALBOA ISLAND RT -D ,Rfill`�E RSD -C 0 500 1.000 Feet LC2009 -001 mxd February/2010 RSD -C PF 1 hRSD -A llltI TS RSD -A 2SD -B RT RSD -A RSD -00 Pi LC2009 -001 (PA2009 -067) I Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment 2000 - 2016 East Balboa Boulevard N I z a 0 70 3r(e) Attachment No. CC 2 Planning Commission Minutes from March 4, 2010 Meeting 3 10) 3 I (g) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2010 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioners Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren - all present. STAFF PRESENT: David Lepo, Planning Director Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer Makana Nova, Assistant Planner Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner Ruby Garciamay, Department Assistant PUBLIC COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS None POSTING OF THE AGENDA: POSTING OF THE AGENDA The Planning Commission Agenda was posted on February 25, 2010. HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of January 21, 2010. ITEM NO. 1 Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Eaton and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to approve the minutes as amended. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None I Abstain: None SUBJECT: MINUTES of the regular meeting of February 4, 2010. ITEM NO. 2 Approved Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to approve the minutes as written. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None I Abstain: None 3a NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/0412010 SUBJECT: Beauchamp General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use ITEM NO. 3 Plan Amendment (PA2009 -067) PA2009 -067 2000 -2016 East Balboa Boulevard Approved The application consists of a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectively. The property is currently used as a private tennis club and the Amendments would allow residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, distributed a revised draft resolution to the Planning Commission and presented the staff report with a powerpoint presentation. Public comment was opened. Comments in support were given by the following: Dennis O'Neil, representing property owner David Beauchamp, applicant and property owner Frank Trane, 2018 E Bay Avenue Ken Drelocheck, neighboring resident Public comment was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge, seconded by Commissioner Peotter, to adopt a resolution, after debate and amendment, as follows: City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 and adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001, subject to the revised resolution; delete Finding No. 8 in Section 1 of resolution removing Exhibit "A" from resolution; delete the final sentence of the first paragraph as shown on Page 2 -6 of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 that reads, "However, this environmental document would cover the approval of a future subdivision tract map and final development plan, provided they are in substantial conformance with the conceptual development plan. " Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: one I Abstain: None SUBJECT: Rose Bakery Cafe (PA2009 -148) ITEM NO. 4 3536 East Coast Highway PA2009 -148 The application consists of a use permit that would supersede Planning Approved Director's Use Permit No. 29 and allows for the following: 1) Change the restaurant land use classification from full - service, small -scale to full - service, high - turnover; and 2) Enlarge the outdoor dining area. The application also includes an off -site parking agreement for 15 parking spaces at a property Page 2 of 4 33 .............. NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 03/04/2010 located at 409 Orchid Avenue, which is necessary to satisfy the code - required parking for the expanded use. Russell Bunim, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Public comment was opened. Comments in support and of concern were given by the following: • Shawn Lim, applicant and owner of Rose Bakery Cafe • Mrs. Lim, applicant and owner of Rose,Bakery Cafe • Scott Palmer, neighboring business owner • Edward Elo, Corona del Mar resident • Dan Davidson, Corona del Mar resident • Carlo Balerimo, Newport Coast resident • Paul Dean, frequent customer • Dick Nichols, neighboring resident • Yves Siegler, Newport Coast resident • Joy Conden, 412 Orchid Avenue Public comment was closed. Chairman Hawkins recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. with all members of the Commission in attendance. Motion made by Commissioner Peotter, seconded by Commissioner Toerge, to adopt a resolution, after debate and amendment, as follows: Approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -035 and Off -Site Parking Agreement No. OP2010 -001; modify Condition No. 24 to read "Deliveries, refuse collection and grease trap clean out for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7 :00 a.m., unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director; and may require an amendment to this Use Permit",, Condition No. 3 reads "The final off -site parking agreement between the City and the applicant......" — strike out "between the City and the applicant'. Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, Toerge, McDaniel, and Hillgren Noes: None I Abstain: None NEW BUSINESS: General Plan Annual Progress Report including Housing Element Report (PA2007 -195) - Motion was to receive and file. (All Ayes) City Council Follow -up — Mr. Lepo gave the report. Planning Commission reports — Commissioner Eaton reported that a GP /LCP Implementation meeting will be scheduled in March. Page 3 of 4 0 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Hawkins reported on the discussion at the Economic Development Committee meeting on February 17, 2010. Announcements on matters that Commission members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — None Requests for excused absences — None. ADJOURNMENT: 8:34 p.m. CHARLES UNSWORTH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 03/04/2010 Page 4 of 4 35 3� Attachment No. CC 3 Planning Commission Staff Report 3� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 4, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: Beauchamp General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (PA2009 -067) 2000 -2016 East Balboa Blvd • General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 • Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 APPLICANT: David Beauchamp PLANNER: Makana Nova, Assistant Planner (949) 644 -3249, mnova @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The application consists of a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectively. The property is currently used as a private tennis club and the Amendments would allow residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. recommending City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001, approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001, and approval of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 subject to the conditions in the attached resolution (Attachment No. PC 1). Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 2 3q Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 3 Proiect Settin The subject properties are located in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. The project site is 26,662 square feet (approximately 0.6 acres) and consists of six legal parcels. The property is adjacent to East Balboa Boulevard and is bounded by two private streets, L Street and East Bay Avenue. The project site has a 5 -foot districting map setback along East Balboa Boulevard. The existing development consists of a private tennis club with an 800 - square -foot clubhouse building and two, hard - surface tennis courts. The existing clubhouse building maintains the required 5 -foot front setback from East Balboa Boulevard and the tennis courts are screened from view along the adjacent rights -of -way by a 12 -foot high chain - link fence with landscape screening. The project site is relatively flat and rectangular in shape, bounded to the north, east, and west by residential development. Residential development is also located to the south of the subject property across East Balboa Boulevard. Newport Bay is located beyond the adjacent residential development to the north. There is no direct coastal access from the project site. Background A private tennis club is considered a recreation facility and is a permitted use with a use permit in the R -1 Zoning District under the current land use regulations in the Zoning Code. The private tennis club was originally approved under Use Permit No. UP945 in 1963 and was amended in 1975 to allow for the relocation of a chain link fence that encloses the westerly tennis court. The private tennis club does not provide off - street parking and members must park along East Balboa Boulevard or the adjacent private streets to access the site. The neighborhood has a homeowner's association, the Balboa Peninsula Point Association, which provides a social and informational network for the surrounding community. The homeowner's association is not active in regulating development and does not have covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC and R's). Although the existing use was permitted under the residential zoning and land use designations, the General Plan land use map was amended in 1988 to Parks and Recreation based on the existing recreational land use. The land use change may have been inadvertent or the change was intentional to increase the parks and recreation land use designations throughout the City. The Parks and Recreation land use designation for the project site was then carried over in the 2006 General Plan Update. Although the land use designation was changed, the Zoning for the project site was SID Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 4 never updated for consistency with the new General Plan land use designation and the project site remained within the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. Proiect Description The applicant requests approval of a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designations from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectively. The property is currently used as a private tennis club and the Amendments would allow residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. The proposed land use changes are in the attached revised General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan maps (Attachments PC 2 and PC 3). The subject applications do not include a specific project for development at this time. Because the proposed land use changes would allow the conversion of the existing land use from a private tennis club to single -unit dwellings, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MIND) includes a conceptual development plan to consider the potential environmental impacts of the land use change. The R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District allows for the development of a maximum of five dwelling units on the subject properties. The conceptual development plan assumes that all five dwelling units would be constructed concurrently. This assumption maximizes potential air quality impacts in the MIND to assess the greatest potential impact of the proposed project on the surrounding community. DISCUSSION Analysis Amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts. Neither City nor State Planning Law sets forth required findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider General Plan policies and development standards to ensure internal consistency. General Plan The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site as Parks and Recreation (PR). Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The private tennis club is consistent with this designation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would designate the site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). This land use designation applies to a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units. q Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 5 The General Plan contains objectives, policies, and distributions of land use for development in the City. The following General Plan policies are pertinent to the proposed project: 1. LU4.2. Prohibition of New Residential Subdivisions "Prohibit new residential subdivisions that would result in additional dwelling units unless authorized by an amendment of the General Plan (GPA). Lots that have been legally merged through the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code approvals are exempt from the GPA requirements and may be resubdivided to the original underlying legal lots. This policy is applicable to all Single Unit, Two Unit, and Multiple Unit Residential land use categories. (Imp 6.1)° The proposed General Plan Amendment would authorize residential development of the project site. Based on the 5,000 square -foot minimum lot area specified by Chapter 20.10 (Residential Districts) of the Zoning Code, the project site could accommodate a maximum of five dwelling units. The proposed conceptual plan and future development of the project site would reconfigure six existing legal lots to five lots through the approval of a tract map and would not result in a net increase of parcels. The proposed project is consistent with LU4.2. 2. LU6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities "Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses." This General Plan policy was intended to preserve open space and private recreational facilities owned in common by owners of homes in a homeowner's association for use by the community at large. The project site is located on private, individually owned and developed property on land which is not owned in common by the homeowner's association. Therefore, Land Use Policy 6.2.9 is not applicable to the proposed project. N4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities "Enforce the Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or construction activity in and adjacent to residential areas, including noise that results from in -home hobby or work related activities." Development of the project site must comply with the construction activity noise regulations per Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. In addition, Mitigation Measure Nos. N -1 through N7 of MND No. MD2010 -001 (Attachment PC 4) ensure that noise during construction activities will be limited to a level that is less than significant. The proposed project will comply with General Plan Policy N4.6. q� Coastal Land Use Plan The project site is located in the coastal this site as Parks and Recreation (PR ) active public or private recreational use. passive), golf courses, marina suppo rt courts, private recreation, and similar consistent with this land use designation. Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 6 zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan designates , which applies to land used or proposed for Permitted uses include parks (both active and facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and facilities. The existing private tennis club is The proposed Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment would designate the project site as Single Unit Residential Detached (RSD -B), which applies to a range of detached single - family residential dwelling units. The conceptual development plan proposes single unit development on individual legal lots which are consistent with this land use designation. The representative density of the proposed conceptual plan, 8.17 dwelling units per acre, is also consistent with the RSD -B density limit of 6.0 -9.9 dwelling units per acre and is compatible with the density of surrounding development. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains objectives, policies, and distributions of land use for development in the City. The following Coastal Land Use Plan policies are pertinent to the proposed project: 1. Coastal Land Use Policy 2.3.3 -4 "Encourage visitor - serving and recreational development that provide public recreational opportunities. " The existing private tennis club on the project site charges a membership fee and does not provide public recreational opportunities. While the proposed land use change does not encourage new public recreational opportunities, the proposed changes in General Plan land use and Coastal Land Use Plan designations allow the development of the private property as was permitted prior to the 1988 General Plan update. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with Coastal Land Use Policy 3.2.1- 12.3.3 -4. 2. Coastal Land Use Policy 3.2.1 -1 "Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance recreational opportunities in the coastal zone." The project site was originally designated for residential land use and the current zoning reflects the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning Designation. While the proposed land use change does not protect or expand the existing recreational facility, the proposed changes in General Plan land use and Coastal Land Use Plan designations allow the development of the private property as was permitted prior to the 1988 General Plan update. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with Coastal Land Use Policy 3.2.1 -1. y3 Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 7 Zoning Code The site is located in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. The R -1 Zoning District provides areas for single - family residential land uses. A private tennis club is considered a recreation facility and is a permitted use with a use permit in the R -1 Zoning District. The single unit dwellings under the conceptual plan for the project site are consistent with the single - family residential zoning. Future development of the project site will be required to comply with the Zoning Code standards for the development of new structures through the plan check and building permit process. The single unit dwellings under the conceptual plan will be required to comply with floor area, height, setback, and design standards as required by the Zoning Code for the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) Zoning District. Lot Configuration The proposed conceptual plan and future development of the project site would reconfigure six existing legal lots to five lots through the approval of a tract map. The approval of the tract map would require a deviation of design standards per Section 19.24.130 of the Municipal Code because several of the parcels would not meet the minimum lot width of 50 feet or the minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet as required by Chapter 20.10 (Residential Districts) of the Zoning Code. The current conceptual plan creates five parcels with 40 -foot and 55 -foot wide lots which would be consistent with the development pattern of surrounding development that provide 30 -foot to 40 -foot wide lots throughout the existing tract. The lot configuration in the conceptual development plan would provide access to each parcel from the adjacent private streets, L Street and East Bay Avenue, and would not negatively impact the surrounding development. Condition No. 18 of the draft resolution (Attachment PC 1) requires the approval of a tract map for development of five dwelling units or the approval of a parcel map for the development of four or fewer dwelling units on the project site. SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by tribes, local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. During the public comment period for MND No. MD2010 -001, the City received comments from the NAHC indicating that 15 tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed project. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice on February 10, 2010. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. qq Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 8 The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, a geographic feature which was significantly modified during the last century in order to deepen channels for navigation and form habitable islands. Balboa Peninsula, a barrier beach that protects the bay, was once the site of extensive low sand dunes. The Balboa Peninsula as a geographic feature was created after the era of Native American settlement and has been subject to significant infill during that time period. Due to these factors, the City has contacted the 15 tribe contacts by phone, email, and standard mail and requested a shortened time period of 30 days but has not yet received responses from all of the tribe contacts. While the Planning Commission may recommend the proposed project to City Council at this time, the City Council may not act on the proposed project until a mutual agreement, as to a shortened time period is reached with all of the tribe contacts or the 90 day period is concluded. Council Policies 1. Council Policy K -1 Pursuant to Council Policy K -1 (CPK -1), property owners may apply for an amendment to the General Plan. CPK -1 requires the applicant to provide the reason for making the request. The stated reason provided by the applicant for the General Plan Amendment request is to bring the existing City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations into compliance with the R -1 Zoning designation. The Amendment will also correct a land use change that may have been made inadvertently in the 1988 General Plan update and was then carried over in the 2006 General Plan update. The Amendment will allow the development of the private property as was permitted prior to the 1988 General Plan update which would allow for the development of five single - family dwellings. 2. Council Policy A -18 —Chatter Section 423 (Measure S) Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. A vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the suggested General Plan Amendment and the Amendment (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) accommodates development that generates more than 100 peak hour trips, adds 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area. This is the first General Plan amendment in Statistical Area D4 since the General Plan update in 2006. Five additional dwelling units result in an increase of 0.41 AM peak hour trips and a decrease of 2.71 PM peak hour trips based on the Single - Family Detached Housing trip rates reflected in Council Policy A -18. Therefore, none of the thresholds listed above that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded. MI5 Beauchamp GP /CLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 9 Summary Staff recommends Planning Commission adopt the draft resolution recommending City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001, approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001, and approval of Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 subject to the conditions attached (Attachment PC 1). Alternatives The Planning Commission may approve Council approval of the proposed project continue the item, or deny the application. approve a revised project, staff will return findings and /or conditions. Environmental Review the draft resolution and recommend City as requested, approve a revised project, Should the Planning Commission choose to with a revised resolution incorporating new Prior to taking action on the requested General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission must first review, consider, and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment No. PC 4). The MND is comprised of the Notice of Intent (NOI), Initial Study (IS), Environmental Analysis, and Appendices. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental categories within which the project would have either no impact or less than significant impact were: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology /Soils, Land Use /Planning, Mineral Resources, Population /Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service System. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental categories within which the project would have potentially significant impacts were: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality, and Noise. Specific mitigation measures have been included to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental evaluations, standard construction and engineering practices, and review and reevaluation of future projects as the means to avoid potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The MND was completed and circulated for a mandatory 30 -day public- review period that began on January 12, 2010, and concluded on February 10, 2010. Several comment letters were received from advising agencies which are attached (Attachment PC 5). ql Beauchamp GPICLUP Amendment March 4, 2010 Page 10 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: 4,_ �. M ana ova, )Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, PI ning Director PC 1 Draft Resolution with Conditions of Approval PC 2 General Plan Land Use Maps PC 3 Coastal Land Use Plan Maps PC 4 Initial Study, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Prcg ram PC 5 MND Comment Letters PC 6 Conceptual Development Site Plan and Topographic Survey FAUsers \PLM Shared\ PA's \PAs - 2009\PA2009- 067\GP2009 -001 PC Rpt.doex q7 Attachment No. CC 4 Approved Planning Commission Resolution `I q RESOLUTION NO. 1801 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by David Beauchamp representing Peninsula Point Properties, LLC, with respect to property located at 2000 -2016 Fast Balboa Boulevard and legally described as Lots 14.. 15, 16, 21, and 22 of Tract 756, requesting approval of a General Plan amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, 2. The applicant proposes the adoption of a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS-D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B, respectively, The property is currently used as a private tennis club and the amendments would allow residential redevelopment of up to five dwelling units. 3. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. if a project (separately or cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) exceeds any one of the following three thresholds, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the suggested General Plan Amendment: the project generates more than 100 peak hour trips, adds 40,000 square feet of non- residential floor area, or adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area. 4, This is the first GPA in Statistical Area 04 since the General Plan update in 2006. Five additional dwelling units result in an increase of 0.41 Aid peak hour tr=ips and a decrease of 2.71 PM peak hour trips based on the Single- Family Detached Housing trip rates reflected in Council Policy A-°i8. As none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is required 5. The project is located on the Balboa Peninsula where public services and infrastructure are available to serve the additional dwelling units under the proposed land use changes. 6. The subject property is located within the Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is currently Parks and Recreation (PR). Me City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1801 Page 2 of 15 7. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is currently Parks and Recreation (PR), 8. A public hearing was held on March 41 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on January 12, 2010, and ending on February 10, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. d. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached as Exhibit "D ". The document and all supporting materials, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and lmpit: 01f14M 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1801 Page 3 of 15 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS, 1. Amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. SECTION 4. DECISION. 1. The Planning Commission hereby removes the final sentence of the first paragraph as shown on Page 2-6 of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 that reads, "However, this environmental document would cover the approval of a future subdivision tract map and final development plan, provided they are in substantial conformance with the conceptual development plan." 1 The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2010 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "A" and Mitigation Monitoring Report Program as depicted in Exhibit "B° of this resolution. 3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2009 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "C" 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2009 -001 as depicted in Exhibit "D ". 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 41h DAY OF MARCH, 2010. AYES: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge; and Hillgren NOES,, None BY -} t ,Robert Hawkins, Chairman BY: Charles Unsworth, Secretary 7mpft: OV14110 5a Attachment No. CC 5 MND Comment Letters 55 April 29, 2010 o���Cf PIq°q�6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT "ref�uFCU @��r CYNTM&BRYANT Dnuscrort RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Makana Nova City of Newport Beach Planning Department MAY 0'4.2010 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 CcySubject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan AmIT 5 NEWPORT BEACH SCH #: 2010011023 en m Dear Makana Nova: The.enclosed conmient (s) on your Mitigated Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on February 10, 2010. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to lat €cotamnents. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final envirrotmmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions ooncoming the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2010011023) when contacting this office. SincereI 47 .colt Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140011th Street P.O.. Box 3044 Sacraiffepto, Califomia 95812 -3044 t.il hig -',61D PAV.916 9rt_ I STATE OF CALURNIA— BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENP GER G DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 Fax: (949) 724-2592 January 25, 2010 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 I" n Q „ur l.� U oLIP,- APR 282010 &TRTE NEARING r}pUSE A V Flexynurpmverl File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2010011023 Log #: 2450 SR -1 Subject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Dear Ms. Nova, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments project. The project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designations of the project site from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectfully. The nearest State route to the project site is SR -1. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and we have no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future. developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sincerely, 14'0-�Y (1,1/1 Maryam Molavi, Acting Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research all January 25, 2010 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2010011023 Log #: 2450 SR -1 Subject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments BC: Ryan Chamberlain, Deputy District Director 5� LL,.. ,« :w: allr_grys mproves ,mobility across Caliform, . = ;,L ARNGLD SCBWARZENEGGER GovERNGR February 11, 2010 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 .E' Subject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments SCH #: 2010011023 Dear Makana Nova: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has Listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on February 10, 2010, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten. -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may responrtpromptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely colt Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency PLANNING D$FARTM W MAR 12010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 4.45 -0613 PAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov 57 Off STATE OF CALIFORNIA U GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH n STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT mr +�o` u CYNTHIA BRYANr DIRECTOR February 11, 2010 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 .E' Subject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments SCH #: 2010011023 Dear Makana Nova: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has Listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on February 10, 2010, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten. -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may responrtpromptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely colt Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency PLANNING D$FARTM W MAR 12010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 4.45 -0613 PAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov 57 Document Details Repor, State Clearinghouse Data Baje SCH# 2010011023 Project Title Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type MND Mitigated Negative Declaration Description The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designations of the project site from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detaches), respectively, The proposed land use change would provide consistency with the existing land use from a private tennis club to single -unit dwellings. The R -1 (single - family residential) Zoning District allows for the development of a maximum of 5 dwelling units on the subject properties. The analysis includes a conceptual development plan to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the land use change which includes the development of a maximum of 5, detached, single -unit dwellings that would comply With the maximum floor area limit as required by Chapter 20.10 of the Zoning Code. Lead Agency Contact Name Makana Nova Agency City of Newport Beach Planning Department Phone (949) 644 -3249 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92658 Project, Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Railways Lat / Lang Waterways Cross Streets East Balboa Blvd & I St Parcel No. 048- 240 -20, 23 Township Range Section 35,36 Base Proximity to: Highways Pacific Coast Hwy 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay, Newport Harbor, Pacific Ocean Schools Newport ES Land Use PLU: Private Tennis Club Z: R -1 (Single - Family Residential) GP: PR (Parks and Recreation) Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 01/12/2010 Start of Review 01/12/2010 End of Review 02/10/2010 t , , da- ^tds resat from_Ir.�,utGcleiaYinformaticn - wovlded by lead agency. - � NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 (916) 653-6251 Fn (916) 657 -5390 Web Site w nahc.ca gov e­mall: ds_nahc@paebell.net February 2, 2010 z -lo•lo Ms. Makana Nova, Assistant Planner e_ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 °Pr' RECEIVED FEB 4 2010 STATE CLEARING HOUSE California Dear Ms. Nova: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the state 'trustee agency' pursuant to Public Resources Code §21070 for the protection and preservation of California's Native American Cultural Resources.. (Also see Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal App. 3'd 604) The California Environmental Quality Adt (BEQA - CA Public Resources Code §21000- 21177, amended in 2009) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(b)(c)(0 CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project - related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following. The Native American Heritage Commission did perform a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search in the NAHC SLF Inventory, established by the Legislature pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.94(a) and Native American Cultural resources were identified within one -half mile of the APE. The NAHC does not agree with the City's statement in the 'Draft Initial Study' that there are 'Less Than Significant Cultural Resources in the APE' There are numerous Native American cultural resources in and close to the project area. Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are the names of the nearest tribes and interested Native American individuals that the NAHC recommends as 'consulting parties,' for this purpose, that may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We recommend that you contact persons on the attached list of Native American contacts. A Native American Tribe or Tribal Elder may be the only source of information about a cultural resource.. Also, the NAHC recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is employed during the'Initial Study' and in other phases of the environmental planning processes.. Furthermore we suggest that you contact the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Coordinator's office (at (916) 653 -7278, for referral to the nearest CHIP Information Center of which there are 11. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American tribes and interested Native American individuals, as consulting parties, on the NAHC list ,should, be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 - 43351) and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal 5q NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 [f)jet se), 36 CFR Part 800.3, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq) and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001 - 3013), as appropriate.. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. Also, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery. Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. The authority for the SLF record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory, established by the California Legislature, is California Public Resources Code §5097.94(a) and is exempt from the CA Public Records Act (c.f. California Government Code §6254.10). The results of the SLF search are confidential. However, Native Americans on the attached contact list are not prohibited from and may wish to reveal the nature of identified cultural resources/historic properties. Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance' may also be protected the under Section 304 of the NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior' discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C, 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and /or cultural significance identified in or near the APE and possibly threatened by proposed project activity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.. Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. feel free to�ontact me at (916) 653 -6251 if you have any questions. S Dave Sir Program Attachment: List of Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse Mr CCRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 92619 -4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. February 9, 2010 Makana Nova, Assistant Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use plan Amendments Dear Makana Nova, I have reviewed the subject document on behalf of CCRPA. It appears that the proposed project is unlikely to have significant adverse impact on historical or archaeological remains since the entire spit is described as having been built up from imported soil in the 1800s. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. The CCRPA is pleased to work with the City of Newport Beach on cultural resource issues. Please let us know if we can be of further help. Sincerely, Virginia Bickford, MA Archaeologist Phone: 562 493 -5169 Sent by email 2/9/10. Signed copy sent by mail. 61 TATEOFQ IFORNIA A old G NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 366 SACRAMENTO, CA 95614 a (916) 6536251 Fax (916) 6575390 Web Site www.nahc.ca.aav e mall: ds_nahcQpacbell.mt rii February 2, 2010 PLAR>NNODEBARTMENT Ms. Makana Nova, Assistant Planner FEB S 2018 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 Newport Boulevard WY OF 1Q MORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Nova: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the state 'trustee agency' pursuant to Public Resources Code §21070 for the protection and preservation of California's Native American Cultural Resources.. (Also see Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal App. 3'd 604) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - CA Public Resources Code §21000- 21177, amended in 2009) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a'Significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(b)(c)(f) CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect (APE)', and if so, to mitigate that effect. To adequately assess the project - related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following. The Native American Heritage Commission did perform a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search in the NAHC SLF Inventory, established by the Legislature pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.94(a) and Native American Cultural resources were identified within one -half mile of the APE. The NAHC does not agree with the City's statement in the'Draft Initial Study',that there are 'Less Than Significant Cultural Resources in the APE' There are numerous Native American cultural resources in and close to the project area. Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are the names of the nearest tribes and interested Native American individuals that the NAHC recommends as 'consulting parties,' for this purpose, that may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We recommend that you contact persons on the attached list of Native American contacts. A Native American Tribe or Tribal Elder may be the only source of information about a cultural resource.. Also, the NAHC recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is employed during the'lnitial Study' and in other phases of the environmental planning processes.. Furthermore we suggest that you contact the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Coordinator's office (at (916) 653 -7278, for referral to the nearest OHP Information Center of which there are 11. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American tribes and interested _Native American individuals, as consulting parties, on the NAHC list ,should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 - 43351) and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal 0- NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 [filet se), 36 CFR Part 800.3, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ; 42 U.S.C. 4371 etseq) and NAGPRA(25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013), as appropriate.. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. Also, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery. Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. The authority for the SLF record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory, established by the California Legislature, is California Public Resources Cade §5097.94(x) and is exempt from the CA Public Records Act (c.f. California Government Code §6254.10). The results of the SLF search are confidential. However, Native Americans on the attached contact list are not prohibited from and may wish to reveal the nature of identified cultural resources /historic properties. Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance' may also be protected the under Section 304 of the NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior' discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C, 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and /or cultural significance identified in or near the APE and possibly threatened by proposed project activity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Cade of Regulations'(CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American.. Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have any questions. Attachment: List of Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse (�3 Ti'At Society Cindi Alvitre 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Long Beach , CA 90803 calvitre @yahoo.com (714) 504 -2468 Cell ,VGa[vG ,-[n,GUygll VV ... MI'O Orange County February 2, 2010 Gabrielino Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Chairperson Gabrielino P.O. Box 86908 Los Angeles , CA 90086 samdunlap CCearthiink.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno San Juan Capistrang CA 92675 DavidBelardes (Photmail. com (949) 293 -8522 (949) 493 -4933 - Home Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw @gmail.com 310 -570 -6567 Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel , CA 91778 (626) 286 -1262 -FAX (626) 286 -1632 (626) 286 -1758 - Home (626) 286 -1262 Fax This list Is current only as of the date of this document. (909) 262 -9351 - cell Gabrielino Tongva Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capisuanq CA 92675-2674 arivera@juaneno.com (949) 488 -3484 (530) 354 -5876 - cell Gabriellno Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F. Doramae, Tribal Chair /Cultural P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 gtongva @verizon.net 562- 761 -6417 - voice 562- 925 -7989 - fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredgcruz@?sbcglobal.net 714 - 998 -0721 714 - 998 -0721 - FAX 714 - 321 -1944 - cell Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, Section lo5, and federal NAGPI IA. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCHY2010011023; CEGA NOtice of Completion; draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Project; located on the Balboa Pennlnsuiar of the City of Newport Beach; Orange County, Callfcrnia. -1 Native American Contacts Orange County February 2, 2010 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul @yahoo.net 714 - 838 -3270 714- 914 - 1812 - CELL bsepul @yahoo.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 son ia.johnston 9sbcglobal. (714) 323 -8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779 -8832 United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP) Rebecca Robles 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno San Clemente CA 92672 (949) 573 -3138 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Gabrielino - Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna 501 Santa Monica Blvd, # Gabrielino Santa Monica CA 90401 (310) 587 -2203 (310) 428 -7720 - cell (310) 587 -2281 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Irvine , CA 92612 949 - 293 -8522 Gabrielino - Tongva Tribe Linda Candelarla, Chairwoman 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Gabrielino (310) 587 -2203 310 -428 -5767- cell (310) 587 -2281 Icandelarial @gabrielinoTribe.org Distribution of this Itst does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.96 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Palley Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act, Section 10% and federal NAGPRA. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SC1I#2010 01 1 0 23; CEOA Notice of Completion; draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Project; located on the Balboa Pennlnsular of the City of Newport Beach; Orange County, California. lS s UAM OF CALIFORNIA-00INFSS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSINGA ENCY pRNO D SCHZ&RKEN EGCER C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 0 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 RECEIVED BY Flex your power! IF= (949) 724 -2592 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Be eaerVefdenr! January 25, 2010 JAN 2 8 2010 Makana Nova CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH #: 2010011023 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2450 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SR -1 Subject: Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments Dear Ms. Nova, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Beauchamp General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendments project. The project involves a General Plan Amendment and a Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to change the existing land use designations of the project site from PR (Parks and Recreation) to RS -D (Single Unit Residential Detached) and RSD -B (Single Unit Residential Detached), respectfully. The nearest State route to the project site is SR -1. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and we have no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487. Sincerely, %�%�Gl'GLGt c CGGLt Maryam Molavi, Acting Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovenrmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrane improves mobility across California" E/ r Southern California Gas Company ,f A Sempra Energy utaity° January 20, 2010 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Makana Nova 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806 -6114 RECEIVED BY PLAWN(j 08PA.RTIe JAN $ 6 2010 CITY OF NE'WPORT $EACI-I Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Beauchamp General Plan and Costal Land Use Plan Amendments. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin, (714 )634 -3267. Sincerely, Eric Casares Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim EVW milneg&doc 6-7 Gb Attachment No. CC 6 Conceptual Development Site Plan and Topographic Survey 0 +ti•�t �\ r 0 a0 �t f'41 +e u IF J ! S. ,oil ; ' ; " ��� - - - - -- •D , , it , bp 4 bo I r , � t 7. —1 1. j A'5SE5S I �I i V J �X 15v trI4 (ID Iff5Nc_e_;; PRIVATE ROAD , i CX-Q 5 H0 05E E3UlG17IN0 r X I4rr INC (mv -reF ,p(LtW) a v s 1;xi5 -nt4fj 9EFS VeNcr-- • } / -0 L , T � j I r r , i 0 s a i ��� 117 I`Z tip f,.X1yfillJ6r R. ee-? 1176- NGI'i _ } f ARCHITECTS 17871 MITCHELL NORTH S U I T E 1 _ r [ � 0 I rG Contact: Amat Tajuden, Principal Steven Royse, Project Architect C � tI f D i r✓ i�} an(19-20 i rte & , . o o FLO) o p TFA C7 M - tW n ® `�NNl4# CoU�-r (D V D o � 0 a v s 1;xi5 -nt4fj 9EFS VeNcr-- • } / -0 L , T � j I r r , i 0 s a i ��� 117 I`Z tip f,.X1yfillJ6r R. ee-? 1176- NGI'i // I A A /k /1 a � 1I7.r7i 1 t f f _c (PRWA -E pIztvE r 0 10 710 Af o 6P0 80' ,. ter►[ ►,� F14 5-t" E� PC V v A- $ L VP X 1"I m 5T 1Z�5 t DE(�t 1 A r—U1U tzV" 1( ro S Ott 7�t1�LDCM �`i FLAN WIw "Ulgv � (N GO AAK- I A N CTS 11 l" rLANN r».61 4-T- --N pAfz,1?,5; } A ARCHITECTS 17871 MITCHELL NORTH S U I T E 1 I IRVINE,CA 92614 < 1 y + TEL (949) 955 -3282 4Y- FAX(949) 955 -1 377 Contact: Amat Tajuden, Principal Steven Royse, Project Architect (�n Y� I J t CO f L ®, // I A A /k /1 a � 1I7.r7i 1 t f f _c (PRWA -E pIztvE r 0 10 710 Af o 6P0 80' ,. ter►[ ►,� F14 5-t" E� PC V v A- $ L VP X 1"I m 5T 1Z�5 t DE(�t 1 A r—U1U tzV" 1( ro S Ott 7�t1�LDCM �`i FLAN WIw "Ulgv � (N GO AAK- I A N CTS 11 l" rLANN r».61 4-T- --N pAfz,1?,5; Beauchamp Tennis Court Properties 2000 - 2012 East Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 David Beauchamp Beauchamp Enterprises 151 Kalmus, Suite B -150 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 851 -8087 Dennis D. ONeil, Attorney at Law Hewitt & ONeil, LLP 19000 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 798 -0500 Existing Site Plan and 5 - lot Residential Concept Development Plan Roject No. 090C RD. Subadttd Ed Tom ttl k Issue Revidon - Revfdm ` RevWm A :1 1 Mid tt• Meet l E -T A ARCHITECTS 17871 MITCHELL NORTH S U I T E 1 5 0 IRVINE,CA 92614 TEL (949) 955 -3282 FAX(949) 955 -1 377 Contact: Amat Tajuden, Principal Steven Royse, Project Architect Beauchamp Tennis Court Properties 2000 - 2012 East Balboa Blvd Newport Beach CA 92661 David Beauchamp Beauchamp Enterprises 151 Kalmus, Suite B -150 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 851 -8087 Dennis D. ONeil, Attorney at Law Hewitt & ONeil, LLP 19000 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 798 -0500 Existing Site Plan and 5 - lot Residential Concept Development Plan Roject No. 090C RD. Subadttd Ed Tom ttl k Issue Revidon - Revfdm ` RevWm A :1 1 Mid tt• Meet l Orr- Vill, EASEMENT NOTE: THE PLAT FOR THIS MENTS SURVEY MAY EXIST ON PREPARED SUBJ CTT REPORT. ROPERTY BOUNDARY NOTE: k9 e 66 0 o THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY. THE TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN• — — . — — ON THIS MAP MAY BE ADJUSTED RELATIVE TO THE PLAT UPON COMPLETION OF A BOUNDARY SURVEY Q.QLBOA BOULEVARD h� �y9 61 —.6ry 71 SCALE: 1 " =10' +61 L\U J CI_ OZ �O tri � I� N U = NU w� m �a V m0 ' CL W W 0 Z 0 moo N CL m 0 w a a of w a ■ 0 N i� D .- 00 ® u) -6 rZ d � v o) L v � c X U Q C � a c O V) co 00 © 00 > N NZ d� v I W v U � SHEET 1 OF 1 Olav S. Meum LS 4384 JOB NO. 10599 4 D GQ > a 4 5 �. VI Z O' >I'I w�l a rn LL O U in Cl S > D V! r D U Q ■ 0 N i� D .- 00 ® u) -6 rZ d � v o) L v � c X U Q C � a c O V) co 00 © 00 > N NZ d� v I W v U � SHEET 1 OF 1 Olav S. Meum LS 4384 JOB NO. 10599 4 D GQ > a 4 5 �. VI Z O' >I'I w�l a w LL O U in j w S > D V! ■ 0 N i� D .- 00 ® u) -6 rZ d � v o) L v � c X U Q C � a c O V) co 00 © 00 > N NZ d� v I W v U � SHEET 1 OF 1 Olav S. Meum LS 4384 JOB NO. 10599 4 D GQ > a 4 5 �. VI Z O' >I'I w�l a a I ,I .j u s- e--UCJ f If — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1@ Sub,ect Property — ce rrrr rrrr� ,. —� iirl rrli�u ; 'o rrrrrrrrir rrrr rr ��rrl : Illllilrri I i 4 � � /I�rrr ., u� llrr�r 'rrllllii/ Illllrl1111 t11 �;' f rr rrll ill j ° 17/ Il RS -E) Auth,wi /cd bi Publish Advvrelscrnents of all kinds Including public nnliccs 1+) Occrec of the Sulwt id Ccurt tit Orange County. Cal&vma Nunda�r A 6214, D September 21). 1901 ;Intl Ak 2483 June H. 1063 RECEIVE ?010 MIRY 27 kh 9) 10 PROOF OF PUBLICATION r.l fly✓t C� CITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the Count aforesaid: I am Y NOriaoFKIiMM6 MI to Government Code over the age of eighteen years, and not a NOTICE Is NEIIEBy OIV- IN that on Ted", Trained", Section 65 %2.5 The MND was completed and fora May 25, 2010, at 7:00 circulated revs 30 day ublic- party to or interested in the below entitled p.m., a public heating that review puma roar De matter. I am a principal clerk of the P P De conducted in the atY council Chambers gad c clued on 2eb and concluded on Feb (Budding A) at 3300 0 NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City All Interested paR1bt MI Council of the City of may appear and present ppen DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general Newport Beach will con- testimony m regard to ll you this applmhis printed circulation, rioted and published in the Sider the following ap. plication. challenge this Dray in pr licurl, may Beauchamp General only limited o f only es City of Costa Mesa County of Orange Plan Coastal Prte and lead Coastal ►.efrarn issues yep at you , , Caused lend AG Plea someone else raised at soer e#I" State of California, and that attached Coastal the public hearing (de, Plan and L l Plan and Local Coastal untied In this notice) Notice is a true and complete copy as Program Coastal Land or in written eorra spon0ance "veered to printed was rioted and published on the Use Plan Amendment to Change the land use the City. at. w poor to. the public hearing. The designations 1rdfY PR agenda. staff following dates: and (o "nson °(si ,'urn be and documents may na Residential Detached) Departed nt the Planning C. Department (Building C. and RSD B (Single Unit Residential Detached). N 2nd Flow), 3. Newt respectively The prop. N port Boulevard. Newport Beath, California. 92663 erty Is currently used as a private tennis club or at the City of New. and the amendments port Beach webute at May 15, 201 0 would allow Rsidential Redevelopment of up to own. newportbeachaa.gov on units. live the Monday prior .to the the On the bass of the Initial study. City stiff . For questions questions has concluded that the projecg details of the protect contact Nakano propact would not have a ugmficant Imp act on Novae Nova. Assistant Planner. the environment and has therefore recom- at (949) 644.3249, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that mended adoption of a Mitigated Negative Dec. mnova@newport beachca gov M•.,lact F16 IM.: larsuon (MND). The the foregoing is true and correct. MND reflects the in. dependent of PA2D09'067 Activity No.: GP2009- judgment DOI LL2009 001 David City staff and recog- nu s proloo dtORd fee -I Beauchamp Executed on May 20, 2010 tunes. previous environ- mental evaluations. and Zeno R-1 (Single. Family Residential) PR at standard construction General Plan: (Parks and Recreation) Costa Mesa, California. and engineering prac. Location: 2000 2016 6tes. requiring review and reevaluation of fu- East Balboa Boulevard lure projects as contra- Applicant. David buang to avoidance of The Beauchamp Leilam I Brown, City potential Impacts. project site does not Clerk Include any sites on an Environmental Proles Published New I Beach; Costa Mesa C DAaily Signature tion Agency hazardous Pdol May I5. 2010 Sa 149 waste site list pursuant -