Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1795 - RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION DEIR FOR MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE AND APPROVAL OF MD_2333 PACIFIC DRIVERESOLUTION NO. 1795 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE AND APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -080 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE (PA 2007 -133) WHEREAS, an application was filed by David R. Olson on behalf of Kim and Carolyn Megonigal, property owners, with respect to property located at 2333 Pacific Drive, requesting a modification permit to exceed the 3 -foot height lim itation in the front yard setback to allow for planter walls and a water feature; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 requires that all new development comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and City Council Ordinance No. 2007 -3 sets forth design criteria to insure that all new single -unit and two -unit residential projects are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 19, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. The application, plans, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the public view protection policies of the General Plan a nd Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent feasible by placing the development further down the bluff, limiting street level development to a single story, pulling back elements to avoid impacts to the public views from Begonia Park, and imposing an important view easement. 2. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the neighborhood compatibility policies of the General Plan. Placing the development further down the bluff and limiting street level development to a single story results in a building that is consistent with the scale and massing of the neighborhood. Providing clearstory windows on the front elevation and planters in the front yard opens the project to Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. 3. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the landform alteration policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3. These applicable policies and Criterion No. 7 require that consideration be given to landform protection in order to maintain the City's environmental character and to preserve visual resources. The coastal bluff in this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 2 of 31 significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the City's environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public views. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.93 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit, which are presented as follows: 1. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. The strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: ■ The subject property slopes from a curb elevation of 72.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) down to an elevation of 64 feet MSL at the dwelling. ■ The front portion of the lot needs to be filled in order to provide vehicular access to the residence and landscaping at street grade in a manner that is consistent with the development pattern of the neighboring properties. • Any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit, which constitutes a practical difficulty. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the requested modification will be compatible with existing development(s) in the neighborhood for the following reasons: ■ Most properties on Pacific Drive are developed with single - family dwellings with front yard setback designs that include landscaping and accessory structures at street grade. ■ The proposed planters will be at comparable heights when measured from the finished grade. ■ The proposed planters, along with the driveway and entry walkway redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, will provide a front yard that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood based on the following: • The proposed water feature will be removed. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 3 of 31 ■ The proposed driveway, entry walkway, and planters are conditioned to be redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6. Public views will not be substantially impacted with approval of the modification permit given the position of the proposed features necessitating the modification permit and the proposed single family residence. WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day comment period beginning on August 24, 2009, and concluding on October 8, 2009. The DEIR and comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. The Planning Commission has also considered draft Findings and Facts in support of Findings supporting the certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 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 are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, 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. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends certification of the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) attached as Exhibit A based upon the draft findings attached as Exhibit B. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 subject to the findings herein and conditions attached as Exhibit C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 4 of 31 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 19TH DAY NOVEMBER, 2009. AYES: Eaton, Hillgren, Hawkins, McDaniel, Peotter, Toerge, Unsworth NOES: None BY: C t obert Hawkins, C airman BY: U I L, - Charles Onsworth; Secretary Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 5 of 31 Exhibit "A" Megonigal Residence Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) Consists of: 1. Volume 1 - Draft Environmental Impact Report Dated August 2009 2. Volume 2 - Responses to Comments Dated November 2009 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2009 4. Errata dated November 2009 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 6of31 Exhibit "B" INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 7of31 Having received, reviewed and considered the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2009041010 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Megonigal Residence project (the "Project"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City ") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process. (3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description. (4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project- specific and cumulative impacts. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and /or mitigation measures. Section 6 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened. (7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the Megonigal Residence is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on May 11, 2009. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number (SCH No.) 2009041010 for the document. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on May 8, 2009 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on June 9, 2009. The Notice of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pace 8of31 In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 24, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on August 24, 2009 and ended on October 7, 2009. Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated November 9, 2009, as published by the City, during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on November _, 2009 in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. The following components comprise the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project (PA2007 -133): (a) Draft EIR, dated August 2009; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix D to the Final EIR, dated October 2009; (c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix E dated November 2009. (d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2009. The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on D _, 2009. 3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located at 2333 Pacific Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 0.1 -acre Project Site (4,412 square feet) with a 3,566 square -foot single - family residence. The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor; 934 square feet on the second floor; and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (includes a 428 - square foot, 2 -car garage). Vehicular access is from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. In addition to the indoor living area, 1,004 square feet of outdoor patio space on the three levels is provided. The applicant is requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the three -foot height limit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach up to 13 feet into the Begonia Avenue right -of -way, an encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department will also be required. The following discretionary approval is requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on May 8, 2009. The NOP provided for a 30 -day review period. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 9 of 31 NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, and the Orange County Clerk/Recorder. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: • Land Use and Planning • Aesthetics • Biological Resources 5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Single Unit Residential - Detached (RS -D)." The project site is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential. Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality — neither short-term (i.e., construction) nor long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Long -term emission sources associated with the proposed single - family residence include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic (i.e., based on about 10 vehicle trips per day), energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAOMD daily thresholds for all categories of pollutants. The project's long -term emissions would not violate any air quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health - related problems. The State Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 10 of 31 on the project site, the proposed project includes only one single - family residence. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed single - family residence would not be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts. Cultural Resources — The project site is currently undeveloped. No historic resources are identified either on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The site is no identified by the City as possessing potentially important historic resources. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and in the vicinity of the project site, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; no mitigation measures are required. Geology and Soils — The subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the subject property has a moderate to high probability to be subjected to seismic and associated hazards. The maximum credible earthquake on the NIFZ is estimated to be 7.6 with a probable magnitude of 6.6 on the Richter Scale. Estimated peak ground acceleration for the subject site from an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 -year period is 0.398. Similarly, the maximum credible earthquake on the Elsinore - Whittier Fault is 8.0, with a probable (Richter) magnitude of 7.2. Other faults capable of producing seismic activity that could affect the subject property include the San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults and the Whittier Fault, which is a northern branch of the Elsinore Fault. In addition to these faults, the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault is located less than 1.5 to 2.5 miles below the area. This fault and the Newport Inglewood fault (concealed segment), located approximately 750 to 1,000 feet from the subject site, are considered potential causative faults in the area. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, incorporation of the recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical report and adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce the potential adverse effects of ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. Based on the geologic exploration undertaken on the subject property, the site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation. These rocks do not have the potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, no groundwater is present to the depths and no loose sands or coarse silt is present. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is less than significant. Proper design of the proposed residence will ensure that ground failure, including that associated with liquefaction, will not pose a significant hazard to the development. Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Construction activities would involve the use of materials associated with the construction of a residential building, including oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size (i.e., single - family residence on a 4,400 square foot lot), it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. There is no indication that the subject site has been contaminated that would adversely affect site development. Although grading and site preparation activities will expose subsurface soils and result in the generation of fugitive dust, no hazardous emissions will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Hydrology and Water Quality — No stream or river exists on site. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a southerly direction over the bluff where it enters the City's storm drain system before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 11 of 31 containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. The actual amount of stormwater runoff generated from the building footprint and paved areas (totaling approximately 2,300 square feet) would be insignificant. Compliance with applicable building, grading and water quality codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check stage, will ensure that surface flows can be accommodate and water quality protected. . Project implementation will result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, which would generate additional surface runoff. However, the post - development impervious surfaces would be limited to approximately 2,300 square feet, which would not generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. As previously indicated, the project will be designed to incorporate on -site retention or similar features. As a result, the existing storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities in the project area have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result of the development of the subject property with one residence that could result in potential impacts to water quality. However, the project will be designed to comply with all relevant building, grading and water quality codes and policies to ensure that there will not be an adverse effect on water quality, either during construction or during the operational life of the project. Final plan check include the preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would occur. Compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the site will be designed to provide address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, site design will also address pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, etc. A cn -site retention and/or filtration or clarifiers would be required to meet water quality standards. The water quality features incorporated into the project will be selected to address the main pollutants of concern for a residential project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Implementation of the water quality features by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Noise — Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to minor cosmetic damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by construction vehicles and during such activities as caisson drilling and excavation may exceed the Federal Transportation Agency annoyance threshold (i.e., 78 VdB) for residential uses. Therefore, potential short-term impacts from vibration - induced annoyance may occur at residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment. However, these temporary annoyances will be less Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 12 of 31 than significant and would cease upon completion of the grading /excavation and foundation. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Development of this property with a single - family residential dwelling unit would not result in any changes in land use that include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by one home would be minor and compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Long -term noise levels would not be expected to increase as a result of the additional vehicular trips when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wane Airport are below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. • Population and Housing — The Project will result in an increase of one dwelling unit, consistent with the land use designation (RS -D). The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designation and zoning applicable to the subject property. Development of the site with one single - family residence in accordance with the adopted long -range plans for the subject property would not result in significant growth and, furthermore, would not result in the potential for unanticipated growth because the project is located in an area that is virtually built out. As "in -fill" development, construction of the proposed project would not necessitate the implementation of new infrastructure such as major roadway improvements and /or the extension of infrastructure that could induce unanticipated growth and development. All of the infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drains, roadways, etc., exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, the increase of one dwelling unit will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City. Together with the approved and planned development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "), a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Aerie condominium project and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and /or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, proposed single - family residence will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long - range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. • Recreation - The project will result in the construction of only one single - family residence on the site on the 4,400 square foot lot. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities. Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach given the small increase in population. On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because only Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 one dwelling unit is proposed for the Project, consistent with the City's General Plan projections. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and /or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in the addition of one single - family residence on a currently vacant lot that is surrounded by existing residential development. As a result, there will not be a significant increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure that adequate water pressure and related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the project complies with the CFC and related City codes. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is located in a residential neighborhood that is currently provided fire service. Development of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paoe 14 of 31 ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes. At the present time, therefore, this property has no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District because it is undeveloped. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, only one student would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for the project's school age child. However, the Project is subject to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Public Services: Other Public Facilities — Although development of the site with one single - family residence will occur, the potential increased demand for other public services is anticipated minor and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project would result in the development of only one dwelling unit, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach: Therefore, the Project will not have a significant cumulative effect on other public facilities. Traffic and Circulation — There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect (i.e., 10 trips /day) on traffic conditions. The proposed residential structure is under the 24 -foot height limit and would not encroach into any aviation - related air space. The proposed project is located approximately 4.5 miles from John Wayne Airport and is not located within an area that is affected by aircraft operations. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 15 of 31 During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a number of medium and heavy trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through - traffic for short periods of time. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed single - family residence would include the same automobile trip characteristics typically associated with similar residential development in the project area and would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Newport Beach Fire Department will review the site plan and will conducted a code compliance analysis with the.City's Building Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the residence. During construction, portions of Pacific Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction activities including construction vehicles. However, the use of flagmen would be required to facilitate circulation in the area. Pacific Avenue will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on- street parking may occur caused by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of machinery and construction materials. This will occur during construction and will cease when construction concludes. The project provides parking in accordance with the Zoning Code (two enclosed spaces). No public parking is presently afforded along the curb in front of the project site as it is painted as a "red curb;" therefore, construction of the proposed driveway approach will not displace any existing public parking. Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when the home is constructed. The Project will connect to existing water and wastewater facilities in the adjacent streets. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the addition of only one single - family dwelling unit. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly and would be within the long -range projections anticipated in the General Plan. Similarly, the Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production because only one dwelling unit will be constructed on the project site. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of the proposed project is within the long -range projections anticipated for the project site. When compared to other Cumulative projects proposed and approved in the City, the addition of one dwelling unit on the site would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study and EIR. In each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and/or a combination of one or more of these factors, the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 16 of 31 these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably.) Because standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmental effects have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. 6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the adopted General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or any policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Planning and Zoning Code. Discussion: Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the R -1 zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan adopted for the area.. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property, which encompasses approximately 0.1 acre (4,412 square feet) that is currently undeveloped, is located within the limits of the Central/Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although a small area encompassing 0.006 acre (approximately 261 square feet) of coastal bluff scrub exists on the site. However, the area is characterized as having a low overall habitat value as a result of habitat fragmentation, influence of surrounding human activities, and because it supports limited long -term habitat value. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or otherwise sensitive species identified as having a potential to occur on the property were observed during the biological surveys Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 17 of 31 conducted for the project Based on the findings of the project biologist, the habitat does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act, and therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCP /CLUP or the City's General Plan. As a result, the loss of the low quality, fragmented habitat would not conflict with the Central /Coastal NCCP. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City determines that project implementation will not result in the division of an established community. Discussion: The project proposes the landform alteration that would accommodate one single - family residence on the 4,412 square foot lot. The site is bounded by Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is developed with single - family residential development on three sides; Begonia Park abuts the site on the north and east. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a single - family home on the vacant property, development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent properties, which also support single - family homes. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: loll the Project result insubstantial or extreme land use incompatibility? Finding: The City determines that the proposed project is compatible with the existing development and would not result in an extreme land use incompatibility. Discussion: Development of the site, which is currently vacant, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed single - family residence is consistent with the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The introduction of a single - family residence would be consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the area, which is characterized by single - family and two- family residences. Furthermore, with the exception of the request for a modification permit that would allow a wall to extend above the three -foot height limit in the front yard setback, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the R -1 zoning district Extension of the wall above the three -foot height limit would not result in substantial visual impacts. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan? Finding: The City determines that project will not result in a conflict with the defined airport land use plan or result in incompatible land use in an aircraft accident potential area. Discussion: The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City determines that the project will not result in a cumulative land use and planning impact. Discussion: Although the Project Site is currently developed, it is identified for development in the City's adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLUP. No design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paoe 18 of 31 an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some native species exist on the bluff property, potential impacts to those species resulting from Project implementation would not be significant due to the low habitat value caused by limited species diversity and fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activity, and because natural functions have been compromised by the surrounding human influences. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result-of Project implementation. 6.2 AESTHETICS (1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No important view or aesthetic amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected by project implementation. Although no mitigation measures are required, the following measure, which requires the dedication of a view easement, will ensure that views through the site would be preserved. A mitigation measure was prescribed to minimize future potential aesthetic impacts: MM 4.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three - dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Discussion: The visual simulations included in the Draft EIR (refer to Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2) illustrate the existing and post - development scenarios with vegetation that existed on the slope below Begonia Avenue (below the lower bench in Begonia Park) prior to its removal by the City in March 2009. As is evident in those prior simulations, the vegetation that existed along the slope blocked a substantial portion of views of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean from both the lower and upper benches when these simulations are compared to the views that exist after the vegetation was removed. In order to address the change that has occurred since the vegetation was removed; a new visual simulation was created from approximately the same lower bench location depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. In addition, the new visual simulation depicting the proposed Megonigal residence is based on the story poles that were erected on the site in August of 2008, in order to more accurately illustrate the effect that the proposed project would have on the view, both before and after construction. The existing view from the lower bench location illustrated in the attached exhibit reveals an enhanced view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula since the vegetation that existed on the intervening slope was removed, compared to that illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. This southwesterly view from Begonia Park (specifically the Lower Bench) encompasses a variety of features Including residential development and open space located northwest of Carnation Avenue, residential development on eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula, waters of Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean (including the horizon) and residential development along Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Similar to the views prior to the vegetation removal, landscaping "filters" the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean especially on the right side of the image depiction. As a result, the view of the harbor; Balboa Peninsula and ocean is not completely free of obstructions. The most significant obstruction affecting this view is the large tree located in front of the Megonigal property. Nonetheless, the portion of view that is the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean that is now visible from this Begonia Park vantage point since the removal of the vegetation is nearly three times that of the area previously reflected in Exhibit 4.3 -1. With the removal of the vegetation, this portion of the view area now extends from the bluff on the south (i.e., left side of the exhibit) to just beyond the large tree in front of the project site near the Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive corner. These are the important elements that comprise the view from this vantage point. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 19 of 31 In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Park would be altered by the introduction of the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed residence will be more prominent within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would be blocked with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public vantage point in the park. Additionally, the overall view includes elements of the built environment including residential development and the proposed residence is consistent with elements of the surrounding built environment Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However, because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home. No further loss of views to the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would occur as a result of the proposed project. As previously indicated, the project was redesigned to eliminate one level of the proposed structure, which is below the maximum height limit permitted. In addition, a view easement will be dedicated (in perpetuity) above the building and all open space areas to ensure that no additional impacts to the views from Begonia Park would occur. Additional landscaping may also be incorporated into the landscape plan in order to "deemphasize" the appearance of the proposed structure within the Begonia Park viewshed. The proposed project represents a balance between private property /development rights and complying with the City's policies that are intended to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Therefore, potential visual impacts resulting from project implementation are considered to be less than significant. As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. (2) Potential Impact: Mill the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 20 of 31 Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the Aerie Project that was approved by the City, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed that Project- related impacts would be less than significant from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. Construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site, from this vantage. However, this location is not identified in the City's General Plan as a Public View Point. 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on sensitive biological resources, including sensitive or special status species. Discussion: Based on the biological survey conducted by Chambers Group, the composition of the vegetation supported on the subject property is dominated by disturbed non - vegetated areas, ornamental species and weedy exotic species. Approximately five percent of the site (261 square feet) supports low quality coastal bluff scrub habitat. As indicated in the Robert Hamilton "biological observation," this habitat is recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game as a rare plant community. However, as documented in the biological survey conducted on the subject property, overall habitat value of the coastal bluff scrub occurring on the site is low due to habitat fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activities, and because natural functions have been compromised by the surrounding human influences. Furthermore, no federal- or state- listed or other sensitive species were identified as having a potential to occur on the property. Therefore, the coastal bluff scrub habitat occupying the site does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act and, therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCPICLUP or the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan as suggested in the Hamilton "biological observation." No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect'on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 21 of 31 Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.) ? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Discussion: A survey conducted on the subject property revealed that only three habitat types occupy portions of the site, including disturbed (i.e., areas that are either devoid of vegetation such as dirt roads or those areas that have a high percentage of non - native weedy species), disturbed /ornamental (i.e., areas dominated by escaped or planted ornamental species with a high presence of non - native weedy species), and coastal bluff scrub (i.e., areas that support approximately 15 total native shrubs). No riparian habitat was identified on the site. No significant impacts to riparian habitat and /or species are anticipated as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: No riparian habitat exists on the subject property and no wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the site. Project implementation will not result in any potential adverse affects to either wetlands or riparian species. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Discussion: Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be affected by development of the subject property. As a result, the proposed project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources . Discussion: No native trees exist on the subject property that would be protected, either as a result of adopted policies or other resources agency requirements. Although the subject property and environs are not identified on Figures NR1 and NR2 in the Natural Resources Element, which identify important biological resources and environmental study areas, respectively, in the City, several policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan address biological resources, including NR 10.1 (resource protection, NR 10.4 (new development siting and design), NR 10.5 (significant or rare biological resources, etc. The analysis included in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 document the project's consistency with the applicable General Plan and CLUP policies. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 22 of 31 Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan. Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a coastal bluff, which is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. Although coastal bluff scrub habitat has been identified on the subject property, that habitat encompasses only 216 square feet, which is considered to be of low value and it is not connected or associated with any larger area of similar habitat and would not likely support any California coastal gnatcatchers due to its size and location. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact? Finding: The City determines the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. Discussion: Project implementation will not result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in Section 4.2. Although a small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat exists on the subject property (i.e., 261 square feet), the habitat has been characterized as "low quality/low value" habitat and does not support any sensitive species. Furthermore, no sensitive plant or animal species occur on the site that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Due to the low value of the coastal bluff scrub habitat, its degraded condition associated with human activities and disturbance, and lack of species diversity, it does not meet the criteria established in the Coastal Act and the City's General Plan for ESHAs. Therefore, the elimination of this habitat, when considered with other projects listed in Table 9 -1, is not significant 6.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Potential Impact: Will the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant traffic and circulation impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM -7 Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 23 of 31 Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Discussion: Short-term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., grading and site preparation) and construction activities. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, the number of vehicle trips generated by the project will be small. During the construction phase, there will be periods of time when heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion on Pacific Drive and nearby local /residential street system. It is estimated that a total of 52 heavy trucks would be generated as a result of the grading that would be necessary to haul the estimated 630 cubic yards of soil export from the site. However, once grading has been completed, the number of heavy trucks entering and leaving the project area would be limited to those transporting equipment and materials to the site. Other construction - related traffic impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary /short-term impact to vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from potentially minor impacts resulting from the increase in traffic that will occur as a result of construction - related traffic (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), no significant short-term impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the construction traffic impacts would be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. 6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5 or result in the destruction of a paleontological resource? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impacts to cultural and paleontological such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -1 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In addition, a qualified Native American representative will also be permitted to monitor grading activities and /or excavation of the site. In the event that cultural resources and/or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Discussion: The subject site is undeveloped; however, the area surrounding the site (with the exception of Begonia Park) has been significantly altered by grading to accommodate the existing development located on the bluff and elsewhere in the vicinity of the subject site. No known archaeological resources are known to be present in the project area. Project implementation includes excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed single - family residence. It is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing development in the area and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site (i.e., marine). Although no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, an archaeological monitor will be present during grading (to ensure that if any cultural materials are encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with existing Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 24 of 31 City policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas, including the bluff on which the existing homes are located, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses. The site contains the Monterey Formation deposits, which are known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. Like other sites in the City that are underlain by the Monterey Formation, the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation measure in accordance with existing City policy has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during grading /excavation activities. 6.6 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and/or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways. Discussion: A stability analysis was performed on the subject property by Borella Geology, Inc., as reflected in the preliminary geotechnical report ( Borella Geology, March 20, 2007). Based on that analysis, it was determined that the orientation of the bedrock on the site is dipping into the slope, which is the preferred orientation for maintaining slope integrity. However, surficially, the cliff portions of the subject property are unstable as evidenced by the talus deposits that are present at the base of the steep slopes. However, all slopes on the site were determined to be grossly stable. The maximum slope height is 47 feet and slope angle ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees. Calculated factors of safety are in excess of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (Pseudo- static) of factors of safety required by the City of Newport Beach. The preliminary geotechnical report indicated that temporary shoring or a "shotcrete" combination shoring /retaining wall must be placed on all vertical cuts exceeding five (5) feet if a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) layback cannot be achieved. However, temporary shoring is only anticipated in areas where retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate the lower floor level of the proposed residence. In addition, incorporation of the recommendations presented in the preliminary geotechnical evaluation and adherence to standard building code requirements will ensure that site development will not be subject to landslides. With the incorporation of those recommendations, potential landslide impacts will be less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -2 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 25 of 31 Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed single - family residence that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation: however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit an adequate drainage and erosion control plan, which complies with current City standards prescribed by the Building and Grading Ordinances. Implementation of the mandatory appropriate erosion controls will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Other efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion control. As a result, potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. 6.7 NOISE Potential Impact: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant noise impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM-4 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units. MM -5 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels. MM -6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Discussion: The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). Compliance with the existing noise control ordinance and hours of construction prescribed in the ordinance will minimize the potential noise impacts associated with project implementation. Other measures have been identified to ensure that construction noise is minimized. Typically, construction of single - family residential dwelling units on an individual basis in the City of Newport Beach, including on bluffs in the Clty, does not result in significant noise Impacts because of their small size and the duration of construction is not anticipated to occur over a long period of time (e.g., less than two years for custom home construction). Furthermore, the highest noise levels occur from excavation and caisson drilling associated with bluff development, which takes place during the initial stage of development and does not last more than 5 to 6 months). Therefore, because the project encompasses only one single - family residence, which would employ typical construction techniques and be constructed in approximately 20• months like most single - family residential construction in the City, potential construction noise impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision - making in accordance with Section Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 26 of 31 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity/5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (4) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: • NO PROJECT o Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuation of the existing conditions on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, "... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" Therefore, this alternative assumes that in the short-term, the site would remain vacant. As a result, no adverse environmental effects would occur until such time as development was proposed in accordance with the adopted land use and zoning designations. The site would remain undeveloped and would not be affected by grading and development. Specifically, without any landform alteration, the small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat would not be removed as a result of development in the near future; however, as indicated in Section 4.2, this habitat does not meet the criteria established for ESHAs by both the Coastal Act and the City in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Furthermore, without development of the site in the short-term, views from both Begonia Park and Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue would not be affected by the introduction of structures that would be added into the viewshed from those vantage points. Without development of the site, no conflicts with the plans, programs and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach would occur. o Attainment of Project Objectives — The "no project" alternative would not result in the realization of any of the project objectives in the short-term. However, in the long -term, it would be possible to achieve each of the objectives identified by the project applicant with the construction of a single - family residence that is similar to the proposed project. o Avoidance of Protect Impacts — Implementation of this alternative would defer project - related effects, including less than significant visual impacts associated with the development of the site (assuming that the residence complies with the maximum building height standard. In addition, biological impacts would also be the same as the proposed project (i.e., loss of 261 square feet of coastal bluff scrub habitat) as a result of site preparation. Similarly, if designed properly, this alternative would also be consistent with the long -range plans and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (REMOVE UPPER LEVEL) o Description — This alternative includes development of the site as proposed with a single - family residence with access from Pacific Drive; however, the third upper level above the average elevation of Pacific Drive would be eliminated. This possible alternative would result in the elimination of the garage and residential floor area (i.e., foyer and office area) comprising approximately 805 square feet. As a result, the total floor area of the residence would be reduced to 2,761 square feet. In addition, in order to accommodate on -site parking, the second floor roof structure would be designed to support automobile parking. o Attainment of Protect Obtectives — Implementation of this project would achieve all project objectives except for allowing a larger residence on the property, unless the project is redesigned to relocate the living space (i.e., foyer and study) lost with the elimination of the third floor within the floor plan. This alternative would provide views from all levels (although one level that included a foyer and study would be eliminated). It would provide vehicular access from Pacific Drive (to uncovered roof parking), it minimizes the visual effects of the residence on views from Begonia Park, and outdoor living areas would be directly accessible from each level. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 27 of 31 o Avoidance of Project Impacts — Although the proposed single - family residence would not result in significant impacts based on the significance criteria established for the project, the effects of the project could be reduced through the implementation of this alternative. Specifically, the residence would not extend into the viewshed of Begonia Park. ALTERNATIVE ACCESS (BAYSIDE DRIVE) Description — Vehicular access to the subject property in this design alternative would be provided from Bayside Drive, below the bluff, rather than from Pacific Drive where direct vehicular access is currently available. In addition, the third floor of the proposed residence (i.e., ground level floor at Pacific Drive that includes the garage, study and foyer) would be relocated as the first floor in order to remove that portion of the structure from the Begonia Park viewshed. As a result, the total floor area would be the same as the proposed project (i.e., 3,138 square feet, not including the garage). o Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would achieve most of the project objectives except it would not allow for vehicular access from Pacific Drive as desired by the project applicant. In addition, if this alternative is implemented, views from all of the levels of the home would not be provided because the living spaces in the third floor (i.e., foyer and study) would be relocated with the garage element as a result of the Bayview Drive access, unless the plan is redesigned to accommodate these living areas higher above the bluff to create harbor and ocean views. Avoidance of Project Impacts - Although the Alternative Access would improve views from Begonia Park and from Begonia Drive and Pacific Drive, additional adverse effects would occur. For example, it would be necessary to extend a private drive or roadway from Bayview Drive through the southern limits of Begonia Park and up the lower elevation of the bluff to accommodate vehicular access. The extension of the road through the park would alter the park setting and would conflict with policies related to the preservation of the character of that facility. Furthermore, the applicant must be granted an access easement through the park. Finally, it is anticipated that in order to extend the roadway to the site from Bayview Drive, additional landform alteration would also be required. As a result, nearly the entire bluff face would be altered. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 28 of 31 Exhibit "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Standard conditions regular type Project specific condition in italics 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Department. 4. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 5. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 6. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to 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 Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. As provided in City Standard 110 -L. 10. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion' of the Public Works Inspector. 11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 12. Water meter and the sewer cleanout will be located in the public right -of -way. If installed at a location that will be subjected to vehicle traffic, each shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 29 of 31 13. The existing street tree(s) shall be protected in place. Unauthorized tree removal(s) will trigger substantial penalties for all parties involved. 14. Paving in the public right -of -way shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the driveway and a walkway to the entry to the residence. A standard concrete sidewalk and driveway approach be shall be constructed per applicable City Standards. All remaining areas shall be landscaped. Non - standard encroachments within the public right -of -way shall comply with City Council Policy L -6, prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 15. The proposed planters and water feature shall be removed from the public right -of -way. 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of the principal structure, landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three - dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director (MM 4.3 -1). 17. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Megonigal Residence Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 collectively referred to as PA 2007 -133; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 18. All development proposed for the proposed single - family residence shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits (SC 4.1 -1). 19. Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety (MM -7). Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 30 of 31 a. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. b. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. c. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. d. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic. e. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. 20. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour (SC -1). 21. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily (SC -2). 22. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible (SC -3). 23. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and dellvery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City (SC -4). 24. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers (SC -5). 25. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water - based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 31 of 31 hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter (SC -6). 26. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units (MM -4). 27. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels (MM -5). 28. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint (MM- 6). 29. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted (SC 4.3 -1). 30. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare (SC 4.3 -2). 31. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.2 -1). 32. Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official (MM -2). 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways (MM -3).