Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 - Balboa Marina West MNDCITY OF F NEWPORT REACH City Council Staff Report November 25, 2014 Agenda Item No. 21 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director — (949) 644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager PHONE: (949) 644-3235 TITLE: Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration Appeal Located at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway (PA2012-103) ABSTRACT: The Linda Isle Homeowners Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Balboa Marina West project located at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a de novo public hearing; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-99, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Upholding and Affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) for Balboa Marina West Located at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway (PA2012-103), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Staff Report Attachment No. CC 1). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: As a joint project with the Irvine Company, the City has allocated $125,000 for environmental analysis and permitting costs. It will be expensed to the Public Works Department, in account 7231-C4402009. Project construction and related costs would solely be the responsibility of the Irvine Company. DISCUSSION: Introduction The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment No. CC 2) is for the Balboa Marina West project, a joint project between the City and the Irvine Company. The Balboa Marina West project would result in a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improvement and expansion of the existing Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and 12 public boat slips including eight new slips and four slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips and a new gangway are proposed. On the land -side area of the marina, the project includes the demolition of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 -square - foot building located at 201 East Coast Highway. A reconfigured parking lot and 19,400 -square -foot - marine commercial building is proposed and is anticipated to house a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. Typically, environmental documents are reviewed and adopted at the same public hearing as the project approvals. However, the water -side component of the Balboa Marina West project may be reviewed prior to submission of an application for the land -side component of Balboa Marina West. If the MND is approved, the Irvine Company anticipates that it will file an application for the land -side component, which will include a site development review for the marine commercial building and reconfigured parking lot and a conditional use permit for the restaurant. Action related to the MND is based only on the merits that the environmental analysis adequately identifies the potential impacts of the proposed project. Approval of the MND does not predetermine the City's future consideration of discretionary permits. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the MND on October 2, 2014. Much of the discussion during the meeting focused on an analysis by the City's environmental consultant in response to comments received during the MND's public review period and additional comments received shortly before the meeting from an attorney representing the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. During the Planning Commission meeting, three members of the public spoke on the item: an attorney representing the Linda Isle Homeowners Association; a Bayside Drive resident who spoke on the need to mitigate traffic and noise impacts; and a resident who commented on the MND process and the concerns of the adjacent residents. After consideration of the MND, public comments, the responses to comments received during the MND's public review period, the staff report and other evidence including the testimony providing during the pubic hearing, the Planning Commission determined that recirculation of the MND was not warranted and voted unanimously to approve the MND. The minutes, resolution, staff report, and additional materials received from the Planning Commission meeting are attached for reference (Attachment Nos. CC 3, CC 4, CC 5 and CC 6, respectively). The Anneal On October 16, 2014, the Linda Isle Homeowners Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND. The appeal requests that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission decision to approve the MND and direct City staff to revise and re -circulate the MND to incorporate "additional Project corrections, clarifications and mitigation measures", or, alternatively, prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). (Attachment No. CC 7). The City's environmental consultant has prepared a detailed analysis of issues raised in the appeal letter (Attachment CC 8). The issues and responses are summarized as follows: Issue 1 The MND violates CEQA by failing to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project together with the approved Back Bay Landing project. Response: Although the Back Bay Landing project was inadvertently omitted from a list of pending projects, it was nevertheless considered a cumulative development project by the MND. There are no portions of the Back Bay Landing project with a potential to result in cumulatively considerable effects beyond what is already identified and disclosed in the MND. The City provided a corrected list of evaluated 21-2 cumulative projects in the MND Errata, which was presented to the Planning Commission. Issue 2 The MND's analysis of temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts is inadequate Response: Additional noise measurements taken from inside Linda Isle would not have altered the analysis or the findings of the MND because the noise study took the most conservative approach possible when assessing the impact of the project's operational noise levels on the residents of Linda Isle. This assumed that Linda Isle is currently exposed to ambient noise levels that are at or below the City's nighttime, which is the most stringent criteria for the evaluation of operational noise impacts from the project. The MND concluded that a potentially significant noise impact would only occur if the proposed building has noise -generating activities on an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. As the precise location and design of any outdoor patio is not yet known, the MND properly concludes that an acoustical study will be required once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the building tenants are known as required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1. The MND does not violate CEQA's prohibition on deferred mitigation and instead provides a performance-based mitigation standard that must be achieved as part of future implementing actions to ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance. The noise model used in the analysis accounts for noise from vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, and patrons talking in the parking lot, as well as pedestrians walking along the marina frontage. It was concluded that these activities will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards. Noise impacts associated with the proposed parking areas and associated grade changes were accounted for in the acoustical study. The analysis concludes that parking lot noise would be below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards. The data used to predict future construction -related noise and vibration levels relied on actual, extensively measured construction activity from the 2008/9 Balboa Marina dock replacement project, which is in the same physical location as the proposed project. Thus, instead of relying on theoretical noise and vibration modeling, the MND assumed as a worst-case assumption that the same level of noise and vibration would be experienced by surrounding properties as a result of the currently proposed project as occurred from the more extensive construction and pile driving processes measured in 2008/9. The MND properly concludes that mitigation measures for vibration during construction are unnecessary to ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance. Issue 3 Additional information and analysis of the project's water and wastewater demands are requested. Response: As noted in the City's responses to comments on the draft MND, the water and wastewater demand calculations were re-evaluated and there was a slight increase in demand for irrigation water as compared to what was disclosed by the MND. The City revised MND as in the Errata provided to the Planning Commission to accurately reflect the water demand for the entire Project site. The revision is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the MND to be recirculated. Issue 4 Additional information and analysis of the project's aesthetic impacts, particularly related to light, glare, and building height are requested. The MND contains an extensive evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, including the effects of light, glare, and scenic view obstruction associated with building height. The building location, parking lot grade changes, and proposed landscaping would block vehicle headlights from view of Linda Isle. Therefore, 21-3 there is no potential for vehicle headlights in the reconfigured parking lot to result in a new source of substantial light or glare. The MND presents an extensive evaluation of the maximum permitted bulk and scale of the building. The MND concluded that the "worst-case" building height of 40 feet would not substantially block public views or degrade visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, because the specific architectural details of the building are not available at this time, Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and AE -2 are imposed to ensure that when the future building design is reviewed by the City, it meets all of the applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Finally, although a building height of 35 feet was proposed for Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project, the Back Bay Landing EIR did not cite the building height limitation as the basis of its conclusion that there would be a less than significant aesthetic impact resulting from the implementation of Back Bay Landing and other surrounding cumulative projects, including up to 35,000 square feet of future development on the Balboa Marina West property. Issue 5 The MND should be revised to provide additional information and clarify the project's grading impacts. Response: The earthwork quantities presented in the IS/MND are accurate. Worst-case traffic associated with haul trucks during grading operations represents only a fraction of the project's operational trips, and because less than significant impacts would occur under operating conditions, it can therefore be concluded that impacts associated with haul truck trips also would be less than significant. Issue 6 The MND has piecemealed its analysis of the project's environmental effects by not adequately acknowledging the range of land uses allowed pursuant to the site's existing CM (Commercial Recreational and Marine) zoning designation, and by providing an inconsistent project description. Response: The project proposes to implement the site's existing CM zoning designation, which allows for a variety of land uses. However, based on a review conducted by the City of the range of land uses permitted by right in the CM zone, it was determined that a restaurant represents the most intensive allowable use due to its associated noise, traffic, and other environmental effects. The MND did not "piecemeal" its analysis of the proposed project because there are no components of the project's future discretionary or ministerial approvals that would result in impacts to the environment that are greater than what is disclosed in the MND. Issue 7 The MND must be revised and recirculated. Response: CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5 describes the conditions under which the MND is required to be re -circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5 requires the City to recirculate the MND if the document is substantially revised. A "substantial revision" is defined as a circumstance under which: a. A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or, b. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measure or revisions must be required. As summarized above and as more fully discussed in the City's responses to comments on the Draft MND and the analysis provided in response to the appeal, there have been no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect 21-4 requiring mitigation. In addition, based on comments received on the MND, only minor, non -substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the MND were required. Therefore, the MND circulated for public review is adequate, and all conclusions presented in the MND were supported by evidence provided within the MND or the administrative record for the proposed project. As a result, recirculation is not required. City Council Review Hearing Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C.3 (Conduct of Hearing), review of an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission is "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision of the Planning Commission to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 has no force or effect. The City Council may sustain, reverse, modify the decision of the Planning Commission, or remand the matter for further consideration, and is not bound by the Commission's decision or limited to the issues raised by the appeal. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Response to Comment Letters, and Errata can be viewed and downloaded at htti)://www.newportbeachca.gov/ceciadocuments. NOTICING: Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment CC 1 - Draft Resolution Attachment CC 2 - MND Attachment CC 3 - PC Minutes Attachment CC 4 - PC Resolution Attachment CC 5 - PC Staff Report Attachment CC 6 - Additonal Materials Received Attachment CC 7 - Appeal Form and Letter Attachment CC 8 - Analysis of Appeal Application 21-5 Attachment CC 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH UPHOLDING AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) FOR BALBOA MARINA WEST LOCATED AT 151 AND 201 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2012-103) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway, to construct a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina, and construct a 19,400-square-foott marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. 2. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 3. On October 16, 2014, the Linda Isle Homeowners Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002. 4. A public hearing was held on November 25, 2014, in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 5. Pursuant to Section 20.95.060.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on August 18, 2014, and ending on September 17, 2014. The 21-6 City Council Resolution No. 2014- Paqe 2 of 5 environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 3. An Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "B"), dated September 23, 2014, was prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required when new information is added to the document which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit "A". The Response to Comments and Errata are attached as Exhibit "B". The documents and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division at City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 6. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby uphold and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044). 21-7 City Council Resolution No. 2014- Paqe 3 of 5 SECTION 2: This resolution was approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 25th day of November, 2014, by the following vote, to wit: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. 2014- Paqe 4 of 5 Exhibit "A" Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) Including the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program This document is available at. httlp://www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments 21-9 City Council Resolution No. 2014- Paqe 5 of 5 Exhibit "B" Response to Comments and Errata 21-10 Attachment CC 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) This document is available at. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments Original Hardcopy Report located with Resolution 2014-99 21-11 Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration BALBOA MARINA WEST CEQA Lead Aaenc City of Newport Beach Community Development Dept. Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Joint Project Applicants: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 CEQA Consultant: T&B Planning, Inc. 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 August 18, 2014 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Page 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Document................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 CEQA Requirements for Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs)........... 1-1 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Declaration .................... 1-2 1.4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration........ 1-3 2.0 Environmental Setting...................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location.................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Background .......... ................................................................................ 2-1 2.3 CEQA Requirements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Existing Site and Area Characteristics............................................................2-2 2.4.1 Site Access.............................................................................................. 2-2 2.4.2 Existing Site Conditions..........................................................................2-2 2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development........................................2-3 2.5 City Planning Context.......................................................................................2-3 2.5.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan.................................................2-3 2.5.2 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan................................2-4 2.5.3 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designations.....................................2-5 2.6 Existing Environmental Characteristics...........................................................2-5 2.6.1 Air Quality...............................................................................................2-5 2.6.2 Topography, Geology and Soils..........................................................2-5 2.6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................2-6 2.6.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................2-6 2.6.5 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources ........... 2-7 2.6.6 Rare and Unique Resources.................................................................2-7 3.0 Project Description........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Purpose and Need and Project Objectives .................................................. 3-2 3.1.1 Water -Side Development Areas A and B ..........................................3-3 3.1.2 Land -Side Development- Area C .......................................................3-4 3.2 Construction Characteristics -Water -Side Development.............................3-6 3.3 Construction Characteristics -Land -Side Development...............................3-7 3.4 Project Approval Process.................................................................................3-8 4.0 Project Information........................................................................................................4-1 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis..............................................5-1 5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................. 5-1 5.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) ............................ 5-1 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary ........................ 5-2 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...........................................................5-14 5.4.1 Aesthetics.............................................................................................5-14 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................5-37 5.4.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................5-39 5.4.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................5-49 5.4.5 Cultural Resources...............................................................................5-60 5.4.6 Geology and Soils................................................................................5-65 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page ii No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Number/Title Page 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................5-71 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................5-75 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................5-82 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning.......................................................................5-90 5.4.11 Mineral Resources...............................................................................5-95 5.4.12 Noise......................................................................................................5-96 5.4.13 Population and Housing...................................................................5-109 5.4.14 Public Services .................................... .................. .............................. 5-110 5.4.15 Recreation..........................................................................................5-111 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic........................................................................5-112 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................5-124 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance...............................................5-129 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program......................................................... 6-1 7.0 References..................................................................................................................... 7-1 8.0 Persons Contributing to IS/MND Preparation.............................................................8-1 8.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation ....................8-1 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page iii ME ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES The reports identified below are included within the Technical Appendices to this MND, and are herein incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150. These reports are attached to this MND (bound separately) and also are available for review at the City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660, during regular business hours. A. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment B. Marine Biological Impact Assessment C. Jurisdictional Delineation Report D. Coastal Engineering Study E. Impact Assessment for Proposed Project Alternatives F. Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report G. Geotechnical Investigation H. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment I. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan J. Noise Study K. Traffic Impact Analysis L. Visual Simulations M1. General Plan Consistency Analysis M2. Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page iv No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration Fiaure Number/Title Paae Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map....................................................................................2-8 Figure2-2 Vicinity Map........................................................................................................2-9 Figure 2-3 Aerial Photograph...........................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-4 Existing and Surrounding Land Uses..............................................................2-11 Figure 2-5 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations..............................................2-12 Figure 2-6 Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations...............................................2-13 Figure 2-7 Existing Zoning Designations...........................................................................2-14 Figure 3-1 Marina Existing Conditions..............................................................................3-10 Figure3-2 Concept Plan...................................................................................................3-11 Figure 3-3 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 1) ...3-12 Figure 3-4 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2) ...3-13 Figure 3-5 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion (Concept Plan Overlain on ExistingCondition)...................................................................................................................3-14 Figure 3-6 Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Site Sections .......................3-15 Figure 3-7 Concept Plan with Parking Lot Circulation and Pedestrian Access ........ 3-16 Figure 3-8 Conceptual Architectural Rendering - Building Design.............................3-17 Figure 3-9 Conceptual Landscape Plan........................................................................3-18 Figure 3-10 Water -Side Dredging Footprint......................................................................3-19 Figure 3-11 Land -Side Demolition ...................................... ................................................ 3-20 Figure 5-1 Site Photos Key Map........................................................................................5-15 Figure 5-2 Site Photos 1 through 4...................................................................................5-16 Figure 5-3 Site Photos 5 through 9...................................................................................5-17 Figure 5-4 General Plan Coastal Views Map.................................................................5-19 Figure 5-5 Photo Simulation Key Map.............................................................................5-23 Figure 5-6 Visual Simulation 1...........................................................................................5-24 Figure 5-7 Visual Simulation 2...........................................................................................5-25 Figure 5-8 Visual Simulation 3...........................................................................................5-26 Figure 5-9 Visual Simulation 4...........................................................................................5-27 Figure 5-10 Visual Simulation 5...........................................................................................5-28 Figure 5-11 Visual Simulation 6...........................................................................................5-29 Figure 5-12 Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels...............................................5-103 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page v No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF FIGURES Fiaure Number/Title Paae Figure 5-13 Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes.. 5-1 16 Figure 5-14 Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ... 5-117 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page vi No ■F]Mitigated Negative Declaration LIST OF TABLES Table Number/Title Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................5-73 Table 3-1 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits...................................... Table 5-1 SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status .......... Table 5-2 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ........................ Table 5-3 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions......... Table 5-4 Area and Operational Emissions ........................................... Page ... 3-9 ..................... 5-40 ..................... 5-43 ..................... 5-44 Table 5-5 LST Emissions — Construction.............................................................. .......... 5-45 ..........5-48 Table 5-6 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................5-73 Table 5-7 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards ..........................5-97 Table 5-8 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards ........................5-101 Table 5-9 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels....................................................5-104 Table 5-10 Significant Noise Impact Criteria.................................................................5-104 Table 5-11 Summary of Existing Noise Measurements.................................................5-105 Table 5-12 Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels..........................................5-107 Table 5-13 Project Trip Generation.................................................................................5-115 Table 5-14 Existing (Year 2014)+ Project Intersection Capacity ................................. 5-1 18 Table 5-15 Year 2017+ Project Intersection Capacity.................................................5-120 Table 5-16 Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity................................5-121 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page vii NN ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction The Balboa Marina West Project evaluated in this Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is jointly proposed by the City of Newport Beach and Irvine Company. The Project proposes to add a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina. The Project site consists of 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. The site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive, and east of the Lower Newport Bay channel in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. 1.1 Purpose of this Document The Balboa Marina West Project is the subject of analysis in this document pursuant to CEQA. The content of this MND complies with all criteria, standards, and procedures of CEQA (California Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.). CEQA is a statewide environmental law contained in Public Resources Code §§21000- 21177 that applies to most public agency decisions to carry out, authorize, or approve actions that have the potential to adversely affect the environment. CEQA requires that before a public agency makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about the project's potential environmental impacts, give the public an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment. As defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15367, the City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project. "Lead Agency" refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Approvals required of the City of Newport Beach to implement the proposed Project include, but are not limited to, an Approval in Concept, Harbor Development Permit, Site Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit. These actions and other approval actions required of the City, County of Orange, California Coastal Commission, other state agencies, and federal agencies to fully implement the Project are described in more detail in Section 3.0, Project Description. If this MND is approved by the City of Newport Beach, Responsible and Trustee agencies with approval authorities over the Project can use this MND as the CEQA compliance document as part of their decision making processes. 1.2 CEQA Reaulrements for Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDsI An MND is a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project, which is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines §15371). The CEQA Guidelines require the preparation of a MND if the Initial Study prepared for a project identifies potentially significant effects, but: 1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-1 NN 0 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed MND and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; and 2) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15070[b]) 1.3 Format and Content of this Mitigated Negative Declaration The following components comprise the MND in its entirety: 1) This document, including all Sections. Section 5.0 contains the completed Environmental Checklist/Initial Study and its associated analyses, which document the reasons to support the findings and conclusions of the Initial Study. 2) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which summarizes all mitigation measures imposed on the proposed Project to ensure that effects to the environment are reduced to less -than -significant levels. The basis for the MMRP is found in the Environmental Checklist/Initial Study. The MMRP also indicates the required timing for the implementation of each mitigation measure, identifies the parties responsible for implementing and/or monitoring the mitigation measures, and identifies the level of significance following the incorporation of mitigation. In addition, Project Design Features (PDFs) have been incorporated where appropriate to reduce potential environmental effects through the use of development components that ensure impacts are minimized. 3) Fourteen technical reports that evaluate the effects of the proposed Project, which are attached as Technical Appendices A through M2. These technical reports also are on file and available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division (100 Civic Center Drive; Newport Beach, California 92660) and are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15150. A. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment, prepared by KPC EHS Consultants, and dated June 2014. B. Marine Biological Impact Assessment for the Balboa Marina West Project, prepared by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., and dated December 12, 2013. C. Jurisdictional Delineation Report Balboa Marina West Expansion, prepared by Anchor QEA, LP, and dated Revised December 2013. D. Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Coastal Engineering Study, prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc., and dated July 2013. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-2 NN ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction E. Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Impact Analysis for Proposed Alternatives, prepared by Everest International Consultants, Inc., and dated March 2013. F. Balboa Marina West Expansion Project Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report, prepared by New Fields, and dated February 7, 2014. G. Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Restaurant Balboa Marina Newport Beach, California, prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc., and dated April 8, 2014. H. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., and dated April 30, 2014 and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., and dated May 16, 2014. I. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Balboa Marina West Redevelopment Project, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., and dated April 23, 2014. J. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Balboa Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA, prepared by Wieland Acoustics, and dated July, 17 2014. K. Balboa Marina West Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc., and dated April 17, 2014. L. Visual Simulations, prepared by BCV, and dated June 23, 2014. M1. General Plan Consistency Analysis for the Balboa Marina West Project, Prepared by T&B Planning, Inc. and dated July 30, 2014. M2. Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis for the Balboa Marina West Project, Prepared by T&B Planning, Inc. and dated July 30, 2014. 1.4 Preparation and Processing of this Mitigated Negative Declaration The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division directed and supervised the preparation of this MND. Although prepared with assistance of the consulting firm T&B Planning, Inc., the content contained within and the conclusions drawn by this MND reflect the sole independent judgment of the City of Newport Beach. This MND and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND will be distributed to the following entities for a 30 -day public review period: 1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Newport Beach; 2) direct mailing to the owners of property contiguous to the Project site and property owners within a 300 -foot radius as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; 3) responsible Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-3 NN ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 Introduction and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); 4) the County of Orange Clerk; and 5) the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, for review by State agencies. The NOI identifies the location(s) where the MND and its associated MMRP and Technical Appendices are available for public review. In addition, notice of the public review period also will occur via posting of a notice on- and off-site (at City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive) in the area where the Project is to be located and publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area.. The NOI also establishes a 30 - day public review period during which comments on the adequacy of the MND document may be provided to the City of Newport Beach Planning Division. Following the 30 -day public review period, the City of Newport Beach will review any comment letters received and determine whether any substantive comments were provided that may warrant revisions to the MND document. If substantial revisions are not necessary (as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15073.5(b)), then the MND will be finalized and forwarded to the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission for review as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed Project. A public hearing(s) will be held before the City's Planning Commission to consider the proposed Project and the adequacy of this MND. Public comments will be heard and considered at the hearing(s). If the MND is approved, the Planning Commission will adopt findings relative to the Project's environmental effects as disclosed in the MND and a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be filed with the County of Orange Clerk. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 1-4 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.1 Prolect Location Balboa Marina is located in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay in the City of Newport Beach, California. The entire Newport Bay is approximately 1,600 acres in size. Lower Newport Bay is approximately 800 acres in size with about 750 acres of open water. It serves as a small boat harbor containing concrete bulkheads and floating docks. As such, Newport Harbor is one of the largest small boat harbors on the United States' Pacific coastline. Properties surrounding Lower Newport Bay are used for a variety of purposes including but not limited to tourism, residential, commercial, marina, and recreation. As shown on Figure 2-1, Regional Location Map, and Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map, the Project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive. Specifically, the Project site comprises 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. The Project site encompasses Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 050-451-01, 050-451-02, 050- 451-03, 050-451-10, 050-451-55, 050-451-59, 050-451-060, 440-132-39, and 440-132-51. 2.2 Project Background Prior to approximatelyl947 the land -side portion of Project site was an undeveloped lot. In approximately 1947, the property began to be used as a marina. Around 1953, the current on-site commercial building was constructed and the property and adjacent water -side area began functioning as the Balboa Marina. Part of the water -side portion of the site was occupied for approximately 40 years by a floating vessel that housed the Ruben E. Lee Riverboat restaurant and later by the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, but the vessel was dismantled and removed from the site in 2008. Only the cement bulkhead that served the vessel remains under existing conditions. In 2005, Irvine Company filed a Planning Application with the City of Newport Beach proposing the reconstruction of the aging marina, which was n earing the end of its useful life. During the City Harbor Commission review of the project, a request was made of Irvine Company to set aside four (4) boat slips for use by the general public in the private marina. A MND was approved for the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement project by the City of Newport Beach on February 14, 2007 (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2007011017). The Project as approved consisted of replacing the then -existing 132 slip, 27,550 SF dock with a 20,483 SF dock to accommodate 105 boat slips available to vessel sizes from 22 to 58 feet in length. An Addendum to the Balboa Marina Dock Replacement MND (SCH 200701 1 01 7) was prepared in December 2008 to evaluate the installation of a seawall earth anchor system to improve the stability of the existing seawall. In 2008, the California Coastal Commission issued a Coastal Development Permit allowing for the reconstruction of the marina, which was completed in 2009. Under existing conditions, the Balboa Marina provides 105 slips for boats ranging in length from 22 to 58 feet, including four (4) transient slips available to general public. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-1 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Since 2009, Irvine Company has discovered that management of the marina is challenging in terms of providing security for the private lessees while still providing open access to the four (4) public slips. In 2011 the City of Newport Beach Harbor Commission, Harbor Resources Department, and Irvine Company initiated discussions about the potential for relocating the public slips out of the private marina to a new public transient dock. A City Council Study session took place on March 27, 2012, in which the joint effort of the City and Irvine Company was discussed and supported for additional analysis. 2.3 CEQA Reaulrements for Environmental Setting and Baseline Conditions CEQA Guidelines § 15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as "...the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced...... (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]) In the case of the proposed Project, the Initial Study determined that an MND is the appropriate form of CEQA compliance document, which does not require a Notice of Preparation (NOP). Thus, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is the approximate date that the Project's environmental analysis commenced. The City of Newport Beach deemed the proposed Project's application complete and commenced environmental review of the Project in December 2013. Accordingly, the environmental setting for the proposed Project is defined as the physical environmental conditions on the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site as they existed in December 2013. Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, provides a summary of the existing physical environmental conditions of the Project site and surrounding areas as t hey existed in December 2013. 2.4 Existing Site and Area Characteristics 2.4.1 Site Access Direct roadway access to the existing Balboa Marina parking lot is via East Coast Highway. Secondary roadway access is provided via Bayside Drive. East Coast Highway provides access to State Route 55 (SR -55), located approximately 1.6 miles west of the Project site. Jamboree Road is located approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project site and provides access to Interstate 405 (1-405), which is located approximately 5.9 miles to the north of the Project site. Primary access from the Pacific Ocean from the west is via the channel of Lower Newport Bay and the private boat dock area and four (4) transient public boat slips located in the existing Balboa Marina. 2.4.2 Existing Site Conditions Under existing conditions, the land -side portion of the Project site comprises 3.5 acres. The land -side development area is occupied by a 1,200 SF building, located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-2 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting remainder of the ground surface is comprised of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot. The existing 313 parking stalls currently serve the marina and the adjacent Sol Restaurant. The parking lot is enclosed by ornamental vegetation with access to the private boat slips restricted by an approximately three (3) -foot high aluminum gate. Light poles and trees in planters are interspersed throughout the parking lot. Two (2) approximately three (3) -foot high cement monuments containing the words "Balboa Marina" flank each side of the driveway entrance to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway. Two palm trees surrounded by ground vegetation exist behind the entrance monument on one side of the entrance driveway. The paved parking lot has a seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. The existing seawall consists of a series of concrete panels with two sets of tie -back anchors (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3). The water -side portion of the Project site comprises 0.87 acres of water surface and submerged land. The submerged lands are designated State Tidelands administered and under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The water -side development area currently supports a private dock area with 107 boat slips, including four (4) public transient boat slips. Rock riprap extends several meters seaward into the low intertidal/shallow subtidal. Beyond the riprap, the Lower Newport Bay floor consists of silts, sands, and shell debris (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 8). 2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Development The Project site is located along the eastern side of Newport Harbor in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay. As shown on Figure 2-4, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking; on the south by water surface and Linda Isle, a m an -made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter; on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots; and on the west by the channel of Lower Newport Bay. 2.5 City Planning Context 2.5.1 City of Newport Beach General Plan As shown on Figure 2-5, Existing General Plan Land Use Designations, the Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal - dependent and coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are also designated by the General Plan as Recreational and Marine Commercial, but a greater floor area ratio is allowed than permitted on the Project site (CM 0.5 FAR). Properties bordering the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-3 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting channel and located east of the Project site have the same General Plan land use designation as the Project site, which is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are designated by the General Plan as General Commercial (CG 0.3 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are designated by the General Plan as Single Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). 2.5.2 City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) declares it a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development 1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the state coastal commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the Coastal Commission. The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified LCP, and therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDP). The City does, however, have a C oastal Land Use Plan that has been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Because the City does not have permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning regulations before a CDP application can be filed with the California Coastal Commission. As shown on Figure 2-6, Existing Coastal Land Use Plan Designations, the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). The CM category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor - serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on the waterfront and commercial and industrial building sites on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2009). Properties located north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are also designated by Coastal Land Use Plan as Recreational and Marine Commercial but development is allowed at a higher floor area ratio than allowed on the Project site (CM -B, 0.00-0.50 FAR). Properties bordering the channel and located east of the Project site have the some Coastal Land Use Plan designation as the Project site, which is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A 0.00-0.30 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are designated by the Coastal Land Use Plan as General Commercial (CG- A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are designated Single Unit Residential Detached 6.0-9.9 DU/AC (RSD -B). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-4 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting 2.5.3 City of Newport Beach Zoning Designations As shown on Figure 2-7, Existing Zoning Designations, the Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). The CM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for commercial development on or near the waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal - related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on sites located on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are zoned by the Newport Beach Municipal Code as P lanned Community (PC -9). Properties bordering the channel and located east of the Project site have the same zoning designation as the Project site, which is Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive, properties are zoned Commercial General (CG 0.3 FAR). Properties located across the water on Linda Isle are zoned Single -Unit Residential (R-1). 2.6 Existing Environmental Characteristics 2.6.1 Air Quality The City of Newport Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB, or "Basin"), which is within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The climate of Southern California found in the Newport Beach area of the SCAB is described as a Mediterranean -type climate characterized by long warm summers and moderate winters with moderate precipitation and a maritime influence giving a marine layer and a temperature inversion layer. The coastal areas of the SCAB, including the Project site, have better air quality than inland portions of the Basin. Regardless, the SCAQMD reports a se vere air pollution problem in the SCAB as a consequence of the combination of emissions and meteorological conditions which are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. In the SCAB, high concentrations of ozone are n ormally recorded during the spring and summer months, while high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are generally recorded in late fall and winter. High particulate matter concentrations can occur throughout the year, but occur most frequently in the fall and winter. 2.6.2 Topography, Geology and Soils Under existing conditions, the land -side portion of the Project site consists of approximately 85% impervious conditions containing a 1,200 SF building and a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. An approximately 3- to 4- foot change in elevation separates the beach from the parking lot (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 3). The parking lot slopes upward toward East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. The subsurface soil profile on the land -side portion of the Project site consists of mostly fine grain to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-5 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Inc, 2014, p. 3) In the water -side portion of the Project site, soils on the water bottom consist of sand. Southern California is a seismically active area an d properties in the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity. The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, so there is no potential for ground rupture at the site. Faults zones in the regional vicinity (as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-1, Regional Faults (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5-1)) with the potential to cause moderate ground shaking in the City of Newport Beach include the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the San Joaquin fault zone, and the Elysian fault zone. 2.6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality The Project site is located in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay, which is approximately 800 acres in size with about 750 acres of open water. It serves as a small boat harbor containing concrete bulkheads and floating docks. The 13.2 square mile Newport Bay Watershed drains into the Santa Ana Delhi Channel and the San Diego Creek that discharges into Upper Newport Bay. Both Upper Newport Bay and Lower Newport Bay are linked as an integrated estuary ecosystem that begins in the mud flats and tidal marshes of the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, continues into the eelgrass beds of the Lower Newport Bay, and finally reaches the coastal marine intertidal and subtidal habitats of the Newport Coast (Harbor Resources Division, City of Newport Beach, 2010, p. 4). The ocean inlet for Newport Bay is defined by two jetties that enable tidal exchange between the ocean and the Bay. Tidal currents throughout the Bay and at the Project site vary with the rise and fall of the water level. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the land -side portion of the Project site generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water -side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, p. 8). The California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Section 13000 ("Water Quality") et. seq., of the California Water Code), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment of 1972 (also referred to as t he Clean Water Act (CWA)) require that comprehensive water quality control plans be developed for all waters within the State of California. The CWA requires all states to conduct water quality assessments of their water resources to identify water bodies that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are placed on a list of impaired waters pursuant to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA. Lower Newport Bay is listed as impaired by several water quality pollutants, including chlordane, copper, DDT, indicator bacteria, nutrients, PCBs, pesticides, and sediment toxicity. 2.6.4 Biological Resources On the land -side portion of the Project site, the surface of the existing parking lot is largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping occurring within and bordering the existing parking lot. The beach is devoid of vegetation with the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-6 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting exception of the transitional slope between the parking lot and the beach that is dominated with non-native vegetation. Marine birds, including but not limited to California brown pelican and California least tern, may rest on the land -side portion of the Project site and may rest and forage on the water -side portion of the Project site. Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay are considered waters of the state and U.S. These waters contain some areas of sensitive habitat, such as eelgrass, that are afforded additional protection by state and federal agencies to conserve and protect sensitive biological resources. TTwo small eelgrass beds were mapped within the Project area totaling 515 SF. Of this total, 379.3 SF (73.7%) is located at the southern edge of the sandy beach and 135.7 SF (26.3%) is located south of this location off of the southerly tip of the existing parking lot (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 9). The water -side portion of the Project site also is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coastal pelagic fish and groundfish habitat. The Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act defined EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The only managed species likely to be present in Newport Bay, however, is the northern anchovy. Although several other coastal pelagic and groundfish FMP species are known from the Project area, data indicate that their presence at the Project site is likely sporadic and their numbers in the Project region would be extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 18). The water -side portion of the Project site provides habitat for various other fish and marine reptiles, including California halibut, green turtle, and hawskbill. Marine mammals also use Lower Newport Bay and periodically enter the water -side portion of the Project site, including sea lions and bottlenose dolphin. Sea lions are not known to beach on the Balboa Marina gangways or land -side portion of the Project site. 2.6.5 Historical, Archaeological, and Paleontological Resources According to General Plan EIR Figure 4.4-1, the Project site is not identified as containing any historical resources (Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.4-1). None of the Project site's features are included on the National Register of Historic Places or on the California Register of Historical Resources, nor are they eligible for listing. Due to the developed nature of the Project site as m arina, the Project site is unlikely to contain subsurface archaeological resources. The Project site also is not located within a portion of the City that is identified as having the potential to contain fossil -bearing soils or rock formations (Newport Beach, 2006b, p. 4.4-17; PSI, Inc., 2012a). 2.6.6 Rare and Unique Resources As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(c), "Special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project." Based on the Project site's existing condition and developed nature, the proposed Project site does not contain any resources that are rare or unique to the region; however, special emphasis is placed on wetland and marine resources located on the water -side portion of the Project site. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-7 so 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Figure 2-1 HE REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-8 Garder Grove q / i u in on ills uaK ,11 ST IT S,T _ pP _J stminst 1 S to Ana _ �lstin F unt e 3 F �{ HITL emave j__ _one nntingirn Beach Johnll��Alrport §Co to Mesa i g rvi e VCTORIa S wwmm s v - N port Be ch " 0 1 '1ls ., Joaquin LOS jfIll - {S \1 - �•L N ort Coast COUW - ORANGE CWM`I - PACIFIC OCEAN 1 KEY MAP una a Source(s): ESRI, CASIL, iger Files (USCB) Figure 2-1 HE REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-8 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting FI - Jr r PROJECT SITE r ipr ,. L tl !, �O Cy F� RT C BEACON RAY' e(s): ESRI, City of Newport Beach \ Figure 2-2 HE VICINTY MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-9 Miff WPOR7 BAY �1 ✓� Aj �Resid�enti6l'��\. Pearson's Port Seafood Market Parking Lot _ ✓ g •`� < kayak Rental Center l0 ry 11 film IIRWSoatStoragest 1 Multi -Unit Pump Station R �sidential I ` j �------ Parking'LoT iSOL Restaurant / Orange C6mt VachTa� — e 3 Thirty 3 Restaurant u k Starr -Fro T � Buidling P' ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting Figure 2-5 HE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-12 OS LEGEND Residential Neighborhoods O SS -o. sinala.unn Resmemlal o.lechee - OS RM-MUIIiplellnll fteaiGenllal / commercial Districts and Oorrrdors / CMm - RemcC- e,al Commercial - ecreational entl Ma,lne Commercial Public, Seml-Public and Institutional O6- Open Spam PR PR - pa. -d Opera.,— /lieaianea L ane sue,ml.d Lana i i sr�s�a RM (10-29.9 du/ac) LIBERTY J��aP y0a�\OWN P �5\pE WEST RD 0P a RM c\ ON OOAS' NwY w �.Faf S OOASTHWYE PLyMO�N'91'E (RM --- — (0.3 FAR) CG (0.3 FAR,) EEC - G(0.3 (0. FAR) (0.3 FARO 9j o CG RS -D _ LINDAISLE Q QS HPpR� P3.0 PR WD RM TS RS -D �ou RS=D L/ry�A./SLE RS -D RS -D �� RS_D Source(s): City of Newport Beach Figure 2-5 HE EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-12 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting ��. LEGEND Single Unit Residential Detached -RSD RSDB (00S,90U/AC) � � RSDA(6.GS9DU/AC) S / Multiple Unit ResideMlal - RM / RM -C (1D0.1B9CWAC) General Commercial - CG / = CG A (0 b0.30 FAR) Recreadone and Marina Commecial - CM PR - CM Al0003 FAR) CM-G(6D05 FAR) Open Space -OS f O OR / Parks and Recreation -PR / -PR Tidelands and Submerged! Lands -TS o TS P Qa` 100 LI9EMTy QST RD � �R HWY W COAST -- - - lE _ COAST HWY E „4Yq,OHTHgVE SRM -C C -M -A C -M -A C -G -A -- ---- Acmmfla s' CG -A RSD -B CG -A LIND_AI$LE O -08 �0S � ONAOR �/ PR RS -D RM TS LINDA ISLE RSD=B RSD=B RSD -B l�tyDq, ISLE RSD -A `-� 3�� S gg� Source(s): City of Newport Beach Figure 2-6 HE EXISTING COASTAL LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-13 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 Environmental Setting LEGEND Residential Zoning Districts O R.1 = RM Caparri Zoning Districts - Cd- Commerms General - CM- Commemul Recreational and Marne OSSpecial Purpose Zoning Districts �7 Q os - open seaca - PR- Peaks a on Roonscun O PFPubicFaii MPI Povarelnatitur.r. PC -Planed Community gEnr PC -MHP a4 wesrRo �' sea P -MHP PC -9 COAST HWY W COAST HWY E'4VB C -M (U.3 FARt) d) CG Fa (U.3 FARC) R-1 LINDA 1 -SLE cQS �0S oa y PR °A RM v 0 TS R-1 R-1 R=1 Source(s): City of Newport Beach Figure 2-7 HE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 2-14 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description 3.0 Project Description This section provides all of the information required by CEQA Guidelines §15124, including: a description of the Project's precise location and boundaries; a statement of the Project's objectives; a description of the Project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; a list of government agencies that are expected to be involved in the Project's decision-making processes and a list of the permits and approvals that are required to implement the Project; and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements. The Project evaluated in this MND is jointly proposed by the City of Newport Beach and Irvine Company and is referred to as "Balboa Marina West." The Project site is located south of East Coast Highway, between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The Project site is bounded on the west by the channel of Newport Bay and on the north by East Coast Highway and outside RV and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking. On the south is water surface and Linda Isle, a man-made island containing residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter. To the east is Bayside Drive, commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots. As shown in Figure 3-1, Marina Existing Conditions, the Project site consists of 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. As previously described in Section 2.0, Environmental Setting, the water -side area supports floating docks of the existing Balboa Marina. The land -side area contains a paved parking lot and one, one-story building that houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The proposed Project evaluated herein includes all components of the Project, including planning, construction, and operation, in addition to any and all discretionary and administrative approvals that may be required of the City of Newport Beach and other governmental approval authorities and agencies to fully implement the proposed Project. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site to establish a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve the private Balboa Marina including its water -side and land -side areas. The new public dock would include a gangway and approximately 12 public boat slips including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) transient boat slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips accommodating a range of vessel sizes and a new gangway are proposed to be added. In the land -side area of the marina, the Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway. In their place, a reconfigured parking lot and a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building with tuck -under parking would be constructed. As shown on Figure 3-2, Concept Plan, the proposed public boat dock area is identified as Area A, the proposed private Balboa Marina boat dock improvement area is Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-1 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description identified as Area B, and the proposed reconfigured parking lot and marine commercial building area is identified as Area C. Area A and Area B are referred to in this MND as the "water -side development." The water -side development would occupy approximately 0.87 acres of water surface. Area C is referred to as t he "land -side development" and comprises 3.5 acres. Figure 3-3, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 1), and Figure 3-4, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2), show the water -side and land -side development areas in more detail. 3.1 Purpose and Need and Prolect Oblectives The primary purpose and benefit of the Project is the development of a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that is more easily accessible to the public than the four (4) transient public boat slips currently available in the private Balboa Marina. The following is a list of specific objectives sought by the proposed Project. A. To establish a new public transient boat dock in Lower Newport Bay to provide a new point of vertical public access. B. To relocate four (4) existing transient public boat slips out of the private Balboa Marina to an area of Lower Newport Bay that is more easily accessible to transient public boaters. C. To enhance resident and visitor boater's ability to access the land from the water. D. To allow transient public boaters to easily navigate from a new public dock in Lower Newport Bay to marine commercial uses in and around the Balboa Marina. E. To assist in meeting the need for a variety of boat slip sizes in Newport Harbor by adding a new public dock and additional boats slips at the Balboa Marina that accommodate a range of vessel sizes, including slips for vessels 20 -feet in length and under. F. To provide additional private boat slips and a new gangway in the Balboa Marina that would enable boaters to dock and access the land - side development areas. G. To provide a more efficient circulation and vehicle parking pattern in the Balboa Marina parking lot. H. To provide a new marine commercial building that can house a restaurant, yacht brokerage, and public restrooms that are accessible from both a vehicular parking lot and boat tie-ups. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-2 NN 01:1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description 3.1.1 Water -Side Development Areas A and B Water -Side Development Area A, known as the public transient dock area, would provide 12 public boat slips, including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) slips relocated from the private Balboa Marina. The public boat slips would be transient in nature, meaning that there would be no overnight tie ups allowed.. There would be no boat launches from this area. It is anticipated that boaters would access the public dock from the water -side and use the slips to tie up and access the land -side restaurants and commercial uses. Under existing conditions, there are no public docks in this area of Lower Newport Bay. Therefore, relocating the four (4) public boat slips that currently exist in the private Balboa Marina and adding eight (8) new public boat slips would enhance the public's ability to access the land from the water. In an effort to serve a wide range of public boaters, the 12 public boat slips would accommodate a variety of vessel sizes, including boats 20 -feet in length and under. Water -Side Development Area B, known as the private dock expansion area, would add 24 private boat slips that would be accessible from the existing private Balboa Marina and a new private gangway. The marina expansion would include ten (10) new slips for boats 20 -feet in length and fourteen (14) new slips for boats 35 -feet and longer. Vessel pump -out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips similar to the system constructed at the existing private Balboa Marina. Due to the transient nature of the slips at the public docks, no pump out facility is proposed for the public slips. Dock and gangway lighting would be provided as currently exists at the private Balboa Marina. Lighting would be located under the handrails to allow for safe nighttime pedestrian movement at the marina. The maintenance of the private dock would be the responsibility of Irvine Company. The maintenance of the public dock and boat slips would be the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the total thirty-six (36) new boat slips that are proposed in Development Area A and Development Area B. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 square feet (SF). Of this, 2,258 SF would be public docks and 6,787 SF would be private docks (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor. These include eleven (11) 20 -inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16 -inch diameter piles. The combined bottom surface area for all piles is 54.4 SF. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21) (CAA Planning, 2014) In addition, eight (8) 16 -inch diameter platform piles would be installed at elevations higher than the mean tide line. Water -Side Development Area A and Development Area B would require dredging of approximately 9,900 cubic yards (CY) of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) to accommodate the new boat slips (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). In order to accommodate the proposed number of boat slips, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15 -feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, along the western edge of the Project site. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The reconstruction of the riprap embankment inland Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-3 ME ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description has the direct project benefit of creating a 6,772 SF increase in waters of the United States (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 11). A new cap wall would be installed at the top of the riprap slope. 3.1.2 Land -Side Development- Area C Development Area C, referred to in this MND as the "land -side" development area, includes approximately 3.5 acres of the existing parking lot located immediately north of the existing Balboa Marina docks (refer to Figure 3-2). To implement proposed land - side improvements, the existing marina parking lot and an existing 1,200 SF structure (201 East Coast Highway) containing a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms would be demolished. The parking lot would be re-established in a modified configuration containing drive aisles, parking spaces, landscaping, and pole -mounted lighting. A new proposed marine commercial building would be developed in the southwestern portion of Development Area C containing up to 19,400 SF of building space with tuck under parking. The building is anticipated to house a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina restrooms, and an office to accommodate the yacht brokerage business displaced from the existing building that would be demolished. Because the design of the new commercial building is conceptual in nature at this time, specifics regarding its architectural characteristics are not yet available. The building would be required to comply with the non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach.. As shown on Figure 3-4, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Concept Plan (Page 2), the marine commercial structure would be supported on approximately 40 -foot deep piles. The tuck under parking would occur at approximately nine (9) feet above mean sea level (AMSL), which is the approximate elevation of the existing parking lot closest to the edge of Lower Newport Bay. The finish floor of the commercial structure, above the tuck -under parking, would occur at approximately 20.9 feet AMSL, which is the approximate elevation of the existing Project site closest to East Coast Highway. As shown on Figure 3-6, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion Site Sections, the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land -side development. The parking lot near the Bayside Drive entry would be modified in order to reduce turning movements, and the overall layout of the parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. A pedestrian walkway through the parking lot would provide access from the public dock to the land -side development. New landscaped areas and plant materials would be added throughout the parking lot. The maintenance of the land -side improvements would be the responsibility of Irvine Company. A. Parking Lot Characteristics As depicted in Figure 3-7, Concept Plan with Parking Lot Circulation and Pedestrian Access, the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land -side development. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-4 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description The existing large surface parking lot was used formerly to serve the Reuben E. Lee floating restaurant that was located in the water area adjacent to the west end of the parking lot and that is no longer present. Currently, the parking lot provides 313 parking stalls and serves the Balboa Marina and the Sol Restaurant. Parking lot lighting is proposed to be upgraded to energy-efficient fixtures. Fixtures would be placed to reduce "spill over" lighting to surrounding properties. The proposed fixtures are a combination of decorative and utilitarian poles and are required to be spaced to comply with City of Newport Beach minimum light level requirements and to meet standard safety requirements. Landscape areas in the parking lot would be reconfigured to conform to the revised parking lot layout. There would be a resulting net increase in the amount of landscape area on the property. Pedestrian access would be provided via a connection from the sidewalk on East Coast Highway to the internal pedestrian walkways within the Project. In addition, a long handicap access ramp is proposed to provide a connection from the curved vehicular drop off at the proposed, new marine commercial building to provide access to the public dock area. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the parking lot generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain located along the water -side perimeter of the Project site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New area drains are proposed to be constructed to direct low -flow and first -flush runoff to mechanical water quality bio -treatment systems prior to discharging runoff water through the existing bulkhead outlets. B. Commercial Building Characteristics As shown on Figure 3-8, Conceptual Architectural Rendering - Building Design, the marine commercial building is proposed in concept as a light-colored two-story structure with pitched roof and tuck under parking. Maximum building height would be 40 feet from finish grade. The parking floor would be at -grade and its northern wall would serve as a retaining wall. Large non -reflective windows and an outdoor patio would face the water above the parking level. The structure would contain up to 19,400 SF of building space to accommodate a restaurant use with outdoor patio and an office for the yacht brokerage business that would be displaced from the on-site building that is proposed for demolition. Based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of water, 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity, and 2,500 kwhd of energy (Stantec, 2014). Approval of the specific building design would be subject to subsequent approval of a Site Development Review by the City of Newport Beach. Approval of a restaurant use for the building would be subject to subsequent approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the City of Newport Beach. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-5 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description C. Conceptual Landscape Plan The proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the land -side portion of the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping pockets would be installed in the reconfigured parking lot. Six (6) Canary Island Date Palms would be planted near the entrance driveway, King Palms would be planted along the primary parking lot drive aisle, two Senegal Date Palms would be planted at the entrance to the new commercial building, and Coral trees would be planted in other planting pockets. Each planting pocket would also include a variety of shrubs. The landscaping material is proposed to include non-invasive and drought tolerant species. 3.2 Construction Characteristics -Water -Side Development To implement the proposed water -side development, site preparation would include dredging of sediment and grading of upland soils, transport of the materials to a disposal location, installation of concrete piles, and then installation of the floats, docks, and gangways. It is estimated that between eight (8) and 15 construction workers would be working on the water -side component of the Project on any given day during various phases of construction activity. Implementation of the proposed improvements in Development Area A and Development Area B would require dredging of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). Refer to Figure 3-10, Water -Side Dredging Footprint. Upland soils would be disposed as construction fill on-site. Dredged sediment would be transported by barge for ocean disposal at site LA -3, which is a U S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved location for the disposal of ocean - dredged material off the coast of Newport Beach. The U.S. EPA has the authority to designate ocean dredge material disposal sites under Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (33USC 1401 et seq.). LA -3 was approved as a permanent disposal site by the U.S. EPA in 2005, in accordance with Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 175, dated September 12, 2005. LA -3 is approved to accept a maximum annual dredged material disposal quantity of 2,500,000 cubic yards of dredged material originating from the Los Angeles and Orange County region. The circular boundary of the permanently designated LA -3 site is centered at 33°31'00" N and 117153'30" W and has a 305 -meter (1,000 -foot) radius at the water surface. The ocean depth at the center of the site is approximately 1,600 feet. Ocean material from the Project site would be dredged using clam -shell dredging techniques. Dredging of ocean material is anticipated to be conducted 5 days a week for approximately 4 weeks, which would include mobilization and demobilization. All dredge material would be transported via barge pushed by a tugboat to LA -3. It is anticipated that 5 to 8 barge trip(s) per week (for approximately 4 weeks) would be required depending on the size of the barge. Silt curtains would be deployed around the dredge site and barge to confine suspended sediment particles from drifting Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-6 ME ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description beyond the job site when bottom sediments are disturbed. Dredging would take place between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm. During the dredging phase, ocean dredging equipment would be placed within the Project site when internal dredging efforts are occurring and just outside the pierhead line when dredging is occurring along the channel/pierhead line interface. With the concurrence of the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department and U.S. Coast Guard, the ocean dredging equipment could be temporarily staged in the middle of the adjacent Newport Harbor channel, with appropriate illumination and security lighting to warn potential boaters of its location after working hours. The proposed public and private docks would be supported by concrete piles that are set in place using high pressure water jetting and a pile driver. The contractor would use high pressure water jets to place the piles within approximately five (5) feet of tip elevations, and then use a diesel hammer to drive the piles down to tip elevation. Tip elevation is also known as the "toe," "base," "bottom," or "lower end" of the pile. Use of water jetting for the initial phase of each pile placement would reduce noise and vibration when compared with the exclusive use of a diesel hammer. 3.3 Construction Charactedsiics-Land-Side Development In order to construct the land -side portion of the Project, the existing 1,200 SF one-story building located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms, would be demolished. Additionally, portions of the existing parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. Refer to Figure 3-11, Land -Side Demolition. Earthwork associated with the land -side development would be comprised of 4,325 CY of cut and 5,688 CY of fill requiring 1,364 CY of import. Analysis throughout this MND assumes a haul distance of one -mile as the source for imported material. After the site is prepared, primary construction activities would include utility line installation, building construction, paving, light pole installation, surface coatings, and landscaping. Demolition activities are expected to last approximately 30 days. Construction activities are expected to last approximately 14 months. Equipment would be staged on the job site behind screened fencing when not in use. Demolition activity is anticipated to result in 14,700 CY of demolition material composed of asphalt, landscape material, soil, and deconstructed building material. Demolition material would be deposited into a landfill and asphalt would be recycled offsite at an approved recycling facility. Demolition material would be removed from the site during City approved hours via dump trucks and transported via an approved haul route to the nearest landfill accepting demolition material. The equipment that would be used for the land -side development includes dozers, skip loaders, excavators, end dumps, motor graders and scrapers as well as a drill rig to install the auger piles that are required for the construction of the marine commercial building. Approximately 235 piles would be required to support the marine commercial building, but unlike the water -side piles, the land -side piles would be auger cast pressure grouted, which produces less noise and vibration than the installation process Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-7 ME ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description for the water -side piles. It is estimated that between 15 and 50 construction workers would be working on the land -side component of the Project on any given day during various phases of construction activity. No full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction. The driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain functional and accessible during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway connecting to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, vehicles would access the parking lot from the driveway connection at Bayside Drive near the Sol and 3Thirty3 restaurants. At all times during the land -side construction process, parking demands for the Balboa Marina and adjacent restaurants would be met on-site. No temporary off-site parking is proposed nor anticipated to be necessary (CAA Planning, 2014). 3.4 Project Approval Process This section describes the discretionary and ministerial approvals needed to implement the proposed Project. The water -side components of the proposed Project will be reviewed by the Harbor Commission and the MND and the land -side components of the proposed Project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Harbor Commission will review the Project and make a recommendation to the Manager of Harbor Resources regarding the issuance of an Approval in Concept (AIC) for the water -side components. The Planning Commission will review the MND for compliance with CEQA and approve the MND. Following approval of the MND, the Planning Commission will review a Site Development Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and/or any other discretionary permit required for the land -side marine commercial uses as specified by the Marine Commercial zoning designation. Following completion of the Harbor Commission and Planning Commission reviews, the City will issue an AIC, and a joint City/Irvine Company application will be filed with the California Coastal Commission requesting issuance of a C oastal Development Permit (CDP). The CDP application will include both the water -side and land -side Project components. Prior to the issuance of any ministerial permit such as a grading permit or building permit, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department requires evidence that all discretionary permits or clearances have been obtained from the California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, National Marine Fisheries, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and any other agency having approval authority. A list of the primary discretionary and ministerial permits under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach and state and federal agencies are listed below in Table 3-1, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits. This MND was prepared based on the AIC application, but is intended to cover all permits and approval actions required for implementation of the Project, including but not limited to those listed in the table below. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-8 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Project Description Table 3-1 Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits Public Agency Approvals and Decisions City of Newport Beach . Approval of this IS/MND Approval of Site Development Review Approval of Conditional Use Permit (for restaurant) Issuance of Approval in Concept (AIC) Approval of temporary in -water staging location for dredging equipment (in consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard) Issuance of Grading Permit and Building Permit • Issuance of Harbor Development Permit California Coastal Commission . Issuance of Coastal Development Permit County of Orange • Coordination with State Lands Commission as Trustee for submerged lands • Issuance of an Encroachment Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • Issuance of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit • Issuance of Section 103 Permit to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413) National Marine Fisheries Service • Compliance with the Endangered Species (NMFS) Act and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, through consultation led by USACE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Consultation with USACE regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) through Section 404 Permit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Consultation regarding suitability of (USEPA) dredged material management team DMMT approval process U.S. Coast Guard • Approval of temporary in -water staging location for dredging equipment Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality (RWQCB) Certification • Issuance of Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit California Department of Fish and • Letter of Authorization for harvesting and Wildlife CDFW transplanting Eelgrass. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-9 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 Existing ResSol taurantLA _ � � •V� � � X I / • xist!n 333 e o � 1 I � 1 ayside Exi541 t4s 3 Linda Isle Source(s): URS (01-30-2014) Figure 3-1 HE MARINA EXISTING CONDITIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-10 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 al uas (11-14-201 A PUBLIC TRANSIENT DOCK AREA FaSt LANDSIDE DEVELOPMENT AREA coast Rr T— PIERHEAD LINE PRIVATE DOCK I _ EXPANSION AREA a I / Linda Isle Highway xistin 333 pyside O L Figure 3-2 HE CONCEPT PLAN Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-11 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 PUBLIC q - TRANSIENT DOCK � j PRIVATE DOCK EXPANSION (E) -MLLW _ 0.0 - Q-_ URS (11-14-201 SECTION A SCALE 1"=10' T, v .Q 0— FORMER NEWPORT HARBOR NAUTICAL MUSEUM RIVERBOAT (N) CURB & RAIUNG 15' (n CURB & RAILING— i Fast CO - C7 H g -h -way = _— -- SECTION B SCALE 1"=10' xlstin Q 333 PYslde 00 ° L t0 C Figure 3-3 ® PUBLIC TRANSIENT DOCK AND MARINA EXPANSION CONCEPT PLAN (PAGE 1) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-12 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 DREDGE AREA — o > Res aurant/ z M`ULT USE Marine C o m m e r c i - - 61 r -- '_ Amo DOCK - — �' Ll n o b \ 0� Ln'w Lnlfi L(7 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 n Vv *PIERHEAD UN 22' 22' 22' 22' 22 22' N 1 aa' o /11 00 WATERSPACE PROPOSED BOAT COUNT NUDMTS CREATED 14 (36' &Over) CREATED PRIVATE DOCK 10 (20' Electric) (6002 SF) 24 Total RESTAURANT 2DD 15' - PUBLIC DOCK 12 (20' clam transient equivalents) (E) CURB k * NEWLY CREATED BOAT SLIP -RAlUNG PARKING 9.0- _rZ5 5.43 M_FAN HIGH TIDE.......... $� - (E) SLOPE (NGVD '29) _MLLW 0;0 ,�_. VJE- CONC. WALL GONG. PILE SECTION C Source(s): URS (1 1-14-2013) SCALE 1"-10' Figure 3-4 ® PUBLIC TRANSIENT DOCK AND MARINA EXPANSION CONCEPT PLAN (PAGE 21 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-13 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 l 1 ( i J l 1117 T - — - =v � Restaurant / ,; Marine Commercial - y Existingi Sol \i \ — – – _____—__– —__ ---- ---- _ --_ Restaurant _ \ ww++ M 40 4Q 36 36 µ 32 32 32 32 3 ® ,^nu c_'F:'• 40 4Q 36 3fi 32 32 32 32 32'.. t a\ 4� " 36 36 32 32 32 32 32 32 X Q N W N DJ 1 of CO OJ W 4Q 3fi 36 32 32 " 32 32 30 36s� 36s 36s 32 32 32 32 32 J2 30 3 XlStln O __ 30 4D 36 3fi 32 32 - 32 32 �p$y�DOCK A' DOCK DOCK'D' DOCK -D' DOCK -E DOCK -F \ I ' N � ll 8 P� m m Ex341ng \ ', �." Bayside \ \ Linda Isle N N: Source(s): URS (01-30-2014) EE Balboa Marina West Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Figure 3-5 PUBLIC TRANSIENT DOCK AND MARINA EXPANSION (CONCEPT PLAN OVERLAIN ON EXISTING CONDITION) August 18, 2014 Page 3-14 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 40- 30- 20- 10- 0 - �I SFJCTION A -A J `I n..s. 40— .._ 30— in 20— CY' 10— 0 - I l! i SFJCTION B -B n..s. Source(s): URS (01-30-2014) i' i� lel 1.1 Restaurant / Marine Commercial 20.90 'arking 9 0 -Existing,( +/ 40' Deep Pile (TYP) fi ,i U J Motor Court Figure 3-6 ® PUBLIC TRANSIENT DOCK AND MARINA EXPANSION SITE SECTIONS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-15 ME ■❑ Declaration Hue Public pedestrian access / walkway to new public dock URS Figure 3-7 HE CONCEPT PLAN WITH PARKING LOT CIRCULATION AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-16 " m T•4 Jt <Y Y No ■❑ uas Declaration PI ANT I Ft:FNn TREES Phoenix reclinata (Senegal Date Palm) Ficus rubiginosa (Rusty Leaf Fig) Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) Erythrina caffra (Coral Tree) Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (King Palm) SHRUBS Agave attenuata (Foxtail Agave) Alocasia spp. Ali spp. Aspidistra elatior (Cast -Iron Plant) SHRUBS Bambusa spp. Bougainvillea spp. (Bougainvillea) Carissa m. 'Green Carpet' (Natal Plum) Clivia miniata ( Dietes spp. (Fortnight Lily) Ligustrum j. 'Texanum' (Texas Privet) Liriope spp. Melaleuca spp. Nephrolepis cordifolia (Sword Fern) Philodendron spp. Pittosporum spp. Prunus spp. Rhaphiolepis i. 'Clara' (Indian Hawthorn) Rhapis excelsa (Slender Lady Palm) Strelitzia nicolai (Giant Bird of Paradise) Strelitzia reginae (Bird of Paradise) Linda Isle Hue Figure 3-9 HE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-18 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 e i � Newfields r ,g '4r r I �l 44 2x' 22 Figure 3-10 HE WATER -SIDE DREDGING FOOTPRINT Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-19 Proposed Paid Unpaid Area Volume Overdredge Overdredge A 3,000 CY 1,125 CY 1,125 CY B 4,100 CY 275 CY 275 CY e i � Newfields r ,g '4r r I �l 44 2x' 22 Figure 3-10 HE WATER -SIDE DREDGING FOOTPRINT Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-19 ME ■❑ Declaration 1 P�SGWPLL� 2 ' W TRISx ENCLOSURE rs -- M0.2C4�T1AK3 \\ 'f �2G 26 MwO�aNU MCE�NT IX MONUMENT TL I \ a Y20 I `sro a�A 'L24JI I ^ 2 I � $6 u,1Ts OF GPPDING � P sEAwuL pgCIFjC COgSTN/G -� Hue Stante (01-14-201 22 26 1 A DO WIPM T 2R —� 1G- .L---- S 1 --. _- __ {�� 21 T I / z41w. LY / \A 7 II z_._- zs V � Y z0 o i 11 /` i I` SO E. COASTNNT. �' n v Ij ae � I I j zs 2z z1 SOL RESTAURANT u \ \ . 2P 29 29 11 —5 / / f a P URM MO5 OF GIN - - SFAWALL --V ENCFY P _ �� 20 P oocx 207 E. COAST HWY. � TMP xA ORANGE CO YACHTS ACA noaF o.,w u.EmA M� ik v ASN A O r yG=ijf� � \ 1_ A��"y'c�OP l PRIVATE CHANNEL L h I L rs \ 0A \ Figure 3-11 HE LAND -SIDE DEMOLITION Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-20 LEGEND DEMOLITION I REMOVAL NOTES AND QUANTITIES pp, GFSCRIPDDN pMNOtt UNIT ®0 — — — — — — — ® 0 --sem— ow— — —I-- --E-- OFIAOITTION Nor CURB REMOVALS SAWCUI LINE AC PAVEMEM REMOVMS CONI. PAVTMENT REMOVALS BUILDING REMOVAL UMM SANITARY SEWER DOMESTIC WATER STORM DRAIN GAS TELEPHONE EIEMCAL 2D REMOVE AND DSPOSE OF EMSRNG CURB 3,607 LF. R1 SAWCUF DI^ixNG PAVWS SECUON 740 LF. 22 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF DISRNG A.C. PANEMCD SECTION 109,473 S.F. 23 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF DISIING CONCRETE F-AWRx 6.07 SF 24 REMOVE E%IONG TREE, SEE LANDSCAPE PIANS FOR DISPoSxION I LS. 25 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF MUK FOUNDATION, SALVAGE UGHT P01£ AT MEWS DISCREDUN 15 EA 28 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF DISRNG SIGN AND FOUNDOOMN 5 EA. 27 CANDBIAST DISHNG STRIPING TO UNITS INDICTED 1 LS. 20 DEMOUSH DISxNG BUILDING PER SEPATUTE PIAN AND PFRMF I EA 29 REMOVE AND DIBF E OF MEW PUNTER WAD. 436 LE N REMOVE AND DSOSE OF 00NG ITEM INDICATED 10 EA. 31 REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EXISTING VARUEiE NDCHT RETUNING WALL 113 LF. P PROTECT IN RACE DISTING FIM INDICTED Stante (01-14-201 22 26 1 A DO WIPM T 2R —� 1G- .L---- S 1 --. _- __ {�� 21 T I / z41w. LY / \A 7 II z_._- zs V � Y z0 o i 11 /` i I` SO E. COASTNNT. �' n v Ij ae � I I j zs 2z z1 SOL RESTAURANT u \ \ . 2P 29 29 11 —5 / / f a P URM MO5 OF GIN - - SFAWALL --V ENCFY P _ �� 20 P oocx 207 E. COAST HWY. � TMP xA ORANGE CO YACHTS ACA noaF o.,w u.EmA M� ik v ASN A O r yG=ijf� � \ 1_ A��"y'c�OP l PRIVATE CHANNEL L h I L rs \ 0A \ Figure 3-11 HE LAND -SIDE DEMOLITION Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 3-20 No ■❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 Project Information 4.0 Project Information 1. Project Title Balboa Marina West 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive (P.O. Box 1768) Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach Planning Program Manager (949)644-3535 4. Project Location The Project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive in the City of Newport Beach, California. Specifically, the Project site comprises 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. 5. Project Sponsors' Name and Address City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 6. General Plan Designation Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) 7. Zoning Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Please refer to Section 3.0 for a detailed description of the proposed Project. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-1 No ■ 1:1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 4.0 Project Information 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the Project's surroundings: As previously discussed in Section 2.0 and presented in Figure 2-4, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking, on the south by Linda Isle, a man-made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter, and on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots, and on the west by the channel of the Lower Newport Bay. 10.0ther Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) Public Agency Approvals and Decisions California Coastal Commission • Issuance of Coastal Development Permit for the Project County of Orange • Coordination with State Lands Commission as Trustee for submerged lands • Issuance of an Encroachment Permit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • Issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit • Issuance of Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Permit • Issuance of Section 103 Permit to the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 33 U.S.C. 1413 National Marine Fisheries Service • Compliance with the Endangered Species Act (NMFS) and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, through consultation led by USACE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Consultation with USACE regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act ESA through Section 404 Permit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Consultation regarding suitability of dredged (USEPA) material management team (DMMT) approval process U.S. Coast Guard • Approval of temporary in -water staging location for dredging equipment Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality (RWQCB) Certification • Issuance of Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit California Department of Fish and Letter of Authorization for harvesting and Wildlife CDFW transplanting Eelgross. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 4-2 5.0 5.1 iative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Anal, Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checke d below wo uld be po tentially affected by this project, involving at least one i mpact that is "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. There were no issues identified as a "Potentially Significant Impact." ® Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ® Biological Resources environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ® Hazards & Hazardous NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Hydrology/ Water I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and Emissions an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Materials I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially Quality ® Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/ Traffic ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems ® Mandatory Findings of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are i mposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Significance 5.2 Determination (To Be Completed By the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT hav e a significant e ffect on the ❑ environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant e ffect on t he environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by t he project proponent. A MI TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ❑ an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially ❑ significant unless mitigated' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has be en addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attac hed sheets. An EN VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant e ffect on t he ❑ environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NE GATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are i mposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Submitted by. Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach Planning Manager (Signature) Balboa Marina West Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Date August 18, 2014 Page 5-1 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.3 City of Newport Beach Environmental Checklist Summary Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-2 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse ❑ Q ❑ ❑ effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ Q resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of ❑ Q ❑ ❑ substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ Q agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- ❑ ❑ ❑ Q forest use? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-2 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-3 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Involve other changes in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? III. AIR QUALITY Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan?_ b) Violate any air quality standard ❑ ❑ EI ❑ or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ Q ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ B ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors ❑ ❑ M ❑ affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Have a substantial adverse ❑ D ❑ ❑ 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-3 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-4 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Have a substantial adverse ❑ Q ❑ ❑ effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ Q ❑ ❑ on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ D J ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ D - ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? fl Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ Q adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Ian? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ Q change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-4 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-5 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: a) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ Q ❑ potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known ❑ ❑ Q ❑ earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist For the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ ❑ Q ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground ❑ ❑ Q ❑ failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as ❑ ❑ ❑ Q defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-5 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-6 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Have soils incapable of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the Project: a) Generate greenhouse gas ❑ ❑ Z ❑ emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-6 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, zol a Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-7 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project within an airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the reject area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ D physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ D significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wiidlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the Project: a) Violate any water quality ❑ ❑ Z ❑ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Balboa Marina West August 18, zol a Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-7 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-8 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff ❑ ❑ Q ❑ water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f7 Otherwise substantially degrade ❑ Q ❑ ❑ water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood Flows? I) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ J' Q significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ mudflow? X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the Project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ Q community? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-8 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, zol a Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-9 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable ❑ Q ❑ ❑ land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ Q habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation Ian? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ ❑ Q a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific Ian, or other land useplan? XII. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ Q ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ Q ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or roundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent ❑ 0 ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Balboa Marina West August 18, zol a Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-9 No OF—]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-10 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or ❑ ❑ ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the Pro ect: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fireprotection? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Police protection7 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-10 No 01-1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-11 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include ❑ ❑ ❑ Cv1 recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the Project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ L❑ congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or hi hwa s7 c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-11 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-12 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Substantially increase hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?_ e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ Q ❑ access? fj Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? XVII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the Project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ET ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ D ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-12 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-13 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact r7 Be served by a landrili with ❑ ❑ Q ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and ❑ ❑ Q ❑ local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the ❑ Q ❑ ❑ potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future ro'ects. c) Does the project have ❑ ❑ Q ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-13 No ■ ❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 5.4.1 Aesthetics a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect scenic vistas in the surrounding area. Mitigation is recommended to ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in compliance with City General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. Figure 5-1, Site Photos Key Map, along with the nine (9) site photographs shown on Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3, depict the existing conditions of the Project site as viewed from within the site and from the surrounding area. As shown on the photographic inventory, the land -side portion of the Project site is fully developed under existing conditions. The water -side portion of the site contains 105 boat slips and associated gangways accommodating vessels ranging in length from 22 to 58 feet. As depicted on Site Photos 1 through 3 (Figure 5-2), the eastern portion of the Project site consists primarily of a paved parking lot with ornamental landscaping and light poles. Landscaping elements mostly consist of shrubs within and along the northern edge of the site, with some scattered trees provided throughout the parking lot. To the south of the parking lot is the marina, with docked boats visible beyond the pedestrian access gates. In the distance, beyond the marina, are existing residential homes located on Linda Isle. The on-site, one-story commercial marina building occupied by a yacht brokerage business also is visible in the distance in the west -central portion of the site. As shown on Site Photo 4 (Figure 5-2) and Site Photo 5 (Figure 5-3), the western portions of the site also consist of a parking lot, with trees and shrubs scattered throughout the parking lot and a landscaped slope occurring at the north end of the parking lot. Along the western and southern edges of the parking lot is a low iron fence. A trash enclosure also occurs in the central portion of the site. Docked boats within the marina can be seen in the southwestern portions of the site, with more boats and existing residential homes on Linda Isle also visible to the south. Site Photos 6 through 8 (Figure 5-3) shows views of the Project site from off-site locations to the west. As shown on these photos, under existing conditions the Project site appears as a parking lot with shade trees visible from areas to the west. The parking lot is surrounded by white wrought iron fencing along the north, and a I ow iron fence along the western and southern edges of the site. An advertisement for the existing yacht brokerage is visible on the iron fence along the site's western boundary. Along the waterfront is an existing rock embankment with sea wal I, above which is bare ground with scattered vegetation. Immediately north of the site, Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-14 � g K PROD \. 4 SITE tI _- '' fit it t � 9 AA VN ot _� DQrI No ■❑ Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Site Photo is Northwest of Project Site, along East Pacific Coast Highway, looking Southeast to Northwest Site Photo 2: Midpoint of Project Site, looking South to North Site Photo 3: Northwestern Edge of Project Site, along East Pacific Coast Highway, looking Southeast to Northwest Site Photo 4: Western Point of Project Site, looking Northwest to Southwest Figure 5-2 HE SITE PHOTOS 1 THROUGH 4 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-16 ME ■❑ Declaration �JJ SfL!liL .- 0 Site Photo 5: Northern Edge of Project Site, along East Pacific Coast Highway, looking Southeast to Northwest E a5 t -� D! P�7J Site Photo 6: Northwest of Project Site, along East Pacific Coast, looking East to South 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Df Site Photo 7: Northwest of Project Site, along East Pacific Coast Highway, looking Northeast to Southeast Site Photo 8: Southwest of Project Site, looking North to East, from Newport Bay Site Photo 9: Southwest of Project Site, looking Northwest to Northeast Figure 5-3 HE SITE PHOTOS 5 THROUGH 9 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-17 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis off-site, is an existing beach and parking lot used for boat rentals. As shown on Site Photo 6 (Figure 5-3), docked boats and residential homes are visible beyond the site to the south. As shown on Site Photos 7 and 8 (Figure 5-3), tall buildings associated with Fashion Island are visible along the horizon to the east of the site, with the Newport Bay Bridge visible immediately north of the site. Coastal bluffs also can be seen in the distance beyond the Newport Bay Bridge. Site Photo 9 (Figure 5-3) depicts a representative view of the Project site from Linda Isle and the water surface between the Project site and Linda Isle. As shown, views of the Project site from this location primarily are composed of views of the existing boat slips and docked vessels. Shade trees within the Balboa Marina parking lot also are visible in the distance, as is the Newport Bay Bridge. General Plan Visual Resources Policies The Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan identifies goals and policies for the protection of visual resources within the City. The General Plan also identifies key public view points and coastal view roads for protection and/or enhancement, which are depicted on Figure 5-4, General Plan Coastal Views Map. As shown on Figure 5-4, East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive are both designated as "Coastal View Roads." Additionally, and as also shown on Figure 5-4, the General Plan identifies the following public view points within close proximity to the Project site: • Harbor Island Road at Bayside Drive • West Coast Highway within Mariner's Mile • Western Shore of Newport Bay Immediately North of the Coast Highway Bridge Applicable General Plan policies related to the City's coastal views are as follows: Policy NR 20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. Policy NR 20.3 Protect and enhance public view corridors from the [Coast Highway/Newport Bay Bridge], and other locations may be identified in the future. Policy NR 20.4 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent, and minimize impacts to public views. Related to the City's key public view points and coastal view roads, Site Photo 1 (Figure 5-2) depicts views of the Project site from Bayside Drive near the intersection with East Coast Highway. Site Photos 5 and 6 (Figure 5-3) depict views of the site from the Newport Bay Bridge. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-18 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration COSTA MESA ��, NEWeORT Al ,SNORES t UPPER I NEWPORT BAY IN - ISLE NEW➢ORT 11ER BALBOA ISLAND PACIFIC OCEAN ;s): City of Newport Beach General Plan FASHIO ISLAND IRVINE NEWPORT ) (,L I COAST CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Legend 0 Public View Point ^� Coastal View Road Shoreline Height Limitation Zone '`o City Boundary County Figure 5-4 HE GENERAL PLAN COASTAL VIEWS MAP Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-19 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Site Photo 5 also represents views of the site from Newport Bay north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Although the Project site is in close proximity to Mariner's Mile, the site is not visible along East Coast Highway within Mariner's Mile due to intervening development and landscaping. The site also would not be visible from the intersection of Harbor Island Road at Bayside Drive, as views of the site from this location are completely obstructed by existing residential development and associated landscaping. Additional public view points are identified on Figure 5-4 within relatively close proximity to the site; however, the Project site is not visible from these additional view points due to intervening topography, landscaping, and development. Although not identified as a public view point on Figure 5-4, an existing public access ramp occurs at the west end of the Newport Bay Bridge, along the south side of East Coast Highway. This location, which is depicted on Site Photo 7 (Figure 5-3), provides prominent views of Newport Bay and the Project site. The existing pathway at this location is utilized by the public to access trails available along the western shore of Newport Harbor, beneath the Newport Harbor Bridge. As such, this location also is analyzed herein. An existing residential community occurs on Linda Isle. Homes along the northern shore of Linda Isle and boaters in Newport Bay have prominent views of Balboa Marina. Because the proposed Project has the potential to affect views from Newport Bay, this location also is analyzed herein. Private views from residential properties on Linda Isle are not subject to analysis under CEQA; regardless, views from Linda Isle would be affected in approximately the same manner as views experienced by boaters using Newport Bay and the water channel between Linda Isle and the Project site. As previously indicated, and to summarize, the Project site would only be visible from one (1) of the view points identified on the General Plan Coastal Views Map (Figure 5- 4): along the western shore of Newport Bay immediately north of the Coast Highway Bridge. Additionally, the Project site would be visible from portions of East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, both of which are identified by the General Plan as Coastal View Roads. Moreover, Newport Bay is a major recreational resource within the City, and the Project has the potential to adversely affect views from Newport Bay. Analysis of Potential Impacts to Coastal View Roads ♦ Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway Easterly of Bayside Drive Site Photo 1 (Figure 5-2) depicts views of the Project site from Bayside Drive near the intersection with East Coast Highway. This is the only portion of Bayside Drive from which the Project site is visible, as views from the remaining segments of Bayside Drive are obstructed by existing development and landscaping. As shown, existing views of the Project site from Bayside Drive and from segments of East Coast Highway located easterly of Bayside Drive encompass the existing parking lot and the existing Sol Restaurant. Views of the remaining portions of the site are obstructed from this location by the existing restaurant building and parking lot landscaping. Upon implementation of the proposed Project, only minor improvements to the reconfigured parking lot and associated landscaping would be visible from this location. The proposed marine commercial building would not be visible from any portion of Bayside Drive, nor would it Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-20 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis be visible from segments of East Coast Highway located easterly of Bayside Drive. Because the Project site appears as an existing parking lot with landscaping under existing conditions, and the only Project -related improvements that would be visible would consist of the reconfigured parking lot and new landscaping, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on these Coastal View Roads. ♦ East Coast Highway Westerly of Bayside Drive Visual Simulation Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (refer to Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9) depict a comparison of existing views available from this segment of East Coast Highway, along with renderings of how the site would appear following Project implementation. As shown, under existing conditions the Project site appears as an existing parking lot with shade trees visible throughout. The rip -rap slope and seawall also are v isible at the Project site's interface with Newport Bay. Several docked boats are visible along the southern edge of the site. The existing one-story on-site marine commercial building occupied by a yacht brokerage is not visible from the Newport Bay Bridge, although views of this existing building are afforded further east along East Coast Highway (i.e., between the bridge and Bayside Drive). As shown on Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9, with implementation of the proposed Project, the proposed marine commercial building, gangways, and new public and private boat slips (and associated boats) would be visible from this segment of East Coast Highway. The proposed boat slips and docked boats would not represent a substantial change in the site's existing visual character, as the new boat slips would merely comprise an extension of the existing boat slips occurring in this portion of Newport Harbor. Likewise, improvements planned to the parking lot would not represent a substantial change to the site's existing visual character, as such improvements would be scarcely visible from off-site locations. However, the proposed marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to existing views from East Coast Highway, and therefore has the potential to adversely affect views from East Coast Highway westerly of Bayside Drive. Because the Approval in Concept (AIC) application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulations presented on Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9 reflect a conceptual design for the building. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified as part of the Project's Site Development Review (SDR), which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would be compatible with similar uses in the Project vicinity, including the existing restaurants located east of the Project site, it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the architectural components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect views from this segment of East Coast Highway. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building would not adversely affect views from East Coast Highway, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 on the proposed Project to ensure compliance with General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, which specify architectural standards that must be incorporated into the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-21 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis design for the proposed marine commercial building. The standards identified in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a substantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a c ontinuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, with implementation of the required mitigation, the Project's potential visual impacts to this segment of East Coast Highway would be reduced to a level below significant. Analysis of Potential Impacts to Public View Points ♦ Western Shore of Newport Bay Immediately North of Coast Highway Bridge Visual Simulation 5 (Figure 5-10) depicts existing views of the site from a p ublicly- accessible trail located in Castaways Park, west of Newport Bay and north of East Coast Highway. As shown, under existing conditions the Project site is scarcely visible beyond the Coast Highway Bridge from this location. Existing site elements visible from this location include shade trees within the parking lot, small portions of the parking lot itself, and docked boats located along the southern edge of the Project site. Dominating views from this location are t he Coast Highway Bridge and existing residences located on Linda Isle, as well as Newport Harbor itself. As shown in the visual simulation presented on Figure 5-10, with implementation of the proposed Project the upper portions of the proposed marine commercial building would be visible, as would additional boats that would utilize the new public and private boat slips. The proposed boat slips and docked boats would not represent a substantial change in the site's existing visual character, as the new boat slips would merely comprise an extension of the existing boat slips available in this portion of Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot would not be prominently visible from this location and would not appear substantially different from the existing condition. Although some minor changes to the configuration of the site's shade trees are proposed, the new landscaping would not substantially change the site's visual character as viewed from this location. The introduction of the new marine commercial building to this vantage point would be visible and perceived as a v isual change as compared to the existing condition. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulation presented in Figure 5- 10 is based on a conceptual design of the building. Specifics regarding the building's architectural details would be specified in a subsequent application, as part of the Project's Site Development Review (SDR), should the AIC be approved. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-22 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental ChecMist and Environmental Analysis I.j ; m 11 �j r � Nrl� � IN1� • � � • _�. AFTER Source, BCV Figure 5-6 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 1 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-24 so 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental ChecMist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE AFTER Figure 5-8 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 3 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-26 so 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental ChecMist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE AFTER Figure 5-9 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 4 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-27 so 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental ChecMist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE AFTER Figure 5-10 HE VISUAL SIMULATION 5 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-28 so 0171 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental ChecMist and Environmental Analysis BEFORE AFTER Figure 5-11 HE VISUAL SIMULATION b Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-29 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and architectural style would appear generally consistent with the existing residential homes on Linda Isle from this vantage, it is not possible to definitively determine whether the proposed architectural components of the building would adversely affect views from this location based on the conceptual building design contained in the AIC application. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views from this public view point, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, which specifies architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design of the proposed marine commercial building. The standards identified in Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 are intended to ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, impacts to publicly accessible areas located northerly of the Coast Highway Bridge on the west side of Newport Harbor would be less than significant. ♦ Existing Pedestrian Ramp at West End of Coast Highway Bridge Existing views of the Project site from the existing pedestrian ramp are similar to those described above for the segment of East Coast Highway located westerly of Bayside Drive (refer to Figure 5-7 through Figure 5-9). As indicated in the above analysis of this segment of East Coast Highway, the only element of the Project that has the potential to adversely affect scenic views available from the existing pedestrian ramp would be the proposed marine commercial building, primarily because the architectural components of the proposed structure would not be defined until future applications for an SDR are filed with the City. In order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views from this existing pedestrian ramp, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 on the proposed Project, which specifies that the building must comply with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, which include architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design for the proposed marine commercial building. Compliance with applicable policies would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a c ontinuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, with implementation of Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-30 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis the required mitigation, the Project's visual impacts to the existing pedestrian ramp would be reduced to a level below significant. ♦ Boaters in Newport Bay (and Linda Isle Residences) Boaters in Newport Bay have prominent views of the Balboa Marina and the proposed Project has the potential to affect existing public views from the water. Private views from residential properties on Linda Isle are not subject to analysis under CEQA; regardless, views from Linda Isle would be affected in approximately the some manner as views experienced by boaters using Newport Bay and the water channel between Linda Isle and the Project site. Site Photo 9 (Figure 5-3) depicts a representative view of the Project site from Newport Bay. As shown, views of the Project site from this location under existing conditions primarily include views of the existing boat slips and docked vessels. Shade frees within the parking lot also are visible in the distance, as is the Newport Bay Bridge. Figure 5-11 and Figure 5-6 depict visual simulations of the proposed marine commercial building and new boat slips as they would be visible from Linda Isle and the Newport Bay Channel. As shown, with implementation of the Project, additional docked boats would be visible at the west end of the existing boat slips, while the proposed marine commercial building and portions of the site's landscaping would be visible above the docked boats. The addition of boat slips would not represent a significant adverse change, as the new docked boats and boat slips would merely appear as a continuation of the existing boat slips that dominate this portion of the Newport Harbor. Additionally, proposed landscape elements would not appear substantially different from the existing condition. Thus, the Project's only potential to impact views from boaters using Newport Bay would be associated with the proposed marine commercial building. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual building design, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. The visual simulation presented on Figure 5- 11 reflects a conceptual design for the building. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified as part of the Project's SDR, which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would appear generally consistent with the existing developments visible from this location (i.e., existing restaurants located easterly of the Project site), it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the architectural components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect views from the water surface of Newport Bay. Therefore, in order to ensure that the proposed building does not adversely affect views, the City has imposed Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 on the proposed Project, which specifies that the building design must comply with applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies, compliance with which would ensure that the future design of the marine commercial building is aesthetically enhanced and compatible with existing development in the surrounding area. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-31 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Accordingly, although the construction of a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building would represent a su bstantial change to the site's existing appearance, mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, the proposed marine commercial building would appear as a continuation of existing development patterns visible in this portion of Newport Harbor. Accordingly, impacts to public views would be less than significant. Conclusion As indicated in the preceding analysis, although the Project would introduce a new marine commercial building that could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in a manner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. Changes due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would merely appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that occur in Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot and associated landscaping would not be prominently visible from off-site locations and would not represent a substantial change as compared to the existing condition. Therefore, and assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, Project -related impacts to scenic vistas would be reduced to below a level of significance. b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Finding: No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. The Project site is not visible from a State scenic highway. Therefore, there is no potential for impacts to occur. The State Legislature created a Scenic Highway Program in 1963, which is intended to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. There are n o officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within the City of Newport Beach; however, State Route 1 (SR -1, "East Coast Highway") is identified as Eligible for State Scenic Highway designation. A State scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway. The City must also adopt ordinances to preserve the scenic quality of the corridor or document such regulations that already exist in local codes. (Newport Beach, 2006b, p. 4.1-13) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-32 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis There are no officially designated scenic vistas or scenic highways within Newport Beach. Although SR -1 (East Coast Highway) is identified as Eligible, the City has not applied for State designation. Under existing conditions, the Project site consists of the existing Balboa Marina, including an improved parking lot, one one-story building, and 105 boat slips with associated gangways. As shown on Site Photos 1 through 4 (Figure 5-2) and Site Photo 5 (Figure 5-3), the Project site does not contain scenic trees or rock outcroppings. Additionally, no historic resources are I ocated on the property. Newport Harbor is considered scenic. The proposed Project has no potential to damage scenic resources within a S tate scenic highway, because East Coast Highway is not a S tate scenic highway. Accordingly, no impact would occur to scenic resources visible from a State scenic highway. c) Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are n of definitive at this time. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not degrade the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, mitigation is recommended. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. The Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and existing one-story building containing a yacht brokerage, construct a new marine commercial building, reconfigure the existing parking lot and associated landscaping, construct a new public boat dock, and add 24 new private boat slips to the private marina. As discussed earlier in this section, installation of a new public boat dock and additional private boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips located in this portion of Newport Harbor; accordingly, the proposed boat slips would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of Newport Harbor or its surroundings. Similarly, the proposed reconfiguration of the existing parking lot and associated landscape improvements would not be prominently visible from off-site locations, and to the extent these improvements are visible, they would not differ markedly from the site's existing condition. The amount of landscaping is proposed to increase from approximately 15% coverage to 25% coverage, which would provide greater visual relief to the paved parking surfaces. The proposed marine commercial building is the Project's only component with a potential to adversely affect the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's architectural characteristics are not definitive at this time. Specifics regarding the building's architecture would be identified Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-33 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis as part of the Project's SDR, which is a subsequent application that would be submitted to the City should the AIC be approved. Although the proposed building's massing, height, color scheme, and general architectural style would be compatible with similar uses in the Project site's vicinity, it is not possible by review of the AIC to definitely determine if the components of the proposed marine commercial building would adversely affect the visual quality or character of the site or its surroundings. In order to ensure that no elements of the proposed structure's architectural design would degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings, Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 is recommended related to architectural standards that must be incorporated into the design of the proposed marine commercial building. Mandatory compliance with Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future building is designed to comply with City of Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies and reduce potential visual character impacts to a level below significant. During the Project's temporary construction period, construction equipment, supplies, and activities would be visible on the subject property from immediately surrounding areas. The major construction equipment expected to be used is described in Section 3, Project Description. Construction activities are a common occurrence in the City of Newport Beach and the region of southern California and are not considered to substantially degrade the area's visual quality. All construction equipment would be removed from the Project site following completion of the Project's construction activities. For these reasons, the temporary visibility of construction equipment and activities at the Project site would not substantially degrade the visual character of the surrounding area. Visual character changes associated with construction would be less -than -significant. d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. With mandatory adherence to the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting), the Project would not produce a new source of artificial light that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a c onceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's exterior architectural materials are not definitive at this time. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not include reflective materials that could cause glare, PDFs are recommended. With implementation of the recommended PDFs, impacts would be reduced to a I evel below significant. Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code regulates outdoor lighting, and includes standards that are intended "...to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, overlighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures..." (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070). The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out; therefore, a substantial amount of ambient light from urban uses Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-34 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis already exists. Similar to other developed urban areas, sources of light and glare include neon signs, glass building facades, streetlights, parking lot lights, automotive headlights, etc. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.1-13) All development within the City is required to comply with Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code, including the following requirements: All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Parking lot light fixtures and light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut-off fixtures (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070.A.1). Spotlighting or floodlighting used to illuminate buildings, statues, signs, or any other objects mounted on a pole, pedestal, or platform or used to accentuate landscaping shall consist of full cut-off or directionally shielded lighting fixtures that are aimed and controlled so that the directed light shall be substantially confined to the object intended to be illuminated to minimize glare, sky glow, and light trespass, The beam width shall not be wider than that needed to light the feature with minimum spillover. The lighting shall not shine directly into the window of a residence or directly into a roadway. Light fixtures attached to a building shall be directed downward (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070.C). Dock and gangway lighting would be provided as currently exists at the Balboa Marina and would be located under the handrails. Parking lot lighting is proposed to be upgraded to energy-efficient fixtures. Fixtures would be placed to reduce "spill over" lighting to surrounding properties. The proposed fixtures are a c ombination of decorative and utilitarian poles and are required to be spaced to comply with City of Newport Beach minimum light level requirements and to meet standard safety requirements. The proposed marine commercial building would also introduce artificial light sources, including lights inside the building and visible through windows, lights mounted on the exterior walls of the building, and lights placed in the proposed outdoor patio that would be visible from off-site locations. Because the parking lot is illuminated by light fixtures under existing conditions, there would be no increase in the amount of ambient light generated by the parking lot with implementation of the proposed Project. As such, planned replacement of the parking lot lighting elements would not represent a n ew source of light or glare that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Therefore, there would be no impact in association with parking lot lighting elements. The primary source of new lighting elements associated with the Project would be from the new gangway lighting fixtures as well as lighting elements anticipated as part of the new marine commercial building. Although this represents an increase in lighting levels on the site as compared to the existing condition, the proposed lighting elements would be consistent with other lighting elements that occur both on-site and within the surrounding area. The new gangway lighting would be similar in character to the lighting elements already associated with the Balboa Marina's existing gangways. Furthermore, the gangway lighting would be installed under the handrails, thereby Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-35 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis preventing any light from spilling on to adjacent properties or creating a new source of sky glow. Similarly, lighting that would be associated with the marine commercial building and its outdoor patio would be similar to existing lighting sources in the area. Lighting is anticipated to consist of relatively low levels of illumination, and would appear similar in intensity to lighting associated with existing restaurant and residential uses in the Project's viewshed. Furthermore, proposed lighting elements would be subject to Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting) of the City's Zoning Code, which regulates outdoor lighting, and includes standards that are intended "...to reduce the impacts of glare, light trespass, overlighting, sky glow, and poorly shielded or inappropriately directed lighting fixtures..." (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 20.30.070). Due to mandatory compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 and the relatively minor increase in lighting intensity proposed by the Project, Project lighting elements would have a I ess-than-significant impact on nighttime views. Although not anticipated, the proposed marine commercial building has the potential to create new sources of glare if constructed of materials with a high reflective value (e.g., metal, glass, etc.). Because the AIC application currently on file with the City of Newport Beach includes a conceptual design of the Project's proposed marine commercial building, specifics regarding the building's exterior architectural materials are not definitive at t his time. However, the architectural design concept is a Mediterranean style, which does not typically include expansive metal and reflective glass elements. In order to ensure that the future design of the building does not include reflective materials that could cause glare, Mitigation Measure MM AE -2 is recommended. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. Aesthetics : Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE -2 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non -reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and MM AE -2 would reduce the Project's potential impacts to aesthetics to below a level of significance. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-36 ME ■ 1:1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 5.4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No Impact. The Project site contains developed marina and water surface and is identified by the California Department of Conservation (CDC) as containing "Urban and Built -Up Land." In addition, the Project site does not contain any soils mapped by the CDC as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, is almost entirely built -out and does not contain any significant agricultural resources (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Appendix A, p. 23). Additionally, according to mapping conducted by the CDC as part of the Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP), the Project site is identified as containing "Urban and Built -Up Land." The Project site and surrounding areas do not contain any soils mapped by the CDC as P rime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. (CDC, 2010) Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Finding: No Impact. According to information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC), there are no agricultural lands subject to a Williamson Act Contract within the City of Newport Beach. The Project has no potential to conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). Properties north of the Project site and north of East Coast Highway are zoned as Planned Community (PC -9). Properties bordering the Lower Newport Bay channel and located east of the Project site are zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). East of Bayside Drive properties are zoned Commercial General (CG 0.3 FAR). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-37 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Properties located to the south on Linda Isle are zoned Single -Unit Residential (R-1). There are no existing or proposed agricultural zoning designations affecting the Project site or surrounding area. As such, the Project has no potential to conflict with agricultural zoning designations, and no impact would occur. According to information available from the California Department of Conservation (CDC), there are no agricultural lands subject to a Williamson Act Contract within the City of Newport Beach. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. (CDC, 2012). No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(8)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? Finding: No Impact. There are no lands within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project site contains a developed marina and water surface area. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with existing forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production areas. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site and surrounding land areas are fully developed with urban uses under existing conditions. There are no forest resources on the site or within the vicinity of the Project site. There are no lands within the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, that are zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (Newport Beach, 2010). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to impact properties zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. As such, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use Finding: No Impact. The Project site is comprised of a developed marina and water surface area and does not contain forest land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach, including the Project site and properties surrounding the Project site, does not contain any forest lands (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Table 3- 2). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-38 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would not involve any changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As indicated in the analysis presented above under the discussion and analysis of Thresholds a) through d) of this section, the Project site and surrounding areas do not contain any lands that are used for farmland or forest land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: Mitiaation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact agriculture and forestry resources. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.3 Air Qualify a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or "Basin"). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The SCAB is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, respectively; and the San Diego County line to the south. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, local governments, and state and federal agencies to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-39 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadline for meeting federal attainment standards for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or course particulate matter (PM,o). In response, the SCAQMD has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to reduce air emissions in the Basin. The current attainment status of the SCAB is shown on Table 5-1, SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status, below. SCAQMD adopted the most recent updates to their AQMP in December 2012. The 2012 AQMP provides an outline to achieve reductions in emissions while improving air quality within the SCAB. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 6) The 2012 AQMP relies on the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) 2012 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which assumes the implementation of land uses called for by adopted General Plans throughout the SCAG region, to predict air pollutant emissions and plan for air quality improvement. The SCAQMD has established criteria for determining consistency with their AQMP. These criteria are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and are discussed below. As indicated in the below analysis, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP. There are no other air quality plans applicable to the Project area. Accordingly, impacts due to a potential conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of an applicable air quality plan would be less than significant. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 31) Table 5-1 SCAB Regional Criteria Pollutant Attainment Status Pollutant State Federal Ozone Extreme Non -attainment Non -attainment PM10 Serious Non -attainment Non -attainment PM2.5 Non -attainment Non -attainment Sox Attainment Attainment CO Attainment Attainment NOx Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Other (vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, etc) Unclassified or Attainment Unclassified or Attainment (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 4-2) • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The Project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if local significance thresholds (LSTs) were Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-40 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis exceeded. As evaluated asp art of the proposed Project's LST analysis (refer to Threshold b), below, the Project's localized construction -source emissions would not exceed applicable LSTs, and a less -than -significant impact would occur. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities) (SCAQMD, 2008b). The proposed Project does not include such uses; thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions associated with the proposed Project, long-term operation of the proposed Project would not exceed the LSTs and the proposed Project's operational activities are determined to be consistent with the first criterion and a I ess-than-significant impact would occur. Therefore, construction and operational activities associated with the proposed Project are determined to be consistent with Criterion No. 1. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build -out phase. The 2012 AQMP assumes development associated with the build -out of General Plans adopted by cities and counties in the SCAG region. The proposed Project is consistent with the site's existing General Plan land use designation of "Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR)." As such, the Project would be consistent with the 2012 AQMP assumptions for the Project site, and the Project would not exceed the air emissions projected in the 2012 AQMP based on General Plan land use assumptions. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project would be consistent with Criterion No. 2. b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located within the SCAB and within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAB does not attain State of California or federal air quality standards for ozone, PMio, or fine particulate matter (PM -2.5) (refer above to Table 5-1). The Air Basin's air pollution problem is a c onsequence of the combination of emissions and meteorological conditions which are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. The summertime maximum mixing height (an index of how well pollutants can be dispersed vertically in the atmosphere) in Southern California averages the lowest in the U.S. Additionally, the Southern California area has abundant sunshine, which drives the photochemical reactions that form pollutants such as ozone. In the SCAB, high concentrations of ozone are normally recorded during the spring and summer months, while high concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are generally recorded in late fall and winter. High PM,o and PM2.5 concentrations can occur throughout the year, but occur most frequently in the fall and winter. Although there are changes in air pollutant emissions by season, the observed variations in the pollutant concentrations are largely a result of seasonal differences in weather conditions. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 2) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-41 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis According to the current data from the SCAQMD and the California Air Resource Board (CARB), in 2012 there were a total of 111 days during which the new 8 -hour ozone standard in SCAB locations were exceeded. The number of days exceeding the federal ozone standard varied widely by area, from zero to 86 exceedances, depending on location, with the majority of exceedances occurring in the Riverside and San Bernardino County regions. Exceedances were fewer at the coast (including the City of Newport Beach), increasing to a m aximum in the Basin's Central San Bernardino Mountains and inland valleys, and then decreasing further downwind in the Basin's far inland areas. In 2012, CO concentrations in the SCAB did not exceed the State of California or federal standards for either the 1 -hour or 8 -hour concentrations. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 10) Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 of Technical Appendix A summarizes the most recently released air quality monitoring data for the monitoring stations closest to the Project site (e.g., SRA #17 and SRA #18). The most recent data (2012) indicates that there was one day on which the federal 8 -hour ozone standard was exceeded, one day on which the State of California 8 -hour ozone standard was exceeded, and two days on which the State of California 1 -hour ozone standard was exceeded. The CO concentrations in the region did not exceed federal or state standards with the maximum measured levels at 2.8 ppm for the 8 -hour CO standards. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 10) To identify projects that will adversely affect the region's air quality through direct and indirect sources, the SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for air pollutants. The SCAQMD established these significance thresholds, in part, based on Section 182 (e) of the Federal Clean Air Act, which identified levels of volatile organic gases (VOCs) from stationary sources operating in extreme non -attainment regions for ozone at 10 tons per year. The value set by the CAA was converted into threshold levels in pounds per day for the construction and operational phases of a project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14) The SCAQMD states that any project located in the SCAB having daily emissions from both direct and indirect sources that exceed the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant on both a direct and cumulative basis. Thus, if the proposed Project would produce air emissions that equal or exceed any of the criteria listed in Table 5-2, the emissions will be considered significant on both a direct and cumulative basis. In addition, the California State 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO standard is used for determining the existence of CO Hotspots created directly or indirectly by a project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14). (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 14) Air quality impacts/emissions associated with a p roject can be placed into two categories, temporary (short-term) or long-term emissions. Temporary (short-term) emissions are generally associated with the demolition, grading, and construction activities of the project while long-term emissions are associated with the day-to-day operation, use, and area emissions from such activities as vehicle use, consumer product use, and energy generation/consumption. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) The following provides an analysis based on the applicable significance thresholds established by the SCAQMD, which are based on State of California and federal air quality standards. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-42 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-2 SCAQUID Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operation NO, 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day ROGNOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day sox 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 4-5) Construction -Related Air Pollutant Emissions The firm KPC EHS Consultants prepared a report on the Project's calculated air emissions, which is contained as Appendix A to this document. To perform the calculations, the proposed Project's construction schedule is based on 15 months for all construction -related activities (dredging, pile installation (water and land), demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating). The emissions calculations assume that the majority of the equipment is operating 5 days per week for 6 to 8 hours each day. This is an aggressive estimate because it is highly unlikely that the majority of the equipment would be operated at this assumed schedule producing the calculated emissions each day; thus, the analysis herein is conservative in nature. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) The proposed Project's construction equipment estimates are b ased on details provided to KPC EHS Consultants from the Joint Project Applicants and by use of CaIEEMod Defaults. The type and number of equipment chosen for each phase of construction was selected to present a "worst-case" scenario for construction related emissions; in most cases the equipment types and numbers may be less than those disclosed. (KPC EHS, 2014, pp. 15-16) The analysis for the proposed Project is unique in that it includes both land -side and water -side components. The schedule for construction activities are estimated to occur over 15 -months of active construction, with land -side and water -side activities occurring simultaneously. Increasing the construction timeline to longer than 15 months would allow for each task in the project to be completed over a greater timeline, which in some cases, such as demolition, grading and coatings, would decrease the estimated daily emissions presented Appendix A and summarized herein. The analysis in Appendix A presents a "worst-case" scenario as it assumes that all equipment in the various phases will be operating each day for the total estimated hours during project schedule. By analyzing the total number of equipment and hours each day it provides estimations for emissions at the highest anticipated levels. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Construction emissions can be distinguished as either on-site or off-site. On-site emissions generated during construction principally consist of exhaust emissions from construction equipment, fugitive dust from grading and excavation, and reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from asphalt paving and architectural painting. Off-site emissions during construction typically consist of exhaust emissions from truck traffic and worker Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-43 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis commute trips; road dust associated with traffic to and from the construction site; and fugitive dust from trucks hauling materials, construction debris, or excavated soils from the site. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Tables 5-2 through 5-10 found in Technical Appendix A present the unmitigated emission levels for the following phases of Project construction: dredging; demolition and site preparation; site grading; pile installation (land -side); pile installation and dock construction (water -side); building construction; pile installation and dock construction (land -side); site work, drainage, and paving; and tenant improvements and architectural coatings. Below, Table 5-3, Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions, presents the Project's projected maximum daily construction emissions for each pollutant prior to the incorporation of mitigation or compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements, such as SCAQMD Rule 403, "Fugitive Dust;" SCAQMD Rule 431.2, "Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;" SCAQMD Rule 1113, "Architectural Coatings;" SCAQMD Rule 1186, "PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;" and SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, "Less -Polluting Street Sweepers." Implementation of regulatory requirements would decrease the emissions lower than indicated in Table 5-3. Emissions from the various Project phases were estimated using the CalEEMod modeling program. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) As shown in Table 5-3, the maximum daily construction -related emissions for the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for all regulated air pollutants. Therefore, the Project's near-term construction emissions would be less than significant. These emissions would be short-term and cease at the completion of construction activity. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 16) Table 5-3 Maximum Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions Emissions rounds per da NOx ROG CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 70.23 33.96 47.81 0.11 7.96 4.96 Threshold 100 75 550 150 150 55 -Regional Exceeds Regional Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Source: SCAQMD and CaIEEMod (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5.1) NOx - nitrogen oxide ROG - reactive organic gasses CO - carbon monoxide SOx - sulfer dioxide PMio - course particulate matter PM2.5- fine particulate matter Area and Operational -Related Air Pollutant Emissions The firm KPC EHS Consultants prepared a report on the Project's calculated air emissions, which is contained as Appendix A to this document. Data contained in Appendix A and summarized below was obtained by KPC EHS Consultants using the CalEEMod program reports and EPA NonRoad Model to calculate the total values for Area and Operational Emissions. The Area and Operations Emissions calculated in Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-44 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Appendix A are presented in Table 5-4, Area and Operational Emissions. Table 5-4 includes emissions from the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the Project site, consumer product use, and from vehicle trips associated with the movement of materials, products, residents, visitors and employees, and watercraft/marina operations. No mitigation measures were employed in the modeling and calculation of the area and operational emissions. As shown in Table 5-4, Project area and operational emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants prior to mitigation. Therefore, long-term area and operational air quality emissions associated with the Project would be less than significant. Table 5-4 Area and Operational Emissions Maximum Daily Emissions Emissions(pounds per da NOx VOC CO sox PM10 PM2.5 Area 0.00029 2.6713 0.0307 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 Energy 1.1468 0.1262 0.9633 0.0068 0.0872 0.0872 Mobile 8.1948 9.3431 36.2211 0.0680 4.7338 1.3327 Watercraft/Marina 34.63 (*2) 6.46 0.90 0.72 (*2) Total (*1) 43.97 12.14 43.68 0.97 5.54 1.4200 Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Regional Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Source: SCAQMD, CaIEEMod, and EPA NonRoad Model. (*1) Totals are from the CalEEMod reports and NonRoad Calculations for watercraft, due to rounding total may higher than toof the columns when added. *2 Emissions Vo,C & PM2.5 are not modeled for watercraft by EPA NonRoad Model. (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5-14) c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As previously indicated in Table 5-1, the SCAB does not achieve the State of California and/or federal standards for ozone, PMio, and PM2.5. As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Threshold b) above, and as previously presented in Table 5-3, Project -related construction -related emissions of VOCs, NOx, and CO (all of which are ozone precursors), and construction -related emissions of PM2.5 and PMio, are all calculated to be below the SCAQMD's regional thresholds of significance. As previously shown in Table 5-4, Project -generated area and operational emissions of VOCs, NOx, CO, PM2.5, and PM10 also are calculated to be below the SCAQMD's regional thresholds. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-45 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Furthermore, Table 5-5, below under Threshold d), shows that construction activities associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. Given these factors, near-term construction and long-term operational emissions would not substantially contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -attainment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable. d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial construction -related pollutant concentrations. Under long-term conditions, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Sensitive receptors and associated facilities that house them in proximity to local CO sources, toxic air contaminants, or odors are of particular concern. Sensitive receptors include the very young, elderly, and persons suffering from illness and are normally associated with locations such as schools, day-care facilities, convalescent care facilities, medical facilities, and residential areas. Sensitive receptors located closest to the Project site include the residential homes on Linda Isle located south of the Project site. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) CO Hot Spot Analysis High levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and in particular slow moving and idling vehicles. Depending on the existing background concentrations of CO, roadways have the potential to be CO hot spots. Evaluations according to SCAQMD recommendations need to be conducted to ensure that sensitive receptors will not be exposed to localized concentrations of the criteria pollutant CO. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 15) CO Hot Spots are typically associated with idling vehicles at extremely busy intersections (i.e., intersections with an excess of 100,000 vehicle trips per day) in areas with unusual meteorological and topographical conditions. Over the years CO standards have become increasingly strict resulting in a decrease in CO emissions from mobile sources (cars, trucks, etc.). CO attainment was analyzed as part of the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the SCAQMD, and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide. The 1992 Federal CO Attainment Plan included CO Hotspot analyses which were conducted at four major intersections in the City of Los Angeles. The busiest of the four intersections evaluated was at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, with a daily traffic volume at the time of the study being in excess of 100,000 vehicles per day. None of the four intersections modeled as part of the study were found to have CO emissions that exceeded State of California or federal standards. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 28) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-46 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis At buildout of the proposed Project, the busiest intersections in the Project vicinity would attract traffic that is well below the 100,000 vehicle trips per day threshold typically associated with CO Hot Spots. In addition, there are no unique topographical or meteorological conditions in the Project site's vicinity that could contribute to the formation of a CO Hot Spot. The SCAB has been designated as an attainment area for CO since 2007. Therefore, Project -related vehicular emissions would not create a Hot Spot and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO Hot Spot. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 28) Localized Sianificance Thresholds Analysis In addition, Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed by the SCAQMD in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. To address the issue of localized significance, the SCAQMD adopted LSTs that show whether a project would cause or contribute to localized air quality impacts and thereby cause or contribute to potential localized adverse health effects. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest residence or sensitive receptor. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 26) The significance of localized emissions impacts depends on whether ambient levels in the vicinity of a project are above or below State of California standards. In the case of CO and NOz, if ambient levels are below the standards, a project is considered to have a significant impact if project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of these standards. If ambient levels already exceed a State of California or federal standard, then project emissions are considered significant if they increase ambient concentrations by a measurable amount. This would apply to PMio and PM2.5, both of which are non -attainment pollutants. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 26) The LST methodology is applicable to projects where emission sources occupy a fixed location. This means that the LST methodology applies to projects during construction because, although construction equipment may move around a construction site, their movements are restricted to a fixed location. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) A construction LST analysis for the proposed Project was performed by the firm KPC EHS Consultants, and the results are included a report attached as Appendix A to this document. The LST analysis is based on the applicable LSTs established by the State of California and SCAQMD. This analysis assumes the Project would comply with applicable regional air quality requirements, including: SCAQMD Rule 403, "Fugitive Dust;" SCAQMD Rule 431.2, "Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels;" SCAQMD Rule 1113, "Architectural Coatings;" SCAQMD Rule 1186, "PMlo Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations;" and SCAQMD Rule 1186.1, "Less -Polluting Street Sweepers." Table 5-5, LST Emissions - Construction, depicts the results of the LST analysis. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-47 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-5 LST Emissions — Construction Pollutant LST Project Exceeds Significance Emissions Threshold? Threshold CalEEMod Lbs/Da * Lbs/Da NOX 190 70.23 No CO 1,864 47.81 No PM 10 44 7.96 No Construction PM10 11 5.54 No (Operations) PM2.5 11 4.96 No Construction PM2.5 3 1.42 No (Operations) *Based on LST SRA # 18 Receptor at 50 meters. (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 5-15) The LST emissions analysis was based on the SCAQMD's 5 -acre model with emissions data from the CalEEMod analysis with values for equipment and construction phase scheduling per the Joint Project Applicants' estimates or default values. As shown in Table 5-5, the Project's construction -related impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant because the LST emissions are all projected to be below the SCAQMD's LST significance thresholds. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 27) In regards to Project operation, the proposed Project involves the construction and operation of a new marine commercial building, improvements to Balboa Marina to provide a new public boat dock and additional private boat slips, and the reconfiguration of an existing parking lot. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a proposed project only if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities) (SCAQMD, 2008b). The proposed Project does not include such uses; thus, due to the lack of stationary source emissions associated with the proposed Project, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Impacts associated with odors generated during the proposed Project's construction and long-term operation would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required. Normally, odor impacts that generate complaints are associated with projects that involve agriculture and livestock operations, wastewater treatment, chemical manufacturing, refineries, landfills, and composting facilities. The Project proposes to construct and operate a marine commercial building anticipated to accommodate a Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-48 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis restaurant, make improvements to the Balboa Marina to provide a new public transient dock and additional private boat slips, and reconfigure the Balboa Marina parking lot. Such land uses would not normally be considered to create objectionable odors. Nonetheless, provided below is a discussion of potential odor impacts during construction and long-term operation of the proposed Project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Potential Construction Odor During Project construction, odors associated with diesel exhaust from heavy equipment, dust from earth movement, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings would be temporary, short-term in duration, and would end at the completion of construction. Construction -related odors would be temporary and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phases of construction activity. Construction -related odors are common in urban and suburban areas and are not objectionable to a large majority of the population. Additionally, mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules would limit odor emissions from construction vehicles. For these reasons, the short-term and temporary nature of construction odors would be considered a less -than -significant impact. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Potential Operational Odor Odors emitted during proposed Project's operation would be the result of cooking odors from the marine commercial building's restaurant tenant and diesel exhaust from increased boating -related activities at the marina.. The proposed Project's source(s) of odors are not normally associated with nuisance odors and complaints. The closest sensitive receptors would be located approximate 400 to 500 feet west/south west of the site on Linda Isle. Two other restaurants, Sol and 3Thirty3, are operating within 800 to 1,000 feet of the proposed marine commercial building and are situated closer to the potential odor -sensitive receptors that are located on Linda Isle. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not contribute to significant changes in operational odors already present around the Project site. Project -related operational odors would be less than significant. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 30) Air Quality: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.4 Biological Resources a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-49 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis California brown pelican and California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, Fishery Management Species (FMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFP), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). In the case of these species, impacts would result from temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving. Species are expected to temporarily leave the Project area due to short-term construction -related disturbance and/or irritation. These species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Due to dredging activities in the water, Project implementation would result in long-term impacts to HAPC and eelgrass for which either mitigation is required or Project design features balance out the loss of habitat in another area, as in the case of eelgrass, or increases to the habitat area, as in the case of HAPC. Under existing conditions, the land -side portion of the Project site is fully developed. The surface of the existing parking lot is largely devoid of vegetation with the exception of ornamental landscaping occurring within and bordering the existing parking lot. The beach is devoid of vegetation with the exception of a transitional slope between the parking lot and the beach that is dominated with non-native vegetation. Plant and wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local, or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and that were identified through field work conducted on the Project site by Coastal Resources Management, Inc. are summarized below. More information is contained in technical report attached as Technical Appendix e to this document. R efer to Appendix e for additional information. ♦ Eelgrass. The Project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered HAPC for various federally -managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish FMP under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act. HAPC are described in the regulations of EFP as being rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Two small eelgrass beds were mapped within the Project area totaling 515 SF or 12.6 square meters. Of this total, 379.3 SF (73.7%) was mapped at the southern edge of the sandy beach and 135.7 SF (26.3%) was mapped south of this location off of the southerly tip of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 9). Eelgrass would be adversely impacted by the proposed dredging of the shallow water habitat that would result in the loss of 515 SF of eelgrass vegetation (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 27). Proposed docks and floats would shade 9,045 SF of shallow water habitat, but would not adversely affect any additional eelgrass, because all of the eelgrass Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-50 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis would be removed during dredging (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 27). Project implementation would result in a long-term, significant impact to eelgrass and mitigation would be required. ♦ Marine Birds. California Brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Both species may react to construction disturbances by altering their normal foraging behaviors. No direct mortality of endangered seabirds would result from the dredging or excavation activities in the water -side portion of the Project site (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30). Turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Accordingly, construction activities causing turbidity in the water that could cause turbidity plumes to spread beyond the immediate dredging area would result in a potential short-term impact to the foraging habitat of the California least tern and a potential short- term impact to the foraging and shoreline resting habitat of the California brown pelican. Ocean material is proposed to be dredged over a period of approximately 4 weeks, 5 days per week, which would include mobilization and demobilization of the dredging equipment. The proposed area of dredging is shown in Figure 3-10, Water -Side Dredging Footprint. • California least tern. The State and Federally -listed California least tern does not breed or nest near the Project site but will forage in Newport Bay and nearshore coastal waters during their March through September breeding season. During this period, adults will forage on juvenile baitfish and take their prey back to their fledglings. Least terns forage within several miles of their nesting sites at Bolsa Chica Marsh and Upper Newport Bay. The nearest least tern nesting sites are located approximately 2.5 miles west (upcoast) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River and 4.2 miles northeast in Upper Newport Bay near the Jamboree Road Bridge. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 16) • California brown pelican. The California brown pelican is a federally endangered species but is proposed for delisting by both the federal government and the State of California due to its population resurgence along the California coastline. The California brown pelican is designated as a Fully Protected Species under the Fish and Wildlife Code, and that designation will not change as a result of the delisting. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 16) This species is found in Newport Bay year- round but does not breed locally. The brown pelican utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish and utilizes the shoreline as resting habitat. Brown pelicans do not breed in the Project region and therefore an alteration of their foraging behavior would not affect young -on -the -nest. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30) ♦ California Halibut and Other Fish. Although the California halibut does not have a formal species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resources agencies Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-51 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. Project dredging activity would temporarily degrade soft bottom habitat where this species is present, which would cause individuals to temporarily move to non -impacted areas precluding any direct or indirect adverse impacts. Proposed Project construction activities would not result in the mortality of any individuals. Habitat degradation would result in a short-term less -than -significant impact on halibut. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30). The proposed Project would have no long-term impact on any California halibut or any other sensitive species of fish and no mitigation is required. ♦ Marine Mammals. The Project's construction activity is expected to result in a sound exposure level that may reach up to 88 decibels (BBA) at 50 feet. Marine mammals have been observed at other construction sites flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure of less than 100 dBA. Accordingly, it is possible that marine mammals may temporarily modify their behavior as a result of noise produced by water -side construction activities. Sound noise levels are expected to be below that identified as harassment during dredging operations. Sea lion and bottlenose dolphin occurrences in Newport Bay have shown that they have the ability to adapt to noise and vessel traffic (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 31). However, construction activity pile driving in the air and water may result in avoidance behavior by marine mammals. Few, if any, marine mammals would be expected to be present at the construction site. If they are present, they are unlikely to be harmed because they would either move out of range of sound produced by pile driving, or they would adapt to expected sound intensities (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 31). Construction activities would result in the potential short-term displacement of marine mammals and impacts would be less than significant. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 36) The proposed Project would have no long-term impact on marine mammals. ♦ Marine Reptiles. The green turtle and hawksbill occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. However, their occurrence within Newport Bay is rare. Because Newport Bay has a productive eelgrass system, green sea turtles may occasionally utilize the seagrass beds as one source of their nutritional requirements. But if this occurred, it would be a rare occurrence. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 17) No sea turtles were observed in the Project area by CRM biologists during their surveys conducted on June 4 and July 19, 2013, and the potential for sea turtles to be in the Project area is extremely low (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 30). The proposed Project would thus have no impact on marine reptiles and no mitigation is required. ♦ Fishery Management Plan (FMP) Species, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). The proposed Project is located within an area designated as EFH for Coastal Pelagics Management and Groundfish Management Plan designated species (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 18). EFH is defined by the Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-52 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (Magunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 1996). In addition, estuaries are considered HAPC for various federally managed fish species. Coastal pelagic fish inhabit sunlit waters up to about 655 feet deep, typically above the continental shelf. Four (4) costal pelagic species (northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel) potentially occur in the waters offshore of Newport Beach. Six (6) groundfish species also occur, including California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 18) The only managed species likely to be present in Newport Bay, however, is the northern anchovy, which is unlikely to be benefitted or adversely affected in this part of Newport Harbor (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, pp. 36-37). Groundfish are likely to be extremely rare or absent in the Project site. However, should they be present, the potential for direct mortality on northern anchovy juveniles or adults is minimal. Increased water turbidity would instead result in the species temporarily avoiding the Project site which is a less -than -significant impact. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 33) Site excavation, pile driving, and dredging activities may result in increased water turbidity. Increased water turbidity may result in 1) the avoidance of juvenile and adult FMP species to the affected turbid waters, 2) an increase in the suspended sediment load in the water column that could introduce contaminants to FMP species, and 3) the clogging of the gill apparatus of filter feeds that would reduce the ability of the fish to breathe and/or feed. Based on the life histories and the distribution of identified FMP species that indicate coastal pelagic and groundfish-managed species occur in very low abundances in Newport Harbor, the potential for long- term adverse impacts on FMP species would be less than significant (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 34) and no mitigation is required. ♦ Noxious algae. Caulerpa algae has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nearshore systems due to its extreme ability to out -compete other algae and seagrasses and impact fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds dependent on native marine vegetation. Caulerpa algae is not present at the Project site under existing conditions and no component of the Project has a significant potential to increase the probability of caulerpa. However, in the unlikely event that it colonizes the marina, an eradication program would be required to be implemented immediately under the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Caulerpa Eradication Protocol. Project -related impacts would be less than significant; nonetheless, mandatory compliance with the Caulerpa algae Eradication Protocol is specified as a mitigation measure herein. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project Would result in short-term impacts to wetland habitat, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC) in the water -side Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-53 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis portion of the Project site. In addition, a long term impact would occur to eelgrass, a HAPC, as a result of dredging activity. No intertidal sandy beach or mudflats would be adversely impacted. Implementation of the Project would create 600 SF of mudflats, resulting in a net increase of soft bottom habitat. Thus, the Project would have a beneficial long-term effect on mudflats and associated resource groups. Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay are considered waters of the state and U.S. These waters contain sensitive habitat, such as eelgrass, that are afforded additional protection by state and federal agencies to conserve and protect biological resources. The Project proposes to construct a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips to the existing, private Balboa Marina. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF. Of this, 2,258 SF would be public docks and 6,787 SF would be private docks (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor to support the new docks. These include eleven (11) 20 -inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16 -inch diameter piles. The combined bottom surface area for all piles is 54.4 SF. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21) (CAA Planning, 2014) Additionally, the Project would require dredging, using clamshell dredging techniques, of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment over a b ottom surface area of approximately 1.0 acre. Dredging would permanently impact eelgrass habitat, an HAPC, and temporarily reduce benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrate habitat. Upon completion of the dredging activities, benthic invertebrates would recolonize the shallow subtidal habitat. Therefore, impacts to the shallow subtidal habitat would be a short-term less -than -significant impact, with no long-term reduction in benthic diversity, function or structure. The long-term impact to eelgross would be significant and require mitigation, as discussed in Threshold a), above. Also refer to Threshold a), above, for a discussion of EFH, to which impacts would be temporary and less than significant. In order to accommodate the new public dock and additional private boat slips, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15 -feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, along the western edge of the Project site. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The loss of 54.4 SF of soft bottom surface area for the piles would be compensated for by the 600 SF mudflat creation area, resulting in a net increase of 545.6 SF of soft surface bottom habitat. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial long-term impact on mudflats and associated resource groups (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 37) In addition, the new docks and piles would result in a net increase in biomass of marine community organisms that live on hard surface (algae, mussels, limpets, chitons, sea squirts, and moss animals). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-54 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to waters of the United States as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS). Short-term impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of Project - specific Best Management Practices (BMPs). The proposed Project would result in approximately 9,045 SF of new overwater coverage; however, the proposed Project also includes replacement of the existing riprap embankment that would be reconstructed 15 feet landward of the existing embankment. This replacement would result in removal of existing fill material and an increase of 6,772 SF of waters of the United States, which includes all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The increase in waters of the Unites States is a Project benefit that is considered sufficient mitigation to offset the increase in overwater cover. A jurisdictional delineation of the Project site was conducted by Anchor QEA, L.P., and a copy of the report is contained in Appendix C to this document. The landward extent of potential waters of the United States as defined by the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) were established along the beach area in the northwest corner of the study area.. No USACE jurisdictional wetlands were identified by Anchor QEA biologists and the extent of wetlands as defined by the CCC was limited to the high tide line. The Project proposes to construct a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips to the existing, private Balboa Marina. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the total thirty-six (36) new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF, constituting new overwater coverage. However, the proposed Project also includes replacement of the existing riprap embankment that would be reconstructed 15 feet landward of the existing embankment. This replacement would result in removal of existing fill material and an increase of 6,772 SF of waters of the United States, which includes all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The increase in waters of the Unites States is a Project benefit that may be considered sufficient mitigation to offset the increase in overwater cover resulting from construction of the proposed new docks. Specific details of the mitigation program would be determined during the Project's regulatory approval process with the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the CCC (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 11). In summary, construction activities would result in short- term temporary impacts to waters of the United States, but these short-term impacts would be mitigated by the implementation of the Project's riprap embankment replacement. With USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and CCC approval, long-term impacts would be less than significant. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-55 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Although Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts to the California brown pelican, California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, and Fishery Management Species (FMS), the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. There would be no substantial interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The Project site is not a wildlife nursery, so the Project has no potential to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. As discussed above under Threshold a), brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Both species may react to construction disturbances by altering their normal foraging behaviors. Turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities over a period of approximately 4 weeks may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Similarly, species that inhabit the water would be temporarily disturbed by in -water construction activities. Project dredging activity would temporarily degrade habitat for California halibut and other fish species, as well as marine mammals. The Project's construction activity may cause marine mammals to temporarily modify their behavior as a result of noise produced by water -side construction activities. Sea lion and bottlenose dolphin occurrences in Newport Bay have shown that they have the ability to adapt to noise and vessel traffic (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 31). However, construction activity pile driving in the air and water may result in temporary avoidance behavior by marine mammals. (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 36) Although Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts, the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Nonetheless, mitigation measures applied herein for temporary impacts to these species and their habitats would also apply to the less -than -significant impacts associated with their movement. e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. City Council Policy G-1 is not applicable to the proposed Project because the Project does not propose the removal of any City trees. The Project would not conflict with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl, although temporary disturbances to waterfowl and marine birds would occur Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-56 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis during the Project's construction process. These temporary impacts would be mitigated to a level below significant. In the long-term, the Project would benefit waterfowl habitat by replacing an existing riprap embankment and reconstructing it 15 feet landward of the existing embankment, as well as by creating 600 SF of new mudflats. Applicable Newport Beach policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources include City Council Policy G-1 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) and Chapter 7.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl). For an analysis of consistency with the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan, refer to Section 5.4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this document. Council Policy G-1 The City of Newport Beach City Council Policy G-1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, establishes requirements to ensure diversity in tree species and age classes within the City, and requires tree removal or reforestation to be approved by the City to ensure that tree removal requests do not adversely impact the overall inventory, diversity, or age of the City's Urban Forest. Implementation of the proposed Project would remove trees in the private Balboa Marina parking lot and plant trees, in the reconfigured parking lot. As shown on Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan, landscaping pockets would be installed in the reconfigured parking lot. Six (6) Canary Island Date Palms would be planted near the entrance driveway, King Palms would be planted along the primary parking lot drive aisle, two Senegal Date Palms would be planted at the entrance to the new commercial building, and Coral trees would be planted in other planting pockets. No City trees would be removed or planted as part of the Project; therefore, City Council Policy G-1 does not apply. Municipal Code Chapter 7.26 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26, Protection of Natural Habitat for Migratory and Other Waterfowl, is intended to maintain the value of natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns, and pelicans. As stated in Municipal Code Section 7.26.010, Findings, "[t]he City of Newport Beach finds and declares that: A. The waters of Newport Bay contain important natural habitat for migratory waterfowl and other birds such as ducks, gulls, terns and pelicans. B. The value of this habitat is maximized when the bay and its environs are, to the maximum extent practicable, maintained in a manner that replicates the natural environment. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-57 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis C. Replicating the natural environment means improving water quality, maintaining native grasses and plants, and not supplementing to, nor removing food from, the environment. D. Supplementing certain foods outside of the natural habitat can result in direct harm to waterfowl, including discouraging natural migration, causing avian diseases and limiting the birds' intake of more nutritional natural foods. E. Replicating the natural environment also means not incubating or otherwise intervening in the propagation of waterfowl unless licensed to do so by resources agencies. F. Incidental or de minimus feeding of waterfowl on a sporadic, non -routine basis does not distort or alter migratory patterns or the natural behavior of waterfowl. As discussed above under Threshold a), California Brown pelicans and California least terns forage in Newport Harbor waters in the general Project vicinity. Other waterfowl and birds likely use the site as well. The Project proposes to construct a new public boat dock in Newport Harbor and add additional private boat slips in the Balboa Marina that would result in temporary impacts in the water. Refer to Figure 3-5, Public Transient Dock and Marina Expansion, for the physical location of the new boat slips that are proposed. The total surface area of the new docks and floats would be 9,045 SF. The Project also proposes dredging and replacement of the existing riprap embankment by moving it 15 feet landward of the existing embankment, which would create additional water surface. In addition, the relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The increase in water surface and mudflats is a long-term Project benefit to Newport Bay and complies with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 7.26. During the Project's construction process, however, waterfowl and bird species may react to construction disturbances by temporarily altering their normal behaviors. As discussed under Threshold a), above, turbidity plumes caused by dredging activities may potentially impact California brown pelicans and California least terns by limiting their ability to see their prey and thereby causing them to temporarily move out of the area in search of food. Similar temporary behavior modifications can be expected of other waterfowl and birds as well, resulting in a potential short-term impact. f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not conflict with the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP, which is the only Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-58 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site. The Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) were completed in 1996, and the City of Newport Beach became a signatory agency in July of 1996. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The NCCP/HCP focuses on multiple species and habitats and addresses the conservation of these species in a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange -throated whiptail, in addition to 26 other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/HCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP. According to Figure 11 of the NCCP/HCP, Preliminary Reserve Concept, the Project site and surrounding areas are not targeted for conservation as part of the NCCP/HCP (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Therefore, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with any of the provisions of the NCCP/HCP. No impact would occur. Biological Resources: Mitigation Measures MM BR -1 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that all required permits and clearances regarding biological resources have been obtained from the regulatory and resource agencies. MM BR -2 The Project Applicant shall conduct a pre -construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days prior to dredging and a post -construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days after project construction is complete. Said surveys shall be consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol. If this species is found, protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia shall be implemented to remove this species from the Project site. MM BR -3 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, an eelgrass mitigation plan shall be prepared requiring a minimum 1.2:1 mitigation ratio for eelgrass impacts pursuant to the provisions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). At least 618 SF (57.4 square meters) of eelgrass shall be successfully transplanted at the end of a five- year post -transplant monitoring period. The location of the transplant area shall be the Balboa Eelgrass Mitigation Area which was established during the reconstruction of the Balboa Marina in 2008-2009 or as determined by the resource agencies. MM BR -4 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that dredging and excavation operations are surrounded with Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-59 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis a silt curtain to reduce the level of turbidity. The curtain shall be maintained in good condition throughout the dredging and excavation process. MM BR -5 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that a qualified biological monitor is retained to monitor turbidity and effects on marine mammals during pile driving operations. Said monitor shall comply with standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for water quality protection and applicable requirements for protection of marine mammals. MM BR -6 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: Construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with applicable requirements of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Contracts shall include a provision that in the unlikely event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the contractor shall immediately contact the NMFS Southwest Regional Office's Standing Coordinator, submit a report to the NMFS Regional Office and comply with all associated and feasible directives. COA: Pile driving shall be conditioned to require employment of a "soft - start" approach to lessen the potential for short-term construction impacts to marine mammals. This approach requires slowly ramping up pile driving activities at the start of the day and at restarting after breaks or any interruption longer than 15 minutes. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act shall be required if the "soft -start" approach is not employed. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BR-lthrough MM BR -6 would reduce the Project's impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. 5.4.5 Cultural Resources a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Finding: No Impact. No significant historical resources are located on the Project site and no significant historical resources would be impacted by the construction or operation of the proposed Project. Although the existing building located at 201 East Pacific Coast Highway would be demolished, the structure is not a significant historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-60 ME ODMitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Prior to approximately 1947, the land -side portion of subject property was an undeveloped lot. In approximately 1947, the property began to be utilized as a marina. In approximately 1953, the current on-site commercial building was constructed and the property began functioning as the Balboa Marina. Part of the water -side portion of the site was occupied for approximately 40 years by a floating vessel that housed the Ruben E. Lee Riverboat restaurant and later by the Newport Harbor Nautical Museum, but the vessel was dismantled and removed from the site in 2008. In 2009, the aging marina was renovated and the current boat docks, slips, and gangways were constructed on the water -side portion of the site. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a) defines a significant historical resource as the following: 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. 2. A resource included in a I ocal register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements [of] section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. The City's General Plan EIR Figure 4.4-1 shows the location of recognized historical resources in Newport Beach, none of which occur on the Project site (City of Newport Beach, 2006b). Under existing conditions, the land -side development area is occupied by a paved parking lot and a 1,200 SF commercial building located at 201 East Pacific Coast Highway that was constructed in approximately 1953. The building houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The building is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) and is not eligible for listing. Pursuant to the criteria used by the California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), the existing structure is not eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources because: 1) it is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history; 2) it is not associated with the lives of persons important to California history; 3) it does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction ; and 4) it has not yielded, nor does it have the potential to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The existing structure also is not included in any local register of historical resources, nor is it identified as significant in any historical resource surveys (City of Newport Beach, 2006b). Moreover, the existing structure is not historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California; rather, the structure exhibits a relatively modern architectural style and exhibits no unique architectural characteristics. There are no other structures or resources located within the Project site's boundary that could be considered a significant historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-61 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis § 15064.5(a). Based on the foregoing analysis, the existing structure and features on the Project site are not historical resources. Thus, the proposed Project would not impact historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Although unlikely, there is a remote possibility that archaeological resources could be encountered during grading of native soils in the land -side portion of the Project site. Mitigation Measure MM CR -1 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources, if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below significance. The City of Newport Beach is known to have been occupied by Native American groups prior to settlement by Euro -Americans. The City's General Plan EIR notes that archaeological materials associated with Native American occupation may be located beneath the ground surface and have the potential to be discovered, particularly in areas that have not been previously developed with urban uses (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.4-15). The land -side portion of the Project site is fully developed with recreation commercial uses, including a paved parking lot and one commercial building. The water -side portion of the Project site is located in Newport Harbor and the Lower Newport Bay channel, which have been subjected to water - bottom dredging on numerous occasions. Thus, both the land and water -bottom surfaces of the Project site are developed and disturbed. Furthermore, the City of Newport Beach has no record of reported archaeological resource discoveries associated with the Project site (City of Newport Beach, 2007). Construction of the proposed Project would involve dredging in the water -side portion of the site and ground disturbance in the land -side portion of the site. In the water -side portion, dredging would involve removal of bayfloor sediments by a clam shell dredge to a depth of 10 feet Mean Low Lower Water (MLLW) (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 26). Due to the dynamic nature of the water bottom and prior dredging activities in Newport Harbor and Lower Newport Bay, there is little to no potential that archaeological resources have the potential to be discovered in the dredged material. As part of the Project's construction process in the land -side portion, some portions of the property would receive fill material and other portions of the property would be excavated. According to the proposed Project's grading plans, the maximum depth of land -side excavation would extend to approximately 3.6 feet (Stantec, 2014). Additionally, Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (GPI), states in a geotechnical report prepared for the Project's proposed, new restaurant building, that excavations to maximum depths of approximately 6.0 feet would be required to accommodate over - excavations for the restaurant building. These over -excavations would be required to remove highly compressible organic clays, excavate for footings, and trench for utility lines (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 8). Based on soil boring samples tested by GPI in 2013, the subsurface of the land -side portion of the Project site consists mostly of Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-62 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis fine to medium sands with variable silt content, which are medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater depths. The subsurface also contains compressible organic clay with peat, elastic silt, and sand. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3). Because some of the soil to be excavated is native and has not been previously disturbed, there is a r emote possibility that archaeological resources could be encountered during excavation activities. If significant archaeological resources are unearthed, they could be significantly impacted if not appropriately treated. This is a potentially significant impact and mitigation is required. c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: No Impact. No paleontological resources are known to occur beneath the surface of the Project site or have the potential to be discovered during Project construction activities. Accordingly, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Areas within the City and its sphere of influence (SOI) that are known to have a high likelihood of containing fossils, include portions of the Vasqueros foundation that underlie the Newport Coast, the Newport Banning Ranch portion of the SOI, the Topanga and Monterey Formations, and the Fossil Canyon in the North Bluffs area (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.4-17). The Project site is not located in any of these areas. Construction of the proposed Project would involve dredging in the water -side portion of the site and ground disturbance in the land -side portion of the site. There is no potential for paleontological resources to be discovered during the Project's construction process because no fossil -bearing soils or rock formations are proposed to be disturbed or excavated. In the water -side portion of the site, dredging of sand material would occur to a depth of 10 feet Mean Low Lower Water (MLLW) (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 26). Sand is not a fossil -bearing soil. In the land -side portion, some portions of the property would receive fill material and other portions of the property would be excavated to maximum depths of approximately 6.0 feet. Based on soil boring samples tested by GPI in 2013, the subsurface of the land -side portion of the Project site consists mostly of fine to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These are not fossil -bearing soils. Excavations to maximum depths of 6.0 feet as proposed by the Project would not encounter fossil -bearing soils or rock formations. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or a unique geologic feature. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: No Impact. No human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries are present on the Project site or known to be present Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-63 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis beneath the surface of the site. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Under existing conditions, the water -side portion of the site consists of water surface and boat docks, slips, and gangways. The land -side portion of the site is occupied by a paved parking lot and a 1,200 SF commercial building. The Project site is not known to have ever been used as a cemetery and the possibility of uncovering human remains during Project -related dredging and grading activities is very remote. Regardless, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Mandatory compliance with these policies would ensure that potential impacts associated with the discovery of human remains would be less than significant. Cultural Resources: Mitigation Measures Mitigation for potential impacts to archaeological resources is as follows: MM CR -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan (s). "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground -disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100 -foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the City of Newport Beach shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-64 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM CR -1 would reduce the Project's potential impacts to archaeological resources to below a level of significance. 5.4.6 Geology and Solis a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. With mandatory compliance to the California Building Code and recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigation, the proposed Project would not significantly expose people or structures to potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. a) i). Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault There are no known faults on the Project site and the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. As such, there is no potential for ground rupture at the site. a) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking Southern California is a seismically active area and properties in the City of Newport Beach, including the Project site, are subject to periodic ground shaking and other effects from earthquake activity. Faults zones in the regional vicinity (as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-1, Regional Faults (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5 - Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-65 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 1)) with the potential to cause moderate ground shaking in the City of Newport Beach include the Newport -Inglewood fault zone, the San Joaquin fault zone, and the Elysian fault zone. On the water -side portion of the Project site, a new public boat dock would be constructed and additional boat slips would be added to the private Balboa Marina. Thirty-seven (37) piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor to support the new gangways. These include eleven (11) 20 -inch diameter piles and twenty-six (26) 16 -inch diameter piles, which would secure the docks and prevent significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic shaking. The marine commercial building that would be constructed on the land -side portion of Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. Approximately 235 auger cast pressure grouted piles are proposed to support the marine commercial building. A site-specific analysis, based on CBC requirements, was conducted as part of the Project's geotechnical investigation prepared by Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. (GPI) and is attached to this document as Appendix G. The geotechnical investigation sets forth site-specific recommendations to attenuate seismic hazards at the land -side portion of the Project site in accordance with the CBC requirements and standards. Compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation would be assured through future City review of grading and building permits for the land -side portion of the Project, which would assure that effects from strong seismic ground shaking are attenuated. The proposed building would be supported on auger -cast grouted piles in order to minimize surcharge loads on the existing seawall. As such, impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. a) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction The subsurface soil profile on the land -side portion of the Project site consists of mostly fine grain to medium sands with variable silt content, along with some minor amounts of compressible organic clay with peat and elastic silt. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) In the water -side portion of the Project site, soils on the water bottom consist of sand. The Project site is located within a I iquefaction hazards zone as mapped by the California Geological Survey (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 4). In addition, as shown on General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, Seismic Hazards (City of Newport Beach, 2006b,Figure 4.5-2), the Project area is identified as an area with liquefaction potential. Based on the CBC, which is based on the ASCE 7.10 Standard, the peak ground acceleration for the Project site, derived from the USGS Design Maps website, is 0.71g. Analysis performed by GPI indicates that most sandy soils at the Project site are dense enough to resist liquefaction even under high ground motion. In addition, marginal resistance to liquefaction was indicated in limited relatively thin layers of medium dense sands found mostly at shallow depths (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 4). GPI calculated the magnitude of seismic settlement under high levels of ground motion to be relatively small and concluded that the potential for liquefaction would result in a Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-66 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis temporary loss of strength in limited layers, which in turn would result in some permanent slope movement in the western portions of the Project site. None of these layers evaluated by GPI contained very loose to loose sands that would be susceptible to flows upon liquefaction. GPI analyses indicated lateral spreading potential less than 5 inches for a peak ground acceleration of 0,71g. Thus, GPI concluded the potential for lateral spreading due to liquefaction is considered to be negligible. As stated in a) i and ii) above, the marine commercial building proposed to be constructed on the Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of CBC Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. With compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G), which would be assured through future City review of building and grading permits, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. a) iv) Landslides Under existing conditions, the land -side portion of the Project site is a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west site. An approximately 3 to 4 foot change in elevation separates the beach from the parking lot. The proposed marine commercial building would be supported on pile foundations in order to limit surcharge loads on the existing seawall. Approximately 235 auger -cast pressure grouted piles would support the marine commercial building. As stated in a) i and ii) above, the building proposed to be constructed on the Project site would be required to comply with the building design standards of the CBC Chapter 13 for the construction of new buildings/and or structures. Compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G), would be assured through future City review of grading and building permits, which would assure that effects from landslides are attenuated. As such, impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Under existing conditions, the land -side portion of the Project site consists of 85% impervious conditions containing a 1,200 SF building and a paved parking lot with a concrete seawall on the south side and a descending slope toward the water on the west side. Under existing conditions, storm water runoff generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water -side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. The subsurface soil profile consists mostly of fine to medium sands with variable silt content. These sands are typically medium dense to dense in the upper 20 to 25 feet and become very dense at greater lengths. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) The land -side portion of the site is developed with a building and parking lot with established landscaping and does Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-67 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis not contain exposed topsoil. Therefore, little to no erosion occurs under existing conditions with the exception of limited natural erosion at the beach area located between the land -side and water -side portions of the Project site around the rip -rap embankment beyond the western boundary of the existing parking lot. Proposed demolition and grading activities associated with the Project's construction would temporarily expose soils underlying the land -side portion of the Project site to water and air which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds when erodible materials are exposed to wind and water. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Joint Project Applicants are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, during grading and other construction activities involving soil exposure or the transport of earth materials, Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code) of the City of Newport Beach would apply to the Project, which establishes requirements for the control of dust and erosion during construction (Newport Beach, 2012a, § 15.10). As part of the requirements of Chapter 15.10 (Excavation and Grading Code), the Project Applicant would be required to prepare an erosion control plan that would address construction fencing, sand bags, and other erosion -control features that would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the site's potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Requirements for the reduction of particulate matter in the air also would apply, pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Mandatory compliance to the Project's NPDES permit and these regulatory requirements would ensure that water and wind erosion impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Upon Project completion, land -side areas that were disturbed during construction activities would be covered with impervious surfaces or landscaped. Thus, wind and water erosion would be minimized as occurs under existing conditions. The potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be the result of indirect effects from storm water discharges from the property. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site drains would be constructed to direct low -flow and first -flush runoff to proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. Because the proposed Project would not increase the volume or velocity of water discharged from the Project site into Newport Bay, no increased erosion effects would occur. As concluded in the Project - specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) included as Appendix 1 to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, more water would soak into the ground and the Project would reduce the runoff rate as compared to the existing condition, which would reduce any siltation or erosion effects associated with water discharge. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-68 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis The Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City for approval a Project -specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and WQMP. The WQMP has been prepared by Fuscoe Engineering and is attached as Appendix I to this document. Appendix I is consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP) and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Collectively, the WQMP and SWPPP are required to identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from storm water and non -storm water discharges. Adherence to the requirements in the Project's required WQMP and site- specific SWPPP would further ensure that potential erosion and sedimentation effects would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. No mitigation is required. On the water -side portion of the Project site, tidal currents in the Project vicinity are ebb dominant, meaning the ebb currents are higher than the flood currents. According to analysis conducted by Everest International Consultants, Inc., overall tidal currents in the Project area are small under existing and proposed conditions and thus unlikely to cause any erosion. The impact of the proposed water -side development to tidal and flood velocities would be localized, limited to within a few hundred feet downstream of the East Coast Highway bridge along the main channel and beneath the bridge (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 60) Erosion impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. With mandatory compliance with the CBC requirements and the recommendations of the Project -specific geotechnical investigation, the proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable that would potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Potential landslide, lateral spreading, and liquefaction hazards are addressed above under the discussion and analysis of Thresholds a) and b). As discussed under Thresholds a) and b), with mandatory compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site-specific geotechnical investigation for the land -side portion of the Project site, impacts due to landslides, lateral spreading, and liquefaction would less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project -specific geotechnical investigation (refer to Appendix G) disclosed the presence of two highly compressible cohesive soil layers in the eastern portion of the Project site. The compressibility of these layers found below depths of 5 feet and 29 feet, Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-69 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis respectively, would mainly impact the support of the retaining wall and fill planned east of the proposed marine commercial building. Up to approximately 3.5 inches of settlement is expected under the weight of 10 feet of fill. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 6) The Project -specific geotechnical investigation recommends Project design features to attenuate settlement. Following these recommendations, the building is proposed to be supported on pile foundations in order to limit surcharge loads on the existing seawall. Approximately 235 auger -cast pressure grouted piles would support the marine commercial building. With compliance with applicable requirements and standards of the CBC and the specifications listed in the Project's site- specific geotechnical investigation, which would be assured through future City review of building and grading permits, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not be located on an expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) an no associated, substantial risks to life or property would occur. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The majority of the soils identified on the Project site by GPI are non -expansive sands. Such soils are suitable for re -use in fills. Clayely soils, identified by GPI in a limited thin layer below 5 feet, could be used in deep fills provided they are thoroughly blended with the non -expansive sands. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 9) Because the surficial soils exhibit a low potential for potential for expansion, no special reinforcement is necessary to resist expansive forces. However, nominal reinforcement, as a minimum is recommended (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 18). The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) and would, therefore, not create associated substantial risks to life or property. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No Impact. The land -side portion of the Project site would not require the use of septic tanks. The marine commercial building would be connected to the domestic sewer system. Vessel pump out accommodation is proposed for the additional private boat slips, which is not reliant on soils. Therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The City of Newport Beach is almost entirely built out with established utility services and new development would not require the use of septic tanks (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.5-1). The marine commercial building would be connected to the domestic sewer system. On the water -side portion of the Project site, vessel pump -out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips similar to the system Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-70 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis constructed at the existing private Balboa Marina. The pump -out system is not reliant on soils. Accordingly, the Project would not require the use of septic tanks or any other alternative waste water disposal system dependent on soils. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Geology and Soils: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to geology and soil conditions. With mandatory compliance with CBC requirements, the recommendations of the Project -specific geotechnical investigation, and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code requirements, no mitigation is required. 5.4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would result in GHG emissions that are below the City of Newport Beach's screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Based on the City's interim threshold of significance for the evaluation of GHG emissions, the Project's emissions of GHGs would be less -than -significant and mitigation is not required. The greenhouse gas effect is a natural process in which energy is trapped in the earth's atmosphere. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) essentially act as a blanket causing a warming of the earth. The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth; however excessive heat captured as a result of a buildup of GHGs may result in changes in the earth's climate, which ultimately could affect human health and ecosystems. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) GHGs are the six gases identified in the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), per fluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are expressed in metric tons (MT) of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalents). CO2e is calculated by the various individual GHGs and multiplying by their global warming potential (GWP). The global warming potential is a ratio of a gas' atmospheric heat trapping characteristics as compared to CO2, which is represented by a GWP of 1. The CO2e estimated value is calculated as part of the CclEEMod program data output, as developed by the SCAQMD. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) The GHGs associated with projects similar to the proposed Project include CO2, CH4, and N2O, which are emitted as a result of internal combustion sources and activities. The other gases listed as part of the overall GHG makeup generally are related to industrial activities and would not be produced in measurable quantities by the Project. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-71 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Local GHG Regulations In 2008, the SCAQMD provided guidance to lead agencies on the determination of significance of GHG project emissions. As part of the process, the SCAQMD assembled a GHG Significance Threshold Working Group with the goal to develop and reach a consensus on acceptable significance thresholds to be used in CEQA analyses. The Working Group developed and presented significance threshold for various project types (e.g.: residential, industrial, and commercial); however, at the current time, the only threshold approved by the SCAQMD Board is for industrial projects stationary source emissions with a significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year applied to projects for which the SCAQMD serves as the CEQA lead agency. The SCAQMD is considering a tiered approach in determining the significance of residential and commercial projects as indicated in draft guidance issued by the SCAQMD 2012 which includes: (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 9) • Tier 1: If the project is exempt under existing statutory or categorical exemptions there is a presumption of "less -than -significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 2: If the project's GHG emissions are within the GHG budgets in an approved regional plan (plans consistent with CEQA sections 15064(h) (3), 15125(d), or 15152(s)), there is a presumption of "less -than -significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 3: Is the project's incremental increase in GHG emissions below or mitigated to less than the significance screening level (10,000 MTCO2e/year for industrial projects stationary source emissions; 3,000 MTCO2e/year for residential projects, commercial projects, and mixed-use or other land use projects)? If yes, there is a presumption of "less -than -significant" impacts with respect to climate change. • Tier 4: Does the project meet one of the following performance standards? If yes, there is a presumption of "less -than -significant" impacts with respect to climate change. o Option 1: Achieve some percentage reduction of GHG emissions from a base case scenario, including land use sector reductions from AB32 (e.g., 28% reduction as currently recommended). o Option 2: For individual projects, achieve a project -level efficiency target of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population by 2020 or a target of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population by 2035. For plans, achieve a plan - level efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population by 2020. • Tier 5: Projects should obtain GHG emissions offsets to reduce significant impacts. Offsets in combination with any mitigation measures should achieve the target thresholds for any of the above Tiers. Otherwise, project impacts would remain significant. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-72 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis With the exception of the Industrial Stationary Source threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year, the SCAQMD has not finalized or presented the final version of the threshold guidelines to the SCAQMD Governing Board. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 9) Nonetheless, the analysis herein relies on the SCAQMD's Interim Threshold wherein if Project -related emissions exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year, then Project -specific GHG emissions would be potentially significant and require further study according to Tier 4, above . The screening threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review,. 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Projects that exceed the screening threshold would require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance. The City of Newport Beach relies upon the SCAQMD draft screening level threshold; therefore, for purposes of analysis herein, the proposed Project may have a significant adverse impact on GHG emissions if it would generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's 3,000 MTCO2e per year screening threshold. Based on the modeling assumptions described under the topic of Air Quality in Section 5.4.3 of this document, and using the SCAQMD's proposed Tier 3 option for determining the significance of a project's GHG impacts, Table 5-6, Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the Project's projected unmitigated GHG emissions. The emissions presented in Table 5-6 include emissions from construction activities, amortized over a 30 -year period per SCAQMD recommendation, as well as operational and area source emissions. As shown, the proposed Project would produce approximately 1,402.00 MTCO2e/year from operational, area, and amortized construction GHG emissions. The proposed Project's estimated GHG emissions of 1,402.00 MTCO2e/year would be less than the SCAQMD's interim threshold 3,000 MTCO2e/year. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less -than -significant impact due to GHG emissions. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 29) Mitigation is not required. Table 5-6 Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Source N20 GHG Emissions MTIyr. Total CO2 CII4 CO2e Mobile Sources 0.000 901.4828 0,0379 902.2795 Area 0.000 0.0528 0.00001 0.00559 Energy 0.00619 439.1639 0.0141 441.3775 Solid Waste 0.000 3.3778 0.1996 7.5698 Water/Wastewater 0.00426 23.0104 0.1728 27.9596 30 -year Amortized Construction GHG 22.81 TOTAL 1,402.00 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Exceed Threshold? NO (KPC EHS, 2014, Table 7-1) b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Finding: No Imoact. The proposed Project would comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-73 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis emissions; accordingly, no impact due to a conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would occur. Mitigation is not required. Presently there are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed Project regarding the reduction of GHG emissions (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7). The following discussion is a brief summary of the State of California and City of Newport Beach regulatory setting regarding GHGs. ♦ Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) In the State of California Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the state legislature in August of 2006. AB32 requires that levels of GHG be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 and by 80 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2050. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 7) Under the requirements of AB32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the 1990 GHG emissions inventory, which established the emissions limits for the year 2020. The 2020 emission limit was established at 427 million MTCO2e. The inventory breakdown of GHG sources for 1990 i ndicated transportation accounted for 35%; industrial emissions, 24%; imported electricity generation, 14%; local electricity generation, 11 %; residential usage, 7%; agriculture, 5%; commercial usage, 3%; and forestry emissions, 1%. Reducing GHG's to 427 MTCO2e would require a reduction of approximately 173 MTCO2e. Compliance with AB32 does not require that each individual sector meet or lower their 1990 GHG inventory percentage; the law instead requires the total inventory be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. (KPC EHS, 2014, pp. 7-8) As part of the requirements of AB32, in December of 2008 CARB adopted an initial scoping plan that included recommendations to reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020 through the use of green building policies, recycling, solid waste reduction, and a cap - and -trade program. (KPC EHS, 2014, p. 8) ♦ Senate Bill 97 (SB97) In order to address GHG emissions and comply with AB32 in General Plans and CEQA documents, Senate Bill 97 (SB97) required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for CEQA compliance on how to address GHG emissions along with measures to reduce project GHG emissions. Regulations that have been adopted by California to address GHG emissions include the following: (KPC EHS, 2014, p.8) • Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32) • Regional GHG Emissions Reduction Targets/Sustainable Communities Strategies (SB 375) • Pavely Fuel Efficiency Standards (AB1493). Establishes fuel efficiency ratings for new vehicles. • Title 24 California Code of Regulations (California Building Code). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for new construction. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-74 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis • Title 20 California Code of Regulations (Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards). Establishes energy efficiency requirements for appliances. • Title 17 California Code of Regulations (Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Requires carbon content of fuel sold in California to be 10% less by 2020. • California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881). Requires local agencies to adopt the Department of Water Resources updated Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent to ensure efficient landscapes in new development and reduced water waste in existing landscapes. • Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards (SB 1368). Requires energy generators to achieve performance standards for GHG emissions. • Renewable Portfolio Standards (SB 1078). Requires electric corporations to increase the amount of energy obtained from eligible renewable energy resources to 20 percent by 2010 and 33 percent by 2020. As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Threshold a), above, the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions below the SCAQMD's screening threshold and the interim significance thresholds established by the City of Newport Beach for evaluating the significance of a project's GHG emissions. Additionally, activities associated with the Project would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and regional requirements adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including, but not limited to: AB 32; SB 375; AB 1493; Titles 17, 20, and 24 of the California Code of Regulations; AB 1881; SB 1368; SB 1078; and the applicable policies of the City's General Plan that reduce GHG emissions. There are no other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are applicable to the Project area; therefore, the proposed Project would have no potential to conflict with such plans, policies, or regulations. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less -than -significant impacts due to GHG emissions; therefore, mitigation measures would not be required. 5.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the Project Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the findings of Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), although Underground Storage Tanks (UST) were not identified on the land -side portion of the property, no tank removal permits were located in building records. Accordingly, the potential exists that USTs may be uncovered during grading activities. In addition, the existing building on the property that would be demolished may contain friable asbestos materials and Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-75 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis materials coated with lead-based paint, both of which have the potential to expose construction workers and/or nearby sensitive receptors to health risks during demolition activities. Asbestos -containing materials and materials containing lead-based paints have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, there is an empty vault on the southwest corner of the land -side portion of the property, previously used to house an electrical transformer that may contain Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. With implementation of the required mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant. The analysis herein is based on a Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted by the firm Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC). The reports are attached as Appendix H to this document. Refer to Appendix H for additional information. The Project site is listed in the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) and California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS) environmental databases for a minor oil release for a boat overflow, two minor diesel spills from vessel bilge pumps, and the washing of paint waste into Newport Harbor. These listings do not represent a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) or a Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) for the property because events were in reference to releases into the water and have since dissipated. (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 1) No off-site environmental conditions were identified by EEC that represent a REC, a controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC), vapor encroachment condition (VEC), or a HREC within 0.5 mile of the property (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 2). During a search of building records conducted by EEC during their Phase I ESA, building records included applications dating 1956 and 1957, for the installation of one 1,500 gallon fuel UST and one 4,000 gallon UST. EEC did not locate any tank removal permits for the property. According to a map included with building records, the specific location of the USTs could not be determined. In addition, no visual evidence of USTs was identified by EEC at the Project site during the Phase I ESA. (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014b, p. 5) The potential presence of fuel USTs represents a REC for the property. In addition to the potential presence of USTs on the land -side portion of the Project site, documentation provided to EEC from the current property owner indicated that a petroleum odor was identified in soil during previous investigation activities. The potential of petroleum in soil also represents a REC for the property. The Phase II ESA also performed by EEC included a geophysical survey to determine if any subsurface features such as USTs or pipelines remain on the property. Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, no petroleum odors were observed in any of the soil cuttings derived from hand auger borings. Depth to groundwater in the borings ranged from approximately 8 feet to 9.6 feet below ground surface. EEC analyses confirmed that the two potential REC's identified on the property had not impacted the soils and/or groundwater conditions beneath the property. Although the soil and groundwater beneath the property was not impacted, the potential still exists that USTs Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-76 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis may be uncovered during grading activities. Accordingly, grading activities may result in a potentially significant hazard to construction workers if an UST is discovered; therefore, mitigation is required. EEC did not observe any hazardous materials being used at the Project site under existing conditions. However, EEC was not able to inspect the interior of the existing building on the property scheduled to be demolished as part of the proposed Project. Due to the date of the building construction (1953), there is a potential for Asbestos - containing Material (ACM) to exist inside the building (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014a, p. 7). Accordingly, during demolition of the building, there is a potential that construction workers could be exposed to friable asbestos materials, which are known to cause human health problems, including cancer. ACMs also have the potential to become airborne during demolition activities, potentially affecting nearby sensitive receptors. The demolition of structures containing ACMs is regulated by Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Rule 1403, which identifies requirements that must be adhered to during demolition of buildings containing ACMs. Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that Project demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. Because the Project would be required to comply with AQMD Rule 1403 during demolition activities, impacts due to asbestos would be less than significant. Mitigation is provided below to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of Rule 1403. Due to the date of the building (1953) there also is a potential that lead-based paint (LBP) exists on the property. Accordingly, there is a potential to expose construction workers to health hazards associated with lead during demolition activities. The Project would be required to comply with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. In addition, there are standard work practices required such as the use of wet methods and HEPA vacuums. Mandatory compliance with Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8 would ensure that construction workers are not exposed to significant LBP health hazards during demolition, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Although compliance with these provisions is mandatory, mitigation is provided herein to ensure Project compliance with the CCR requirements for LBPs. EEC observed an empty vault on the southwest corner of the land -side portion of the Project site. According to site representatives interviewed by EEC, the vault was previously used to house an electrical transformer (Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 2014a, p. 6). Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were historically used in electrical transformers, hydraulic fluids, and electrical equipment. PCB's are carcinogenic substances, and their use has been prohibited in most products since 1978. No date of construction of the vault was noted or discovered. During removal of this vault, there is a potential that construction workers could be exposed to PCBs. In California, the U.S. EPA enforces the federal regulations for PCB disposal and storage, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers and enforces the state's additional requirements for PCB hazardous waste. Mandatory compliance with Title 40 of the US. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) would ensure Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-77 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis that property procedures are followed so that construction workers are not exposed to significant health hazards associated with potential PCBs. As such, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Although compliance with 40 CFR is mandatory, mitigation is provided below to ensure Project compliance with SFR 40 requirements for PCBs, should they be present on an electrical transformer that would be removed as part of the proposed Project's construction process. Heavy equipment would be used during construction on the land -side and water -side portions of the Project site. Equipment would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the land -side portion of the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. This is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site, and such impacts would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are provided herein to further reduce the potential for environmental hazards to Newport Bay as a result of potential releases of hazardous materials associated with their routine transport and use and possible accidental upset. Construction work in the water -side area of the Project site would require dredging of approximately 9,900 CY of sediment, as well as the removal of 1,300 CY of upland soils (material from above the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (NewFields, 2014, p. 1). According to the results of a Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report prepared by the firm NewFields, LLC and attached as Appendix F to this document, marine sediments beyond the current riprap line and cement revetment are suitable for ocean disposal and are not considered hazardous material. (NewFields, 2014, p. ii) Upland soils would be disposed as construction fill on-site. Dredged sediment would be transported by barge for ocean disposal at site LA -3, which is a U.S. EPA -approved location for the disposal of ocean -dredged material off the coast of Newport Beach. The U.S. EPA has the authority to designate ocean dredge material disposal sites under Section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (33USC 1401 et sec.). LA -3 was approved as a permanent disposal site by the U.S. EPA in 2005, in accordance with Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 175, dated September 12, 2005. LA -3 is approved to accept a maximum annual dredged material disposal quantity of 2,500,000 cubic yards of dredged material originating from the Los Angeles and Orange County region. Dredging activities would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required for hazardous materials associated with the dredging operation. During Project operation, an additional 36 boat slips would be located in Newport Harbor. Boating activities occur under existing conditions and the addition of boat slips would not result in any new hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials associated with boating. Impacts Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-78 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Refer to MM BR -9 in Section 5.4.4, Biological Resources, of this document, which requires the preparation and ongoing implementation of a Marina Management Plan for the Balboa Marina. The Management Plan would include reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. The marina operator will be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: No Impact. The nearest school is located approximately 1.0 mile from the Project site. The proposed Project would therefore have no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school to the Project site is Horace Ensign Intermediate School located approximately 1.0 mile northwest of the Project site. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not included on a I ist of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the analysis of the Project -site's Phase I and Phase II ESAs (refer to Appendix H), the Project site is not identified on a I ist of hazardous material sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Accordingly, the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-79 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Project would not result in an airport safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within the Airport Planning Area or the Airport Impact Zones, the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, or the Airport Safety Zones (OCALUC, 2008, Figure 1). The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77. (OCALUC, 2008) The Project's proposed marine commercial building would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach. The building height would not result in airport safety impacts. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Accordingly, the Project would not result in an airstrip safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. There are no private airstrips within the Project vicinity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan (EMP) provides guidance for the City of Newport Beach's response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense operations in both war and peacetime. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.6-29) The EMP identifies tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami inundation zones, tsunami evacuation sites, and response plans, and utilizes an outdoor emergency siren system to provide people with advance warnings of potential tsunami emergencies. According to the City of Newport Beach EMP, the Project site is located within a Tsunami Inundation Evacuation Zone Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-80 No O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis (City of Newport Beach, p. 100) The EMP does not identify the Project site as being part of an emergency evacuation route. Although adjacent roadway segments are not identified as part of an emergency evacuation route, no full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction thereby leaving existing roadway segments fully operational in the occurrence of the enactment of the City of Newport Beach emergency evacuation procedures. The Project's AIC application was reviewed by the City of Newport Beach, which determined that reconfiguration of the Balboa Marina parking lot as proposed accommodates appropriate emergency access. The Project's future SDR application also would be subject to City review for the provision of adequate emergency access. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, the Project site is not located within a fire susceptibility area (City of Newport Beach, 2006, Figure S4). In addition, the Project site is located within and is surrounded by urban built up land. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Mitigation Measures Mitigation for hazards associated with the potential presence of hazardous materials that would be removed from the property is as follows: MM HM -1 During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the USTs may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land -side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-81 no ■ ❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis MM HM -2 The following Condition of Approval shall be placed on the Project's demolition permits. COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead-based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HM -1 and MM HM -2 would reduce the Project's potential hazardous materials impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less -Than -Significant Impact. The Project would not violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As stated in Table 3-1, Matrix of Project Approvals/Permits, the Project would require several federal, State of California, and regional agency approvals that have associated water quality standard requirements. These include but are not limited to a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a Section 402 NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit. In addition, because the water -side portion of the Project would involve construction within public waterways, including dredging activities, the Project would also be required to consult with the U.S. EPA regarding suitability of the dredged material management team (DMMT) approval process. With compliance of the required permits, approvals, and consultation, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. In addition, the Project would implement design features and mitigation measures for other environmental topic areas that would further reduce potential impacts to water quality and violations of standards and potential waste discharge requirements. Less - than -significant impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-82 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Finding: No Impact. The Project site is not located within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin. In addition, the groundwater table beneath the land -side portion of the property is shallow and fluctuates with tide levels. There is no potential for groundwater impacts on the water -side portion of the Project site. On the land -side portion, pervious surface area would increase, resulting in more water infiltration and a nominal positive effect on ground water levels. There is no potential for the Project to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to General Plan EIR Figure 4.7-1, Water Resources, the Project site is not located within the Coastal Plain of the Orange County Groundwater Basin (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.7-1). Therefore, the Project has no potential to interfere substantially with the volume of the regional aquifer. Because the Project site is located adjacent to and within the Lower Newport Bay, the groundwater table is shallow. Groundwater was encountered on the Project site at depths of approximately 6.5 feet below ground surface, corresponding to an elevation of +3.5 feet MLLW. Due to the proximity of the site to open water, groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with tide levels. During high tide events, the groundwater level could rise to an elevation higher than six feet. (Geotechnical Professionals, Inc, 2014, p. 3) In addition, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres), thereby increasing the amount of percolation of on-site surface flows into the ground. Thus, the Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Hydrology at the Project site is influenced primarily by precipitation, landscape irrigation, and subject to regular tidal inundation (Anchor QEA, L.P., 2013, p. 3). Under existing conditions, storm water runoff from the land -side portion of the Project site generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water -side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-83 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis direction, and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site area drains are proposed to be constructed to direct low -flow and first -flush runoff to the proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. (Fuscoe Enginee(ng, 2014, p. 8) The Project's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. The proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. Additionally, as discussed below under Threshold f), the Project would implement BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would filter sediments from surface runoff and also promote surface runoff percolation. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. On the water -side portion of the Project site, tidal currents in the Project vicinity are ebb dominant, meaning the ebb currents are higher than the flood currents. According to analysis conducted by Everest International Consultants, Inc., overall tidal currents in the Project area are small under existing and proposed conditions. The impact of the proposed water -side development to tidal and flood velocities would be localized, limited to within a few hundred feet downstream of the East Coast Highway bridge along the main channel and beneath the bridge (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 60). No alteration of the tidal currents in Newport Bay would occur from the Project, and there would be no change in the Bay current's erosive or siltation characteristics. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on or off-site? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions and the Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As described under the above Thresholds b) and c), the Project site's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. As concluded in the Project - specific WQMP included as Appendix I to this document, the proposed Project would Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-84 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. In addition, the Project would implement BMPs and/or treatment control BMPs that would filter sediments from surface runoff and also promote surface runoff percolation. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. As discussed below under Threshold f), the proposed Project is not anticipated to substantially alter the character of storm water runoff discharged from the subject property as compared to existing conditions. The proposed Project's land -side components are designed to ensure that post -development runoff rates and volumes closely resemble those that occur under existing conditions. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction (as it does under existing conditions) and discharge at the two existing bulkhead outlet locations. New on-site drains would be constructed to direct low -flow and first -flush runoff to the proposed BMPs prior to discharging off-site through the existing bulkhead outlets. As concluded in the Project -specific WQMP included as Appendix I to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate of volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff (and pollutants) discharged. With mandatory compliance with the NPDES permit and the requirements included in the Project -specific WQMP, the Project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed Project has the potential to temporarily impact the water quality of Newport Bay through sedimentation and turbidity during water -side construction and dredging activity (approximately 4 weeks). Long-term water quality impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation measures would reduce construction -related effects to below a level of significance. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-85 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis To implement the proposed water -side development, site preparation would include dredging of sediment and grading of upland soils. Unless silt curtains are deployed around the dredge site and barge to confine suspended sediment particles from drifting beyond the job site when bottom sediments are disturbed, the water quality of Newport Bay could be temporarily affected. Impacts are potentially significant and mitigation to ensure the use of silt curtains is required. In order to construct the land -side portion of the Project, an existing 1,200 SF building and portions of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. These ground -disturbing activities would temporarily result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants with the potential to adversely affect water quality. Fine sediments generated from demolition, dredging, and construction activities that may be transported to Newport Bay in storm water runoff could result in a localized effects to water quality. However, according to the Project - specific WQMP included as Appendix I to this document, due to the limited amount of landscaping on the Project site, Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs are required in addition to site design measures and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. Accordingly, biotreatment BMPs in the form of Modular Wetland Systems and StormFilter Units are proposed to be utilized on-site for water quality treatment. Modular Wetland Systems are biotreatment systems that utilize multi -stage treatment processes including screening media filtration, settling and biofiltration. According to the Project -specific WQMP, the Modular Wetlands would be located in the southern portion of the Project site near the reconfigured driveway entrance off East Coast Highway. Runoff from the proposed building and southern portion of the parking lot would drain to a proposed StormFilter media filtration unit to be located within the garage floor below the proposed building. A StormFilter is a pre -cast vault storm drain insert system that uses passive, siphon -activated media -filled cartridges that trap and absorb particulates and pollutants (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, pp. 21-22). Refer to the Project - specific WQMP included as Appendix I to this IS/MND for a further description of Modular Wetlands Systems and StormFilter Units. The Project would be required to prepare and implement the Project -specific WQMP pursuant to the requirements of the City's NPDES permit. The Project's WQMP (Appendix 1) identifies Structural Source Control BMPs (i.e. storm drain system stenciling and signage, design and construction of outdoor material storage areas to reduce pollution introduction. Refer to Appendix I for a complete list of Structural Source Control BMPs and Non -Structural Source Control BMPs (i.e. activity restrictions, common area landscape management, BMP maintenance. Refer to Appendix I for a complete list of Non -Structural Source Control BMPs to minimize, prevent, and/or otherwise appropriately treat storm water runoff flows before they are discharged from the Project site. With required implementation of the WQMP, operation of the land -side portion of the Project site would have a less -than - significant impact to water quality. Additionally, during Project operation, an additional 36 boat slips would be located in Newport Harbor. Boating activities occur under existing conditions and the addition of boat slips would not result in any new water quality impacts associated with boating. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Refer to MM BR -9 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-86 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis in Section 5.4.4, Biological Resources, of this document, which requires the preparation and ongoing implementation of a Marina Management Plan for the Balboa Marina. The Management Plan would include reasonable BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation.. The marina operator will be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. g) Would the Project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not place housing on the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a f ederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose to place housing on the Project site. Thus, the Project would not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. h) Would the Project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would not place structures on the Project site that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100 -year flood hazard area. As shown on General Plan Figure 4.7-3, Flood Zones, the land -side portion of the proposed Project is not located within an area identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area inundated by 100 -year flood. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.7-3) Accordingly, the land -side portion of the Project site would not place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The Project proposes to establish a new public boat dock and to add boat slips to the private Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and approximately 12 public boat slips including eight (8) new boat slips and four (4) transient boat slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips accommodating a range of vessel sizes and a new gangway are proposed to be added. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the water -side portion of the Project site is located in FEMA Flood Hazard Zone A and is subject to inundation by a 100 -year flood. The largest discharge into Upper Newport Bay is the San Diego Creek, which accounts for approximately 80% of flows entering the upper portion of Newport Bay. (Everest Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-87 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis International Consultants, Inc, 2013, p. 49) During a flood event, stormwater runoff from San Diego Creek and other channels upstream of the water -side portion of the Project will carry debris such as green waste (i.e. small tree branches and sticks) with the freshwater flow. The City of Newport Beach regularly deploys debris bloom upstream from the Project site to prevent the debris from entering the Lower Newport Bay. If there is not deployment of the debris bloom upstream from the Project site, the proposed dock extension would act like a debris bloom collecting debris behind it during a rain event (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, pp. 15-16). Maximum current at the water -side portion of the Project site would occur if the peak of the flood flow arrives when the tide is ebbing and flowing. (Everest International Consultants, Inc. , 2013, p. 13)The addition and relocation of boat slips would not necessarily impede or redirect flood flows beyond existing conditions. However, as under existing conditions, if deployment of the upstream debris bloom does not occur, there is a potential for flood flows to be redirected and/or impeded by a build-up and gathering of debris in and around the water -side portion of the Project site. With compliance with the required BMPs, as stated in the Project -specific WQMP, including maintenance of the dock area, and Project design features, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. 1) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Finding: No Impact. The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Operation Plans, Dam Failure Inundation Map, the Project site is not located within a dam failure inundation area (City of Newport Beach). Additionally, the Project does not propose to construct, remove, or alter any levee or dam. As such, the Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. j) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. With compliance with the provisions of the flood damage provisions in the City's Municipal Code, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. According to the City of Newport Beach, the Project site is located within a 500 -year Tsunami Hazard Zone Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (inundation elevation of 9.07 feet). In addition, the State of California -County of Orange Newport Beach Quadrangle Tsunami Map for Emergency Planning (County of Orange, 2009) indicates that the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-88 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Project site is located within a designated tsunami inundation area. Newport Beach is generally protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, off the coast of Chili, and possibly off the coast of Central America. Since the 1800's, more than thirty tsunamis have been recorded in Southern California, and at least six (6) caused damage in the area, although not necessarily in Newport Beach. Locally generated tsunamis caused by offshore faulting or landsliding immediately offshore from Newport Beach are possible, and these tsunamis have the potential to be worst-case scenarios for the coastal communities in Orange County. (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.7- 16) The City has prepared an Emergency Management Plan, which identifies tsunami evacuation routes, tsunami evacuation sites, response plans, and utilizes an outdoor emergency siren system to provide residents with advance warnings of potential tsunami emergencies. The Project site is located within the coverage area of the outdoor emergency siren within Veterans Memorial Park at 1541h Street and Bay Avenue on the Balboa Peninsula. The proposed Project would not change the potential for exposure of people or structures to water inundation in the rare instance of a tsumani. The Balboa Marina would have the same level of tsunami risk with or without the implementation of the improvements proposed by the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required. The General Plan EIR identifies Mariner's Mile, Balboa Peninsula, and Balboa Village at risk resulting from seiche in Newport Harbor. The Project site is not located in an area identified by the General Plan as at risk from seiche. Additionally, the Balboa Marina would have the same level of seiche risk with or without the implementation of the improvements proposed by the Project. Therefore, the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required. In the case of both tsunami and seiche risk, mandatory Project compliance with the flood damage provisions in the City's Municipal Code would be required. Hydrology and Water Quality: Mitigation Measures MM HWQ-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other permits a Marina Management Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina Management Plan shall identify construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential water quality impacts to Newport Bay. The Management Plan shall include BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. MM HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare, and the City of Newport Beach shall review and approve, a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit and be provided evidence that the RWQCB has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-89 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis MM HWQ 3 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: All construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Marina Management Plan related to construction -related activities. The Management Plan shall be implemented as a requirement of the long- term operation of Balboa Marina. The marina operator shall be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. COA: The dredging permit shall state that scow doors used to release dredged material at the approved dredge materials disposal location shall be required to remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM HWQ-1 through MM HWQ-3 would reduce the Project's potential water quality impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.10 Land Use and Planning a) Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No Imoact. The Project site does not immediately abut any existing residential neighborhoods; thus, the Project would not physically divide any established communities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is located along the eastern side of Newport Harbor in the northern portion of Lower Newport Bay.. As previously shown on Figure 2-4, Existing and Surrounding Land Uses, the Project site is bounded on the north by East Coast Highway and commercial development comprised of outside Recreational Vehicle (RV) and boat storage, a floating fish market, pump station, and parking; on the south by water surface and Linda Isle, a man-made island consisting of residential development with private residential docks around its perimeter; on the east by commercial development comprised of restaurants, office buildings, a gas station, and associated parking lots; and on the west by the channel of Lower Newport Bay. Although residential uses occur to the north, south, and west, these neighborhoods already are separated from one another by Lower Newport Bay and/or East Pacific Coast Highway. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to physically divide any existing established communities, and no impact would occur. b) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-90 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Finding: Less -Than -Significant Imoact with Mitigation Incoroorated. The land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed Project include the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code/Municipal Code, as well as the AELUP for the JWA, and the Orange County NCCP/HCP. The proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure LU -1 ensures that City review of applications for a Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newoort Beach General Plan The City of Newport Beach approved a comprehensive update to its General Plan in November 2006. The General Plan has ten elements: Land Use Element, Harbor and Bay Element, Housing Element, Historical Resources Element, Circulation Element, Recreation Element, Arts and Cultural Element, Natural Resources Element, Safety Element, and Noise Element. The General Plan and these elements present a vision for the City's future and goals and policies to implement that vision. As shown previously on Figure 2-5, the Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006, p. 3-12). The Project proposes to add a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina by adding additional private boat slips, and to demolish portions of the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building to construct a reconfigured parking lot and a new 19,400 SF marine commercial building with an outdoor patio and tuck -under parking. The proposed marine commercial building, which is anticipated to accommodate a restaurant, marina restrooms, office space for a yacht brokerage, as well as the new public dock and additional private boat slips, represent "coastal -dependent and coastal -related" land uses. The new public transient dock, expanded private marina, and land -side improvements also would "maintain the marine theme and character" of the site's surroundings. The marine commercial building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant and the and public and private boat slips would be "mutually supportive," and would serve to "encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses." The new public boat dock and design of the marine commercial building with an outdoor patio also would "encourage physical and visual access to the Bay." The new public boat dock would provide 12 slips and establish a new public transient boat dock in Lower Newport Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-91 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Bay to provide a new point of vertical public access. In addition, the new public dock would allow the relocation of the four (4) existing transient public boat slips currently located in the private Balboa Marina to an area of Lower Newport Bay that is more easily accessible to transient public boaters. The Project would accommodate enhancements to resident and visitor boater's abilities to access the land from the water and allow transient public boaters to easily navigate from a new public dock in Lower Newport Bay to restaurants and commercial uses in and around the Balboa Marina. The Project also would assist the City of Newport Beach in meeting the need for a variety of boat slip sizes in Newport Harbor by adding a new public dock and additional boats slips at the Balboa Marina that accommodate a range of vessel sizes, including slips for vessels 20 -feet in length and under. For these reasons, the proposed Project fully complies with the site's "CM 0.5 FAR" General Plan land use designation. During the City's review of the Project's AIC application, the Planning Division reviewed the proposed application materials for consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan, and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable General Plan policies resulting from the Project. Policies applicable to the proposed Project are discussed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis (Refer to Appendix M7). As indicated in Appendix M1, the proposed Project would be fully consistent or otherwise would not conflict with any policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with applicable General Plan policies would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan The Coastal Zone Management Act (Title 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464) declares it a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the nation's coastal zone and prohibits development 1,000 feet inland from California's mean high tide without a permit from the state coastal commission. The California Coastal Act of 1976 established the California Coastal Commission and identified coastal resource planning and management policies to address public access, recreation, marine environment, land resources, and development. Implementation of California Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of a Local Coastal Program (LCP) by the local government that is reviewed and certified (approved) by the Coastal Commission. The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified LCP, and therefore, does not have the jurisdiction to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDP). The City does, however, have a Coastal Land Use Plan that has been certified by the California Coastal Commission. Because the City does not have permit jurisdiction, the City reviews pending development projects for consistency with the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning regulations before an applicant can file for a CDP with the Coastal Commission. The City is presently in the process of preparing an Implementation Plan for the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. The City relies on the California Coastal Commission to issue development permits. The Coastal Land Use Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of Newport Beach and its sphere Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-92 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis of influence, with the exception of Newport Coast and Banning Ranch. As shown previously on Figure 2-6, the Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan designates the Project site as Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A, 0.00-0.30 FAR). The CM category is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal - related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive businesses, encourage visitor -serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on the waterfront commercial and industrial building sites on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2009, p. 2-2). The Project, which would have a FAR of less than 0.30, would be fully consistent with the site's Coastal Land Use Plan designation. During the City's review of the Project's AIC application, the Planning Division reviewed the proposed application for consistency with all applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan, and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable policies resulting from the Project. Policies applicable to the proposed Project are discussed in Appendix M2, Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis. As indicated in the proposed Project would be fully consistent or otherwise would not conflict with any policies of the City of Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan. Accordingly, impacts due to a conflict with applicable Coastal Land Use Plan policies would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code/Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach Zoning Code carries out the policies of the City of Newport Beach General Plan. It is the intent of the Zoning Code to promote the orderly development of the City; promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare; protect the character, social and economic vitality of the neighborhoods; and to ensure the beneficial development of the City (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). As shown previously on Figure 2-7, Existing Zoning Designations, the Project site is zoned Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM 0.3 FAR). The CM Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for commercial development on or near the waterfront that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor - serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to Newport Bay on sites located on or near the Bay (City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, 2014). The Project, which proposes a new marine commercial building, a new public boat dock, new private boat slips, and the reconfiguration of an existing parking lot, would be consistent with the purpose of the CM Zoning District. There are no components of the AIC application that would conflict with the Zoning Code or Municipal Code. Additionally, future applications for a SDR and/or CUP would be reviewed for compliance with the City's Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Where necessary, conditions of approval will be imposed on the SDR and/or CDP to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code. The City also would review future implementing development applications, such as grading and building permits, for conformance with the Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Accordingly, the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-93 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code or Municipal Code, and impacts would be less than significant. Analysis of Consistency with the City of AELUP for JWA According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport (JWA), which is the nearest public airport to the proposed Project site, the proposed Project site is not located within the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, nor is the site subject to any impacts (safety or noise) due to airport operations. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not require review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County. The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77, which the proposed Project does not. The Project has no potential to conflict with the AELUP for JWA, and no impact would occur. Analysis of Consistency with the Orange County NCCP/HCP The Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) were completed in 1996, and the City of Newport Beach became a signatory agency in July of 1996. The purpose of the NCCP/HCP is to create a multi -species multi -habitat reserve system and implementation of a long-term management program that will protect primarily coastal sage scrub and the species that utilize this habitat. The NCCP/HCP focuses on multiple species and habitats and addresses the conservation of these species on a regional context. The three main target species are the coastal California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, and orange -throated whiptail, in addition to 26 other species that are also identified and afforded management protection under the NCCP/HCP. An additional ten species of plants and animals that are either federally listed or treated as if they were listed according to FESA Section 10(a) are addressed within the NCCP/HCP. According to Figure 1 1 of the NCCP/HCP, Preliminary Reserve Concept, the Project site and surrounding areas are not targeted for conservation as part of the NCCP/HCP (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with the NCCP/HCP. There are no additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site or vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Conclusion As indicated in the above analysis, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM LU -1, the Project would not conflict with the City's General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, the Zoning Code/Municipal Code, the AELUP for the JWA, or the Orange County NCCP/HCP. Accordingly, impacts due to a potential conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project would be mitigated to a level below significant. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-94 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? As noted above under the analysis of Land Use and Planning Threshold b), the proposed Project site is located within the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCP/HCP, which does not identify the Project site and surrounding areas for conservation (Orange County, 1996, Figure 11). Due to the developed nature of the Project site, the site also does not contain any habitat for any of the plant or animal species addressed by the NCCP/HCP. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to conflict with the NCCP/HCP. There are no additional Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site or vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur. Land Use and Planning: Mitigation Measures MM LU -1 The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. and ensure compliance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM LU -1 would reduce the Project's potential land use and planning impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.11 Mineral Resources a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: No Impact. The Project site is mapped within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ 1), which is an area defined as containing no significant mineral deposits. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. According to the City's General Plan EIR, which uses mapping conducted by the California Geological Survey (CGS) that maps areas known as Mineral Resources Zones (MRZs), the Project site is mapped within MRZ 1, which is an area defined as an area containing no significant mineral deposits (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, Figure 4.5-4). No mines, wells, or other resource extraction activity occurs on the property or is known to have ever occurred on the property. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-95 NO OF—]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact. The City's General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City's General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing a I ocally important mineral resource recovery site (City of Newport Beach, 2006, Figure 4.5-3). In addition, there are no specific mineral resource plans applicable to the Project site, and no other plans that identify any locally important mineral resource recovery sites on the Project site or immediate vicinity. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Mineral Resources: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no impacts to mineral resources. Accordingly, mitigation measures are not required. 5.4.12 Noise a) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation. With mandatory adherence to the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards, the proposed Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's Municipal Code or General Plan Noise Element, or the California Building Code. However, mitigation is recommended to ensure that operation of an outdoor patio at the future marine commercial building complies with the qualitative provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Section 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Section 10.28.020). Because noise from operation of the restaurant's outdoor patio could potentially conflict with City noise ordinance standards, the impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is required. The primary noise standards applicable to the proposed Project are noise standards contained in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code and the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-96 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-7 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards Allowable Noise Levels, L. (dBA) Land Use Categories Interior Exteriora•b 7 AM to 10 PM 7 AM to 10 PM Categories Uses 10 PM to 7 AM 10 PM to 7 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple 45 40 55 50 Family (Zone 1) Residential Portions of Mixed Use 45 40 60 50 Developments (Zone III) Commercial Commercial (Zone II) N/A N/A 65 60 Industrial Industrial or Manufacturing (Zone IV) N/A N/A 70 70 Schools, Day Care Centers, Institutional Churches, Libraries, Museums, 45 40 55 50 Health Care Institutions (Zone 1) a. If the ambient noise level exceeds the resulting standard, the ambient shall be the standard. b. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the incorporated area of the City to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such a person which causes the noise level when measured on any other property, to exceed either of the following: • The noise standard for the applicable zone for any 15 -minute period; - A maximum instantaneous noise level equal to the value of the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (measured using A -weighted slow response. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the noise standard applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The noise standard for the residential portions of the residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial property, if the intruding noise originates from that commercial property. • If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall apply. Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 4-2. Newoort Beach Municioal Code ♦ Municipal Code Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control) establishes provisions for the control of noise sources within the City. Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) establishes exterior noise standards, as follows: ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.26.035 identifies exemptions to the noise standards outlined in Chapter 10.26, and specifically excludes "noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition or grading of any real property." Noise standards for construction activities are instead established by Municipal Code Chapter 10.28 (discussed below). ♦ Municipal Code Chapter 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise) regulates the `...making, allowing, creation, or maintenance of loud and unreasonable, unnecessary, or unusual noises which are prolonged, unusual, annoying, disturbing and/or unreasonable in their time, place and use are a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, general welfare and the peace and quiet of the City and its inhabitants. ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity - Noise Regulations) provides noise regulations for construction activity, and prohibits noise being produced during specific hours of the day and days of the week or year. Specifically, construction activities are limited by Section 10.28.040 to between Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-97 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays (except holidays), and prohibits construction activities on Sundays and federal holidays. ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.26.045 states that new heating, venting and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment cannot exceed a noise level of 50 dBA when measured at a residential property line. A noise level of 55 dBA is permitted if the equipment is installed with a f inner that deactivates the equipment between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.28.020 prohibits the emission or transmission of any "loud or raucous" noise from any sound -making or sound -amplifying device. No quantitative noise standard is provided. ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 prohibits construction work that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. ♦ Municipal Code Section 10.28.045 prohibits maintenance work that produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., or on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Maintenance work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for maintenance activities. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.30.080 prohibits deliveries, loading, unloading, opening/closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, trash receptacles, or similar objects within a nonresidential zoning district between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and between 10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on Sundays and Federal holidays. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.48.090(C) requires that owners/operators of an eating and drinking establishment that sells, serves, or gives away alcohol shall post signs at clearly visible locations within the establishment and at both on-site and off-site parking areas requesting that patrons keep noise to a minimum. ♦ Municipal Code Section 20.48.090(E) requires that the building structure in which bars, nightclubs, and lounges are located be adequately soundproofed so that interior noise is not audible beyond the lot lines with the doors and windows closed. The predominant noise sources associated with the proposed Project are additional traffic on local streets, activities at the expanded Balboa Marina and proposed public transient boat dock, activities and equipment at the proposed marine commercial building, and parking lot activities. Each of these is discussed below. ♦ Traffic. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the traffic noise exposures that Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-98 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis would occur in the study area with and without the Project. The resulting analysis (refer to Tables 9-7 and 9-8 of Appendix J) indicates that the Project's traffic would increase noise on area roadways by up to 0.3 dB CNEL. This estimated increase in noise level is below the Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) allowable noise levels, and the impact is thus less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by a nominal increase in traffic noise on area roadways. ♦ Expanded Private Marina and Public Boat Dock. When the additional private boat slips and new public transient boat dock proposed by the Project are in operation, it is expected that there would be an incremental noise level increase associated with use of the boat slips. The increase would be commensurate with the number of new boats using the slips, the frequency with which the new slips are used, and the mix of engine types (fueled or elect(c) on the new boats. Because these factors are unknown, the incremental increase in noise can be estimated by assuming that it will be proportional to the increase in the number of slips. There are currently 105 slips at the Balboa Marina. The proposed Project would add 24 private boat slips and 8 new public boat slips, for a total of 32 additional slips and 137 total slips. According to Weiland Acoustics (refer to Appendix J), this will produce an estimated increase of 1 dB relative to the noise level produced by the use of the current Balboa Marina. This estimated increase in noise level from the use of the new slips is below the Section 10.26.025 (Exterior Noise Standards) allowable noise levels, and the impact is less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by operation of the expanded private Balboa Marina or public boat dock. No outdoor noise amplification devices are proposed at the private Balboa Marina or at the proposed public boat dock. Persons using the boat docks are required to comply with the City's noise control ordinance standards, which are enforced by the operator of the Balboa Marina and the City of Newport Beach. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. The Project proposes a 19,400 SF building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, public restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Because the activities associated with office spaces and restrooms would occur exclusively within the interior of the building, they are not expected to produce significant noise levels outside of the structure that would be audible at surrounding properties. The proposed restaurant, however, has the potential to violate the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards if loud noise is produced on the outdoor patio or by live entertainment a bar, lounge, or nightclub. Based on measurements obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach, and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'), Weiland Acoustics reports that is unlikely that the activities at the proposed restaurant would exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 33). However, they may violate the qualitative provisions of the Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Chapter 5.28, Chapter 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Chapter 10.28.020). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-99 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Therefore, the noise impact is considered to be potentially significant and mitigation is required. ♦ Parking Lot. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the noise exposures from operation of the reconfigured parking lot. A computer noise model was prepared by Weiland Acoustics utilizing SoundPLAN software, which predicts noise levels based on the size of the parking lot, the number of parking spaces, and the number of hourly vehicle movements. This model takes a number of important variables into account, including source sound power levels, the distance from sources to receivers, the heights of sources and receivers, ground conditions, barrier effects provided by walls, buildings and topography, and noise reflected from hard surfaces such as buildings and walls. The results of the noise modeling are shown in Figure 5-12, Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels, as a noise contour map. Referring to Figure 5-12, the noise level due to peak evening parking lot activities is estimated to be 43 dBA at the closest residential property on Linda Isle, and notably less at the residences on Bayshore Drive to the west. These levels are below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively, for residential uses; therefore, the impact is less than significant. Also, assuming that standard residential construction provides at least 10 dB of noise reduction with windows open, the interior noise level due to parking lot activities is expected to be 33 dBA at the residences on Linda Isle. At the residences on Bayshore Drive the interior noise levels would be even less. These levels are below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 45 dBA and 40 dBA, respectively; therefore, the noise impact from the Project site's parking lot activities is less than significant. At the nearest existing restaurant, the noise level from the parking lot activities is expected to be about 48 dBA. This is below the City's daytime and nighttime standards of 65 dBA and 60 dB A, respectively, for commercial uses; therefore, the noise impact is less than significant. No other provisions of the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would be violated by operation of the proposed Project's reconfigured parking lot. ♦ Construction Noise. Noise will be produced from construction activity associated with the Project, over a p eriod of approximately 15 months in total, from demolition of land -side improvements to final Project completion. Temporary and intermittent construction -related noise levels are disclosed for each construction phase in the Noise report attached to this document as Appendix J. As indicated therein and summarized below under Threshold d), estimated average noise levels experienced by surrounding properties would range from a high of 85 dBA during pile installation to a low of 56 dBA during architectural coating activities (painting). Municipal Code Section 10.26.035 exempts construction noise from quantified noise standards and impacts associated with short-term construction noise would be considered significant only if the construction activity violates the standards contained in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity - Noise Regulations). The Project would fully comply with Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, which limits construction activities to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays (except holidays), and prohibits construction activities on Sundays and Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-100 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis federal holidays. Because construction activities would be compliant with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards, impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.1 of the City's General Plan Noise Element requires that all new projects are compatible with the noise environment in which they will be located. Compatibility is determined by using the values identified in Table 5-8. Table 5-8 City Municipal Code Section 10.26.025 Noise Standards CNEL, dB 55- 60- 65- 70- 75 - Category Uses <55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential Single Family, Two Family, Multiple A A B C C D D Family Residential Mixed Use A A A C C C D Residential Mobile Home A A B C C D D Commercial (Regional, Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging A A B B C C D District) Commercial (Regional, Commercial Retail, Bank, A A A A B B C Village District, Special) Restaurant, Movie Theatre Commercial, Industrial, Office Building, Research and Institutional Development, Professional Offices, A A A B B C D City Office Building Commercial (Recreation), Amphitheatre, Concert Hall B B C C D D D Institutional (Civic Center) Auditorium, Meeting Hall Children's Amusement Park, Commercial (Recreation) Miniature Golf course, Go-cart A A A B B D D Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial (General, Automobile Service Station, Auto Special), Industrial, Dealership, Manufacturing, A A A A B B B Institutional Warehousing, Wholesale, Utilities Institutional Hospital, Church, Library, Schools' A A B C C D D Classroom Open Space Parks A A A B C D D Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Open Space Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife A A A A B C C Habitat Agriculture Agriculture A A A A A A A Zone A: Clearly Compatible - specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements. Zone B: Normally Compatible - New construction or development should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements are made and needed noise insulation features in the design are determined. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditionally will normally suffice. Zone C: Normally Incompatible - New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Zone D: Clearly Incompatible - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 4-1. The land use category applicable to the Project site is "Commercial," which is compatible with a noise environment of up to 80 dB. The Project proposes to construct one marine commercial building with its nearest proposed building fagade located at a distance of about 230 feet from the centerline of East Coast Highway. Based on the analysis contained in Appendix J, the noise level at the proposed marine commercial Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-101 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis building is calculated to be 70 dB. This is less than the significance criterion of 80 dB; therefore, the Project will not result in the exposure of persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan, and the noise impact is less than significant. California Building Code The California Building Code (CALGreen) requires that the interior noise level of a commercial establishment not be exposed to noise levels that exceed 50 dBA. Weiland Acoustics obtained a noise measurement at the Project site during the evening peak hour to identify the existing average noise level at the nearest proposed marine commercial building fa(;ade. The results of this measurement, provided in Appendix J, indicate an Leq of 60.3 dBA. This value was then used to calibrate a proprietary version of the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model to estimate the future peak hour noise level that will occur at the upper level of the proposed commercial building. The results of the analysis indicate an estimated peak hour Leq of 69.8 dBA. Assuming that standard commercial construction provides a noise reduction of 25 dB with windows and doors closed, the interior Leq within the proposed building is estimated to be 44.8 dBA. This complies with the State's CALGreen standard of 50 dBA; therefore, the impact is less than significant. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 36) b) Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. People would not be exposed to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels during Project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Groundborne vibration is an oscillatory motion which can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. The dominant source of vibration on the land - side portion of the Project site would be from short-term construction activities associated with pile driving. The dominant source of vibration on the water -side portion of the Project site would be from short-term construction activities associated with pile driving and dredging. A root mean square (rms) particle velocity of 2.0 in/sec (= 0.05 m/sec) is commonly used as a safe (threshold) limit for buildings, although minor damage has occasionally occurred at 1.0 in/sec (- 0.025 m/sec) (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 15). Therefore, 1.0 in/sec is used as the significance threshold herein. The primary vibratory sources during construction of the Project's land -side improvements will be the dozers and the bore/drill rig used to place the land -side piles. The primary vibratory sources during construction of the Project's water -side improvements will be pile driving activity. An analysis was conducted by Weiland Acoustics to estimate the groundborne vibration velocities that would be experienced at the nearest adjacent buildings during construction of the Project (refer to Appendix J). The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 5-9. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-102 ME 0171 Mitigated Negative declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Project Site Area Leq, dBA 65 60 - 65 - 55 60 ---------- -- i 50 - 55 45 - 50 - - - 40 - 45 35 - 40 30 - 35 <= 30 ii Signs and symbols Buildings Property Lines Linda Isle Project Site Area Source(s): Weii Acoustics (07-17-2014) Figure 5-12 HE ESTIMATED PARKING LOT ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS Balboa Marina West Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach August 18, 2014 Page 5-103 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-9 Estimated Construction Vibration Levels Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 9-6. These vibration levels are less than the threshold of 1.0 in/sec; therefore, the construction -related impact is less than significant. There would be no sources of vibration associated with Project operation. c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Within the Project's study area (as determined by the traffic study scope (see Appendix K)), the noise -sensitive land uses of concern are the residential properties adjacent to roadway arterials carrying Project traffic, the residences on Linda Isle, the residences on Bayshore Drive across Lower Newport Bay from the Project site, the restaurants located to the east of the Project site, and Least Tern Island in Upper Newport Bay. Some of the residences are buffered from the traffic noise by walls and fences of various heights. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 17) The City's General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase that would be significant is shown in the following table. Table 5-10 Significant Noise Impact Criteria CNEL dB Increase Location Water -side Estimated PPV, in/sec Land -side Combined Residences on Linda Isle 1 0.003 0.0788 Residences on Bayshore Dr. Any increase is considered significant 0.001 0.0173 Sol Restaurant in Newport Harbor E07 0.004 0.013 Residences on N. Bayside Dr. 0.037 0.047 Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 9-6. These vibration levels are less than the threshold of 1.0 in/sec; therefore, the construction -related impact is less than significant. There would be no sources of vibration associated with Project operation. c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Within the Project's study area (as determined by the traffic study scope (see Appendix K)), the noise -sensitive land uses of concern are the residential properties adjacent to roadway arterials carrying Project traffic, the residences on Linda Isle, the residences on Bayshore Drive across Lower Newport Bay from the Project site, the restaurants located to the east of the Project site, and Least Tern Island in Upper Newport Bay. Some of the residences are buffered from the traffic noise by walls and fences of various heights. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 17) The City's General Plan Noise Element Policy N1.8 requires the employment of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant noise impact is identified. A significant noise impact occurs when there is an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase that would be significant is shown in the following table. Table 5-10 Significant Noise Impact Criteria CNEL dB Increase 55 dB 3 60 dB 2 65 dB 1 70 dB 1 Over 75 dB Any increase is considered significant Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 4-3. Traffic on roadway arterials is the predominant source of noise that currently affects the study area. However, the area is also affected occasionally by noise from activities at the existing Balboa Marina, its parking lot, and the adjacent restaurants. In order to document the existing noise environment, measurements were obtained by Weiland Acoustics at two locations in the study area (refer to Table 5-11). Location #1 was Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-104 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis chosen in lieu of a measurement on Linda Isle because measurements could not be taken in Linda Isle due to private property issues. Location #2 was chosen to represent the closest residences to the north of the Project site. Table 5-11 Summary of Existing Noise Measurements Measured Location Measurement Average Noise N Location Description Period Level, dB(A) 1 On the seawall at Newport Harbor 3:50 PM to 60.1 4:10 PM 2 At the offset of the mobile homes north of the 2:38 PM to 59.5 Project site 2:58 PM Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix K), Table 8-1. Predominant noise sources associated with the land -side portion of the Project are expected to be from additional traffic on the local streets, parking lot activities, and activities and equipment associated with operation of the marine commercial building that is anticipated to house a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Predominant noise sources associated with the water -side portion of the Project are expected to be from activities associated with the new public transient boat dock and the private Balboa Marina boat slip expansion area. ♦ Traffic. As documented in Appendix J, additional Project -related traffic is expected to increase the ambient CNEL by up to 0.3 dBA at Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway. Project -related traffic noise increases along other area roadways would be less than 0.3 dBA. None of the land uses along any of the study area road segments experience noise levels over 75 dBA; therefore, any increase of less than 1.0 dBA is considered less than significant (refer to Table 5-10 for significance criteria). Thus, because the Project would increase traffic noise by less than 1.0 dBA, traffic -related noise impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. ♦ Expanded Private Marina and Public Boat Dock. The Project proposes to add 24 private boat slips and 8 new public boat slips, for a total of 32 new slips. Weiland Acoustics reports that boat activity associated with the additional slips would produce an estimated increase of 1.0 dB relative to the noise level produced by the use of the current Balboa Marina. Assuming that the noise level measurement for Location #1 indicated in Table 5-13 is representative of the noise level experienced by residential properties on Linda Isle, a 2.0 dB increase would be a significant impact (refer to Table 5-10 for significance c(teria). Because additional boat activity would increase noise by only 1.0 dB, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. Except for use of the outdoor patio, activities associated with the proposed marine commercial building would occur interior of the building, and are not expected to produce significant noise levels at the nearest residences on Linda Isle or Bay Shore Drive, or at the existing nearby restaurants. Based on measurements obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach, and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'), Weiland Acoustics reports that it is unlikely that long-term permanent activities at the proposed building would Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-105 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Table 5-10. (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 33) Operational activities would be required to comply with City of Newport Beach Municipal Code noise ordinance standards. Thus, noise impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Temporary and periodic noise associated with the marine commercial building is discussed under Threshold d), below. ♦ Parking Lot. Using data provided by the Project's traffic study (Appendix K), analyses were conducted by Wieland Acoustics to identify the noise exposures associated with the reconfigured parking lot. The results of the noise modeling are shown in Figure 5-12, Estimated Parking Lot Activity Noise Levels, as a noise contour map. Referring to Figure 5-12, the noise level due to peak evening parking lot activities is estimated to be 43 dBA at the closest residential property on Linda Isle, and notably less at the residences on Bayshore Drive to the west. These levels are below the City's 55 dB daytime and 50 db nighttime noise standards for residential use. No noise increase is calculated, because a parking lot exists on the Project site under existing conditions and no component of the proposed parking lot reconfiguration would result in noise level increases audible at off-site properties. d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation. With mandatory adherence to the timing provisions of Municipal Code § 10.28 during construction activities, Project impacts due to a temporary or periodic noise increase associated with construction activities would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation is recommended to ensure that operation of an outdoor patio at the future marine commercial building does not result in substantial temporary or periodic noise level increases. The only potential sources of substantial temporary or periodic increases in noise levels are temporary and intermittent noise associated with the Project's construction process and periodic noise that may be generated from operation of the marine commercial building's outdoor patio. ♦ Construction Noise. Noise will be produced from construction of the Project, over a period of approximately 15 months. Temporary and intermittent construction -related noise levels are disclosed for each construction phase in the Noise report prepared by Weiland Acoustics and attached to this document as Appendix J. As summarized in Table 5-12, Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels, estimated average noise levels experienced by surrounding properties would range from 85 dBA during pile installation to 56 dBA during architectural coating activities (painting). The City considers construction -related noise impacts to be significant if the construction activity violates the City's noise control ordinances (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 16). Construction activity associated with the Project will be required to conform to all City of Newport Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-106 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Beach Municipal Code noise ordinance standards; therefore, temporary noise impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. ♦ Marine Commercial Building. The Project proposes a 19,400 SF building anticipated to accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, public restrooms, and a yacht brokerage office. Because the activities associated with office spaces and restrooms would occur exclusively within the interior of the building, they are not expected to produce significant noise levels at surrounding properties. The proposed restaurant, however, has the potential to produce substantial periodic noise from operation of the outdoor patio or if operations include live entertainment a bar, lounge, or nightclub. Based on measurements Table 5-12 Estimated Average Construction Noise Levels Noise -Sensitive Estimated Construction Noise at Location Construction Phase Receptor Waterside Landside Combined Pile Installation 66.5 72-85 Existing residences Building Construction 70-85 67.2 72-85 on Linda Isle Site Work, Drainage 66.3 72-85 Paving 67.6 72-85 Tenant Improvements 59.5 70-85 Architectural Coating 57.7 70-85 Pile Installation 59.6 63-76 Existing residences Building Construction 61-76 60.3 64-76 on Bayshore Dr. Site Work, Drainage 58.5 63-76 Paving 59.8 64-76 Tenant Improvements 52.6 62-76 Architectural Coating 50.8 61-76 Pile Installation 60.0 62-73 Existing Sol Building Construction 58-73 60.7 63-73 Restaurantin Site Work, Drainage 64.4 65-74 Newport Harbor Paving 65.7 66-74 Tenant Improvements 53.0 59-73 Architectural Coating 51.2 59-73 Pile Installation 58.7 60-70 Existing residences Building Construction 55-70 59.4 61-70 on N. Bayside Dr. Site Work, Drainage 62.3 63-71 Paving 63.6 64-71 Tenant Improvements 51.7 57-70 Architectural Coating 49.9 56-70 Source: Weiland Acoustics (Appendix J), Table 9-5. obtained as part of other noise studies for restaurants in Newport Beach,and taking into account the distances to the nearest residential properties (270' to 650'),Weiland Acoustics reports that is unlikely that the activities at the proposed restaurant would exceed the quantitative noise standards identified in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code (Wieland Acoustics, 2014, p. 36). However, operations may violate the qualitative provisions of the Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Chapter 5.28, Chapter 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Chapter 10.28.020). Therefore, the periodic noise impact of the Project, associated with operation of the marine commercial building, is considered to be potentially significant and mitigation is required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-107 NO OF—]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project is not located within the noise contours of an airport land use plan or where such a plan has been adopted, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold e) the nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within JWA noise impact contours. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Finding: No Impact. The Project is not located within a vicinity of an airstrip. Accordingly, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold f) there are no private airstrips within the Project vicinity. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Noise: Mitigation Measures MM N-1 As a c ondition of CUP issuance for a restaurant use in the marine commercial building and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any restaurant, bar, lounge, or nightclub to be located in the marine commercial building, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to verify that the building operations, including operations in the outdoor patio, comply with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.090(E) of the City's Municipal Code. MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that: a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State- required noise attenuation devices. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-108 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b) During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job supe(ntendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. c) When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d) During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e) Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM N-1 and MM N -2 would reduce the Project's noise impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.13 Population and Housing a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: No Impact. The Project proposes Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan and would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). The proposed Project would develop the property with Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site to establish a new public boat dock in an area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve the private Balboa Marina including its water -side and land -side areas. The Project is a visitor -serving use and has no potential to induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-109 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Accordingly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to displace housing. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: No Impact. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures; therefore, no people reside on the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions the Project site does not contain any residential structures. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to displace substantial numbers of people. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Population and Housing: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact Population and Housing. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.14 Public Services Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection; b) Police protection; c) Schools, or d) Other public facilities? Finding: No Impact. Public services are currently provided to the site for operation of the Balboa Marina; therefore, the proposed Project would not measurably increase public service demands or result in the need to physically alter or cause the construction of new public service facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions, fire protection, police protection, and other public services are provided to the Balboa Marina. The Project proposes to reconfigure the arrangement of uses on the Project site and establish a new public boat dock in an Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-110 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis area of Newport Harbor that currently lacks a public dock, and to improve and expand the private Balboa Marina including its water -side and land -side areas. The new public boat dock is not anticipated to create a demand for increased police protection. No overnight tie ups would be allowed. In addition, the dock would accommodate four (4) slips to be relocated out of the private Balboa Marina. Since 2009, Irvine Company (owner and operator of the Balboa Marina) has discovered that management of the marina is challenging in terms of providing security for the private slip lessees while still providing open access to the four (4) public slips. Moving the public slips to a better - located public dock has the potential of reducing demand for resolving security issues at the boat slips. The marine commercial building would be provided with police, fire protection, and other public services and would not measurably increase demand on public services. No component of the Project would measurably increase public service demands or result in the need to physically alter or cause the construction of new public service facilities caused by an increased demand for services. Because no physically expanded or new public facilities would be required, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Public Services: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase Public Services demand such that new or physically altered public service facilities would need to be constructed or expanded to meet the demand. Thus, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.15 Recreation a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: No Imoact. Except for perhaps very nominal attraction of more visitors that may use public parks, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan. The CM designation is intended to provide for commercial development on or near Newport Bay in a manner that will encourage the continuation of coastal -dependent and coastal -related uses, maintain the marine theme and character, encourage mutually supportive business, encourage visitor - serving and recreational uses, and encourage physical and visual access to the Bay on sites located on or near Newport Bay (City of Newport Beach, 2006). The proposed Project would develop the property with Recreational and Marine Commercial land uses in accordance with the City's General Plan. Except for perhaps very nominal attraction of more visitors that may use public parks, the Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-111 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: No Impact. The proposed Project would provide a new public transient boat dock in Newport Harbor, increase the number of boat slips in the private Balboa Marina, and reconfigure uses in the land -side portion of the marina. The environmental effects of on-site uses, including the boat docks that are considered a marine recreational use, are evaluated throughout this document. The Project would not result in the construction or expansion of any off-site recreational facilities. No additional impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project proposes marina uses that are considered recreational, and which are evaluated throughout this document for their physical effects on the environment. Under subject areas to which significant effects would occur, mitigation measures are presented to reduce the impacts to below levels of significance The Project would not result in the expansion of any off-site recreational facilities. The recreational impact would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Recreation: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would have no impact to Recreation. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.16 Transportation/Traffic a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Project -generated trips would not increase by 1% or more at any study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D (LOS D) during the morning/evening peak hours. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Applicable plans, policies, and ordinances related to performance of the circulation system and applicable to the proposed Project are the City of Newport Beach General Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-112 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Plan and Municipal Code. The Orange County Congestion Management Plan is discussed below under Threshold b). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code The City of Newport Beach General Plan establishes level of service (LOS) "Y as the standard for most intersections. LOS "E" is the established standard for a limited number of intersections (Newport Beach, 2006a, p. 7-6). City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Guidelines and provisions related to transportation are addressed in the following sections of the Municipal Code: Title 12 (Vehicles and Traffic); Chapter 15.38 (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance); Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance): and Chapter 20.64 (Transportation Demand Management Ordinance). Each of these sections of the Municipal Code is briefly discussed below. ♦ Title 12, Vehicles and Traffic. Title 12 addresses traffic and parking enforcement, as well as safety programs, trails programs, bicycle use, skateboarding use, and other temporary traffic and parking protocols. ♦ Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance. Chapter 15.38 was established by the City Council to establish a fee, based upon the unfunded cost to implement the Master Plan of Streets and Highways, to be paid in conjunction with the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance sets forth procedures for calculating the fair -share amounts for residential projects, hotel/motels, and office/retail/commercial uses, which are adopted by City Council resolution. ♦ Chapter 15.40, Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Section 15.40 was established by the City Council to ensure that the effects of new development projects are mitigated by developers as they occur. Specifically, the ordinance was established to provide a uniform method of analyzing and evaluating the traffic impacts of projects that generate a substantial number of average daily trips and/or trips during the morning or evening peak hour period; to identify the specific and near-term impacts of project traffic as well as circulation system improvements that will accommodate project traffic and ensure that development is phased with identified circulation system improvements; to ensure that project proponents, as conditions of approval, make or fund circulation system improvements that mitigate the specific impacts of project traffic on primary intersections at or near the time the project is ready for occupancy; and to provide a mechanism for ensuring that a project proponent's cost of complying with traffic related conditions of project approval is roughly proportional to project impacts. S ection 15.40.030 (Standards for Approval - Findings - Exemptions) specifically exempts the following project types from compliance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance: a) projects that generate three hundred (300) or fewer average daily trips; b) projects that do not increase trips by one percent or more on any leg of any primary intersection during any evening or morning peak hour; and c) any project that meets certain other criteria as specified in the Ordinance. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-113 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis ♦ Chapter 20.64, Transportation Demand Management Requirements. The Transportation Demand Management requirements apply to all new, nonresidential development projects that are estimated to employ a total of one hundred (100) or more persons, or the current limit set forth by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Rule 2202, whichever is lower at the time of project submittal. Chapter 20.64 is not applicable to the proposed Project because it is not expected that 100 or more people would be employed on-site. Analysis of the Pr000sed Project A Traffic Study was prepared for the Project by Kunzman Associates, which is included as Appendix K to this document. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook, Kunzman Associates calculated that the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips, 14 of which occur during the morning (AM) peak hour and 74 of which occur during the evening (PM) peak hour as shown in Table 5-13, Project Trip Generation A 44% pass -by trip reduction was applied to the restaurant land use based upon the ITE Handbook. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 20) Trip distribution pattern information is contained in Appendix K. Morning and evening peak hour intersection turning movement volume exhibits for the Project's traffic are provided as Figure 5-13, Project Morning Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement Volumes, and Figure 5-14, Project Evening Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movement. The City of Newport Beach methodology used to assess the operation of a signalized intersection is known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). To calculate an ICU value, the volume of traffic using the intersection is compared with the capacity of the intersection. The intersection significance criteria for the City of Newport Beach requires an increase of 1 % or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than a Level of Service (LOS) D during the morning/evening peak hours. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 26). The study area intersections for the proposed Project are listed in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, and attached to this document as Appendix K. For existing year (Year 2014) traffic conditions, the study area intersections currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning/evening peak hours. As shown on Table 5-14, for existing year (Year 2014) + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours. Thus, a less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-114 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-13 Project Trip Generation 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012, Land Use Categories 931, 710, and 420. 2 TSF= Thousand Square Feet 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, does not provide inbound/outbound splits for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM) for the Quality Restaurant land use. Therefore, the inbound/outbound splits for the AM peak hour of generator were used. 4 The marina restrooms generate nominal trips. The yacht brokerage and marina. restrooms will be accommodated within the new development. 5 The quality restaurant will include patio/efc. that is ancillary to the restaurant. The building total is 19,400 square feet. b The traffic volumes have been reduced by 447. for the quality restaurant as a result of pass -by trips obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, 2004. Source: Kurtzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 2 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-115 Peak Hour Land Quantity Units' Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound I Total Inbound I Outbound I Total Trip Generation Rates TSF TSF 0.66 1.37 0.15 0.19 0.81 1.56 5.02 0.25 2.47 1.24 7.49 1.49 89.95 11.03 Quality Restaurant' Office Berth 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.19 2.96 Marina Existing Trips Generated' 1.2 TSF 2 C 2 0 1 1 1 Yacht Brokerage Proposed Trips 16.274 112 13 82 4 122 1,46 Generated TSF 0.20 0 -36 -18 -54 -5 Quality Restaurants -Pass-Bys 36 TSF 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 7 10 Office Berth Subtotal 12 16 50 25 75 1,519 Net New Trips I 1 11 1 50 2 7q 1,506 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012, Land Use Categories 931, 710, and 420. 2 TSF= Thousand Square Feet 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, does not provide inbound/outbound splits for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic (one hour between 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM) for the Quality Restaurant land use. Therefore, the inbound/outbound splits for the AM peak hour of generator were used. 4 The marina restrooms generate nominal trips. The yacht brokerage and marina. restrooms will be accommodated within the new development. 5 The quality restaurant will include patio/efc. that is ancillary to the restaurant. The building total is 19,400 square feet. b The traffic volumes have been reduced by 447. for the quality restaurant as a result of pass -by trips obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition, 2004. Source: Kurtzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 2 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-115 No M❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental lv +_0 0 4 0 0 a�bb'5--0 4-0 4 D 0�4I�I� tt 0 0-0 moo 0 b 0 1 0� D Q Newport Boulevard SB Ramp/ West Coast Highway 2 v +_0 0 4 d�bb�o 4-0 4 0 0--�"I tt 0 0-0 moo 0� 0 1 0� o Irvine Avenue/ 19th Street/Dover Drive 1v �Q o 5 0 0 41bb 4-0 -0 4 D 0--�"I tt 0 0—l> moo 0� 0 1 0� 0 0 Irvine Avenue/ 17th Street/Westcliff Drive 1v �0 0 6 a�bb�o 4-1 4 D 0�"��� 4 0 0—l> moo 2� 0 1 0� 0 0 Dover Drive/ Westcliff Drive 0 v �p 4 13 000 4-1 4 a�bb�o 000 4 0 0000 0Z 0� 0 0 0 0 Santa Cruz Drive/ San Joaquin Hills Road Kunzman Associates, Inc (04-17-2014) i 1 0 v �p 4 14 000 a�bb�o 4-1 4 0000 000 0 0000 0Z 0 0 Santa Rosa Drive/ San Joaquin Hills Road a�bb�o 4 D 0 0 0000 000 0� o Q Newport Center Drive/ East Coast Highway a�bb�o 4 D 0 0 0000 000 0—;61 0 0 Avocado Avenue/ East Coast Highway a�bb�o 4 D 0 0 0� 000 0� 0 0 MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin Hills Road MacArthur Boulevard/ San Miguel Drive dbb�o 4 D 0 0 0000 o 0 0 0� o Q MacArthur Boulevard/ San Miguel Drive dbb�o 4 D 0 0 0- o 0 0 0 0 0 MacArthur Boulevard/ East Coast Highway Figure 5-13 HE PROJECT MORNING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-116 No M❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental 5 �1 o 4 oorn �2 a 0 0-A,41 10 0-;51 5-��� V N O 0� o � 0 Newport Boulevard SB Ramp/ West Coast Highway 6� �1 o 4 O M M o-�bb�o rQ a 0 0-A,41 10 0-;51 -i> V N O 0� o � � 0 Irvine Avenue/ 19th Street/Dover Drive 3 v �p o 6 ooM �bb�o 4-2 a D 0-A,41 10 0-;51 5-��� V N O o� � 0 Irvine Avenue/ 17th Street/Westcliff Drive 50 �p o 6 opo a�bb�o �0 a D 0-A,41 10 0-;51 0-D V N O 8� 6 Dover Drive/ Westcliff Drive � v �p M 13 000 a�bb�o 4-3 a D 0-A,41 10 0-;51 0 1 0� 0 0 Santa Cruz Drive/ San Joaquin Hills Road Kunzman Associates, Inc. (04-17-2014) 7 D 0� 4-0 a 14 000 �bb'5--0 4-3 4 D 0-A,41 10 0-;51 0 1 o� 0 0 Santa Rosa Drive/ San Joaquin Hills Road a� ' b ,6-0 a D 0 N 2-0 0 0 0 0-;51 0 1 0 0 Newport Center Drive/ East Coast Highway a�bb�o ,6-0 a D 0- O 0-O O Q 0 1 0 0 Avocado Avenue/ East Coast Highway a�bb�o ,6-0 a D 0- O 0-O O 0� 0 1 0 0 MacArthur Boulevard/ San Joaquin HIVs Road a� b 10 ,6-0 14 D 0- O 0-O O 0� 0 1 0 0 MacArthur Boulevard/ San Miguel Drive �bb'6—o a D 1-4 N 1 0 0 0 0� 0 0 MacArthur Boulevard/ East Coast Highway Figure 5-14 HE PROJECT EVENING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-117 ME ■F]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-14 Existing (Year 2014)+ Project Intersection Capacity 1 ICU -LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service (see Appendix Q. 2 TS = Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 3 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-118 Peak Hour ICU J. -LOS Existing (Year 20141 Intersection Traffic ICU Increase Contral2 Existing (Year 2012) +Project Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp INS) at: West Coast Highway EW IS 0.873-D 0.659-B 0.873-D 0.659-13 0.000 0.000 Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.771-C 0.789-C 0.772-C 0.790-C +0.001 +0.001 Tustin Avenue INS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.761-C 0.608-B 0.762-C 0.610-B +0.001 +0.002 Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 19th Street/Dover Drive(EW) IS TS 0.523-A 0.616-8 0.523-A 0.617-8 0.000 +0.001 17th Street/Westcliff Drive (EW) 0.457-A 0.711-C 0.457-A 0.712-C 0.000 +0.001 Dover Drive (NS) at: Westcliff Drive (EW) IS TS 0.429-A 0.440-A 0.430-A 0.445-A +0.001 +0.005 16th Street (EW) TS 0.496-A 0.495-A 0.498-A 0.499-A +0.002 +0.004 West Coast H ighwaY(EW) 0.619-B 0.681-B 0.620-B 0.686-B +0.001 +0.005 Bayside Drive INS) at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.651-B 0.619-B 0.654-B 0.627-B +0.003 +0.008 Jamboree Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) IS IS (h605-13 0.521-A 0.605-B 0.523-A 0.000 +0.002 Santa Barbara Drive (EW) East TS 0.493-A 0.614-13 0.493-A 0.615-13 0.000 +0.001 Coast Highwari 0.570-A O.6S9-13 0.571-A 0.660-B +0.001 +0.001 Santa Cruz Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road JEW) IS 0.309-A 0.340-A 0.309-A I 0.340-A 0.000 0.000 Santa Rosa Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road JEW) TS 0.330-A 0.465-A I 0.330-A 0.465-A 0.000 0.000 Newport Center Drive INS) at: East Coast Highway(EW) TS 0.371-A 0.452-A 0.371-A 0.453-A 0.000 +0.001 Avocado Avenue (NS) at: East Coast Highway(EW) IS 0.451-A 0.502-A 0.451-A 0.502-A 0.000 0.000 MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) IS TS 0.641-13 0J34 -C 0.642-B 0.735-C +0.001 +0.001 San Miguel Drive (EW) IS 0.529-A 0.477-A 0.529-A 0.478-A 0.000 +0.001 East Coast Highway (EW) 0.679-B 0.649-B 0.679-B I 0.650-B 0.000 +0.001 1 ICU -LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service (see Appendix Q. 2 TS = Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 3 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-118 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis To account for regional growth on roadways, Year 2017 traffic volumes were calculated based on a 1 % annual growth rate over a three-year period. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 30) For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours with the exception of the following study intersection: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) As shown in Table 5-15, for existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + Project traffic conditions, the Project -generated trips did not increase by 1% or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than LOS D during the morning/evening peak hours. Thus, a less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. The City of Newport Beach staff provided the list of cumulative projects within the study area to Kunzman Associates, Inc. for analysis. The cumulative projects list is appended to the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc, and included as Appendix K to this document. For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + cumulative projects traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours, with the exception of the following study area intersection: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) For existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved projects + cumulative projects + Project traffic conditions, the study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning/evening peak hours, with the exception of the following intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E during the morning peak hour: • Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: o West Coast Highway (EW) (Morning Peak Hour, LOS E) As shown in Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity, for existing + growth (Year 2017) + approved project + cumulative projects + Project traffic conditions, the Project -generated trips did not increase by 1% or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than LOS D during the morning/evening hours. Thus, a less -than - significant impact would occur. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-119 ME OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-15 Year 2017+ Project Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic [antral' Peak Hour ICU -LOS' ICU Increase Existing + Growth Existing + Growth (year 2017)+ (year 2017)+ Approved Projects Approved Projects +Project Mornin Evenin Mornin Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp(NS)at: West Coast Highway EW T5 0.93-E 0.70-B 0.93-E 0.70-B 0.00 0.00 Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.83-D 0.84-D 0.83-D 0.84-D 0.00 OAO Tustin Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.82-D 0.66-B 0.83-0 0.66-B +0.01 ODD Irvine Avenue (NS) at 19th Street/Dover Drive (EW) TS 0.54-A 0.63-B 0.54-A 0.63-B 0.00 0.00 17th Street/Westeliff Drive (EW) TS 0.47-A 0.73-C 0.47-A 0.73-C 0.00 BOB Dover Drive INS) at: Westcliff Drive (EW) TS 0.43-A 0.44-A 0.43-A 0.45-A 0.00 +0.01 16th Street (EW) TS 0.50-A 0.50-A 0.50-A 0.51-A 0.00 +0.01 WestCoast Highway (EW) TS 0.66-B 0.74-C 0.66-13 0.74-C 0.00 0.00 Bayside Drive (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) T5 0.71-C 0.70-13 0.71-C 0.70-B Dool 0.00 Jamboree Road INS) at San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.65-B 0.60-A 0.65-B 0.60-A 0.00 0.00 Santa Barbara Drive (EW) TS 0.53-A 0.66-B 0.53-A 0.66-B 0.00 0.00 East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.61-B 0.72-C 0.61-B 0.72-C 0.00 BOB Santa Cruz Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.32-A 0.36-A 0.32-A 0.36-A 0.00 0.00 Santa Rosa Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.38-A 0.50-A 0.38-A 0.50-A 0.00 BOB Newport Center Drive (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.40-A 0.49-A 0.40-A 0.49-A 0.00 0.00 Avocado Avenue (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.50-A 0.52-A 0.50-A 0.52-A 0.00 0.00 MacArthur Boulevard INS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.67-B 0.78-C 0.67-B 0.78-C 0.00 0.00 San Miguel Drive (EW) TS 0.58-A 0.50-A 0.58-A 0.50-A 0.00 0.00 East Coast Highway (EW) TS I 0.71-C I 0.67-B 0.71C 0.68-B 0.00 +0.01 I ICU -LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service (see Appendix C). 2 TS = Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 6 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-120 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Table 5-16 Year 2017+ Project + Growth Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic Peak Hour ICU -LOS' ICU Increase Existing+Growth Control' Existing+Growth (Year 2017)+ (Year 2017)+ Approved Projects Approved Projects Cumulative Project Cumulative Project +Project Morning Evening Morning Evening Morning Evening Newport Boulevard SB Ramp (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.962-E 0.744-C 0.962-E 0.746-C 0.000 +0.002 Riverside Avenue (NS) at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.862-D 0.895-D 0.863-0 0.897-0 1 +0.001 +0.002 Tustin Avenue(NS)at: West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.853-D 0.690-B 0.854-D 0.691-B +0.001 +0.001 Irvine Avenue (NS) at: 19th Street/Dover Drive (EW) TS 0.539-A 0.635-B 0.540-A 0.637-B +0.001 +0.002 17th Street/Westcliff Drive (EW) TS I 0.492-A I 0.772-C 0.493-A 0.773-C +0.001 +0.001 Dover Drive INS) at: Westcliff Drive (EW) TS 0.452-A 0.462-A 0.453-A 0.466-A +0.001 +0.004 16th Street (EW) TS 0.512-A 0.521-A 0.513-A 0.525-A +0.001 +0.004 West Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.687-B 0.784-C 0.688-8 0.789-C +0.001 +0.005 Bayside Drive (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.743-C 0.782-C 0.745-C 0.790-C +0.002 +0.008 Jamboree Road (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.684-B 0.625-B 0.684-8 0.625-B 0.000 0.000 Santa Barbara Drive (EW) TS 0.564-A 0.681-3 0.564-A 0.682-B 0.000 +0.001 East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.667-B 0.836-D 0.668-B 0.838-D +0.001 +0.002 Santa Cruz Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.323-A 0.359-A 0.323-A 0.359-A 0.000 0.000 Santa Rosa Drive (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.382-A 0.503-A 0.382-A 0.503-A 0.000 0.000 Newport Center Drive (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.422-A 0.540-A 0.422-A 0.541-A 0.000 +0.001 Avocado Avenue (NS) at: East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.568-A 0.599-A 0.568-A 0.599-A 0.000 0.000 MacArthur Boulevard (NS) at: San Joaquin Hills Road (EW) TS 0.691-8. 0.800-D 0.691-8 0.801-D 0.000 +0.001 San Miguel Drive (EW) TS 0.594-A 0.538-A 0.594-A 0.539-A 0.000 +0.001 East Coast Highway (EW) TS 0.799-C 0.764-C 0.799-C 0.765-C 0.000 +0.001 1 ICU -LOS = Intersection Capacity Utilization - Level of Service (see Appendix Q. 2 TS = Traffic Signal Source: Kunzman Associates (Appendix K), Table 8 Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-121 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Finding: No impact. The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. Based on the Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) thresholds, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Orange County CMP including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Orange County CMP requires that a traffic impact analysis be conducted for any projects generating 2,400 or more daily trips, or 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMP Highway System. Per the CMP guidelines, this number is based on the desire to analyze any impacts that will be 3% or more of the existing CMP highway system facilities capacity (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.13-22). The proposed Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2014, p. 20) Based on the CMP thresholds, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Orange County CMP including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required. c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Finding: No Impact. The nearest airport to the Project site is John Wayne Airport which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. The Project site is not located within an Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Planning Area, Airport Impact Zone, AELUP Notification Area or an Airport Safety Zone. The height of the proposed Project's marine commercial building would not result in air traffic safety hazards. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The nearest airport to the Project site is the John Wayne Airport (JWA) which is located approximately 6.1 miles north of the Project site. According to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the Project site is not located within the Airport Planning Area or the Airport Impact Zones, the AELUP Notification Area for JWA, or the Airport Safety Zones (OCALUC, 2008, Figure 1). The Project site does, however, occur within the JWA Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces zone established pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, although review by the ALUC only would apply if a project is proposed that exceeds the height limits established by FAR Part 77. (OCALUC, 2008) The Project's proposed marine commercial building would be required to comply with the City of Newport Beach non-residential shoreline height limit, so the building height Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-122 No OF—Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis with a flat roof may be constructed to a maximum 35 feet, or 40 feet with a sloped roof, with approval of a future Site Development Review application by the City of Newport Beach. The building height would not result in airport safety impacts. Accordingly, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (eg., farm equipment)? Finding: No Impact. The Project does not propose roadway improvements or roadway design features. Thus, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose planned improvements to roadways. The Project does not propose modification to the parking entrance from East Coast Highway. Only the internal configuration of the existing parking lot would be modified as discussed below. To implement proposed land -side improvements, the existing Balboa Marina parking lot would be demolished. The parking lot would be re-established in a modified configuration containing drive aisles, parking spaces, landscaping, and pole -mounted lighting. The existing parking lot would be reconfigured to provide internal circulation and parking to accommodate the proposed land -side development. The parking lot near the Bayside Drive entry would be modified in order to reduce turning movements, and the overall layout of the parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. No new design features are proposed for public roadways. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project does not propose improvements or disturbances to public roadways. During short-term construction activities, the driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain open during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, emergency vehicles would have access to the Project site via the driveway entrance from Bayside Drive. Thus, a less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The Project does not propose improvements or disturbances to public roadways. Under existing conditions, emergency roadway access is provided via East Coast Highway and Bayside Drive. No full or partial temporary lane closures would occur along East Coast Highway or Bayside Drive during Project construction. The driveway to Balboa Marina from East Coast Highway would remain functional and accessible during a majority of the construction process. When the driveway connecting to East Coast Highway is temporarily closed, emergency vehicles would have access to the Project Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-123 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis site via the driveway entrance from Bayside Drive. Thus, short-term construction activities would not impede emergency vehicles from accessing the Project site. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. A less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities? Finding: No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Circulation Element includes a number of goals and policies related to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. These include the policies identified under General Plan Circulation Element Goal CE 4.1 (Public Transportation) and CE 5.1 (Alternative Transportation Modes). An analysis of Circulation Element Policies that are applicable to the proposed Project is provided above under the topic Land Use and Planning Threshold b). As concluded above, the Project would be consistent with or would not otherwise conflict with the City's alternative transportation policies. No impacts would occur and mitigation is not required. Transportation/Traffic: Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed Project would have a less -than -significant impact to Transportation/Traffic. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.17 Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not increase the need for wastewater treatment beyond the wastewater treatment requirements under existing conditions. Thus, the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. A less than significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The majority of the City of Newport Beach (approximately 13.5 square miles), including the Project site, receives wastewater service from the City of Newport Beach. The City of Newport Beach has a Sewer System Management Plan and Sewer Master Plan that project future wastewater demands, plan for physical improvements to the wastewater collection system, and detail how wastewater is planned to be collected and treated. Wastewater from the City of Newport Beach's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). A majority of the City's sewage flow, including flows from the Project site, is conveyed to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2, which has a design Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-124 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd) and operates under capacity. (Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.14-23) Wastewater treated by the OCSD at Plant No. 2 is required to be treated in accordance with federal, state, and regional requirements for water quality prior to being discharged into the Pacific Ocean. On the water -side portion of the Project site, vessel pump -out accommodation would be provided for the new private boat slips in the some way that the pump out and holding tank system works at the Balboa Marina. Vessel pump out accommodation is not proposed for the new public boat dock due to the transient nature of its operation. On the land -side portion of the site, the Project site is fully developed under existing conditions and is served by subsurface sewer lines. The composition of wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be similar to that generated by other marine commercial and restaurant uses in the City, with no hazardous components. The proposed building planned for the land -side portion of the Project site is planned to contain a restaurant, yacht brokerage office, and marina restrooms. Based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the building is expected to generate a d emand for 2,755 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater treatment capacity (Stanfec 2014). The wastewater generated from the marine commercial building would be conveyed by the City's public sewer line network to the OCSD Plant No. 2 for treatment. The 276 mgd capacity of Plant No. 2 is designed to treat flows from buildout of its service area. Th e Project is fully compliant with the property's Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) General Plan land use designation and thus within the existing capacity of Plant No. 2, which meets applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. No aspect of the Project would cause the treatment plant to violate RWQCB requirements. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. b) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No Imaact. The proposed Project would not result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Under existing conditions, the Project site is provided domestic water and sewer services by the City of Newport Beach. Subsurface sewer lines, domestic water lines, water meters, and fire hydrants are located on the property. Although the infrastructure design on the land -side portion of the Project site would be modified by the Project, no off-site improvements would be needed and no expansions or construction of treatment facilities would be required. Also refer to the discussion under Threshold a,) above, and Threshold d), below. Water and wastewater treatment facilities have sufficient capacity to service the Project and treatment facility expansions would not be triggered by the Project. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-125 NO O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a reduced runoff volume as compared to existing conditions. No off-site storm drain facilities would need to be expanded. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. As discussed under Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold c), under existing conditions, storm water runoff generally sheet flows south to an existing trench drain along the water side perimeter of the site that ultimately outlets through the existing bulkhead into Newport Harbor at two locations. Under proposed conditions, runoff would continue to flow in a southerly direction and discharge through the existing bulkhead outlets. (Fuscoe Engineering, 2014, p. 8) The Project's drainage pattern would not be altered from existing conditions. As described the Project -specific WQMP included as Appendix I to this document, the proposed Project would reduce impervious surface areas on the Project site from 85% (2.92 acres) (as occurs under existing conditions) to approximately 75% (2.57 acres). As a result, the Project would reduce the runoff rate and volume as compared to the existing condition, thereby reducing the volume of stormwater runoff discharged. Accordingly, the Project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required. d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. Operation of the Project site with marine commercial uses is considered in the City's Urban Water Management Plan, which concludes that the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Although the Project would increase water demand as compared to the site's demand under existing conditions, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. A large majority of the City of Newport Beach (approximately 35.77 square miles, including the proposed Project site) receives domestic water service from the City of Newport Beach. The City receives its water from two main sources: 1) local groundwater from the Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and pumped from four active wells owned and operated by the City of Newport Beach (60%), and 2) imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) as wholesaled to the City by the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) (37%). In addition to these two main supply sources, the City also uses a small amount of recycled water for irrigation purposes (3%). Detailed information about these water supply sources are contained in the City of Newport Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-126 NO OF]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis which is herein incorporated by reference and available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City's UWMP calculates that water demand in the City will increase by 11% over the 25 -year period of 2010 - 2035, to 18,474 acre-feet of water demand City-wide by 2035. The UWMP also documents that the City has entitlements to sufficient wafer supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. (Newport Beach, 201]a) A Water Conservation Ordinance was adopted by the Newport Beach City Council in 2009 and is included in the City's Municipal Code as Chapter 14.16, "Water Conservation and Supply Level Regulations." The Ordinance creates a Water Conservation and Supply Shortage Program that establishes four levels of wafer supply shortage response actions to be implemented during times of declared water shortage. Additionally, Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscaping) of the City's Municipal Code requires the use of water efficient landscaping as part of new or rehabilitated projects. To verify compliance with the provisions of Chapter 14.17, landscape documentation packages must be submitted to the City for review and approval. The City reviews the landscape documentation packages for compliance with the provisions of the design standards set forth in Section 14.17.030 (Landscape Water Use Standards). The marine commercial building proposed for the land -side portion of the Project site is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water (Stantec 2014). The City's UWMP assumes build -out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designations the Project site as Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation, and thus its water demand is planned for by the UWMP. Landscaping on the Project site is required to comply with the water -efficient landscaping requirements of the City's Municipal Code Chapter 14.17. The City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand (Newport Beach, 2011 a, p. 2). Accordingly, the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would be adequately served by the OCSD. Thus, a less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the OCSD. Under existing conditions, wastewater treatment from the Project site is pumped to the OSCD Plant No. 2. OCSD Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (City of Newport Beach, 2006b, pp. 4.14-23)(mgd) and currently treats an average flow of 153 mgd. Currently, Plant No. 2 is operating at 55% of design capacity. Accordingly, the Project would be adequately served by the OCSD. Also refer to the discussion under Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-127 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Threshold a), above. A less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would be served by the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code § 12.63.030, solid waste is collected in the City by franchise waste haulers that have formal agreements with the City to collect its solid waste. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine, serves the City of Newport Beach. This landfill is 725 acres in size with 534 acres permitted for refuse disposal. It is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 11,500 tons per day and has enough capacity to remain in operation until at least 2053. Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The City of Newport Beach consistently meets the objective of Public Resources Code §40000 et seq. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." All solid waste generated by the Project would be collected by City services in compliance with Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 to ensure that a minimum of fifty percent of the solid waste collected is diverted from landfills, either through source separation by City residents or through separation of recyclable materials following collection. In order to construct the land -side portion of the Project, the existing 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms, would be demolished. Additionally, portions of the existing parking lot would be demolished to prepare the site for redevelopment. Demolition activity is anticipated to result in 14,700 CY of demolition material composed of asphalt, landscape material, soil, and deconstructed building material. Demolition material would be deposited into a landfill and asphalt would be recycled offsite at an approved recycling facility. There is sufficient capacity in the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD) landfill system to accommodate the construction waste. Based on the solid waste generation rates presented in General Plan EIR Table 4.14-14 for commercial uses, the proposed marine commercial building would result in the long- term generation of approximately 97 pounds per day of solid waste and can be accommodated within the permitted capacity of 11,500 tons per day at the Frank R. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-128 ON O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis Bowerman Landfill. Thus, a less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. Public Resources Code § 40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated. The proposed Project would be subject to the City's Recycling Service Fee pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, which is intended to assist the City in meeting the 50 percent diversion objective. Commercial waste haulers within the City are subject to Municipal Code Section 12.63.120 (Recycling Requirement), which states, "No person providing commercial solid waste handling services or conducting a solid waste enterprise shall deposit fifty (50) percent or more of the solid waste collected by the person in the City at any landfill." Furthermore, the proposed Project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials Storage), which mandates that non-residential projects provide enclosed refuse and recyclable material storage areas in compliance with the minimum storage area requirements provided in Municipal Code Section 20.30, Table 3-5. Additionally, food service uses may require additional enclosed storage areas as determined by the City in association with the Project's future SPD and CUP applications. With compliance of applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, a less -than -significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required. Utilities and Service Systems: Mitigation Measures Implementation of the proposed Project would result in less -than -significant impacts to utilities and service systems and no mitigation measures are required. 5.4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? Finding: Less-than-Sianificant Impact with Mifiaafion Incorporated. The proposed Project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, temporarily reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species during its water- side construction activities, and eliminate wafer -bottom eelgrass in an area of Lower Newport Bay proposed to be dredged. The Project also has the beneficial effect of creating 600 SF of intertidal mudflats and increasing waters of the United States by 6,772 SF by moving an existing Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-129 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis embankment 15 feet landward. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project to ensure that these impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. No historic resources are located on the property. Although there is a remote and unlikely potential that archaeological resources would be unearthed during the Project's construction process, mitigation measures imposed ensure that resources would be properly identified and treated should they be discovered. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and additional mitigation measures are not required. As indicated in the analysis presented throughout this document, and assuming the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would result in no impact or less -than - significant impacts to the environment. Accordingly, the Project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As indicated under the discussion and analysis of Biological Resources in Section 5.4.4, Project construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to the California brown pelican and California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, Fishery Management Species (FMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFP), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). In the case of these species, impacts would be the result of temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving that may result in increased water turbidity and noise. Species are expected to temporarily leave the Project area due to short-term construction -related disturbance and/or irritation. These species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. In order to accommodate the new public dock and additional private boat slips, 37 piles would be driven into the Lower Newport Bay floor, a riprap embankment would be constructed approximately 15 -feet landward of the existing riprap embankment, and approximately 1.0 acre of water bottom surface would be dredged. The relocation of the riprap slope would create approximately 6,772 SF of water surface and 600 SF (3.9 feet wide by 155 feet long) of new mudflats (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 21). The loss of 54.4 SF of soft bottom surface area for the piles would be compensated for by the 600 SF mudflat creation area, resulting in a net increase of 545.6 SF of soft surface bottom habitat. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would have a beneficial long-term impact on waters of the United States, mudflats, and associated resource groups (Coastal Resources Management, Inc., 2013, p. 37) Dredging would permanently impact eelgrass habitat and temporarily reduce benthic (bottom dwelling) invertebrate habitat. Additionally, although Project construction activities in the water would result in short-term temporary displacement impacts to the California brown pelican, California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, and Fishery Management Species (FMS), the impacts would be temporary (approximately 4 weeks) and the species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. Upon completion of the dredging and pile driving activities, fish and marine mammals would move back into the area and benthic invertebrates would recolonize the shallow subtidal habitat. Therefore, impacts would be a short-term and less than significant with mitigation imposed to reduce the Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-130 No OF—]Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis temporary impacts. The long-term impact to eelgrass would be significant and require mitigation, as discussed under Biological Resources in Section 5.4.4Threshold a). As indicated in the discussion and analysis of Cultural Resources in Section 5.4.5, there would be no impact to historical resources resulting from Project implementation. Although the Project site is not identified as being sensitive with respect to archaeological resources, mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project to ensure the proper treatment of any resources that may be uncovered during construction of the proposed Project. With implementation of the required mitigation, the Project would have a less -than -significant impact on historic and prehistoric resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Finding: Less -than -Significant Impact. T he proposed Project would not result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts of the proposed Project would therefore be less than significant, and mitigation measures are not required. In order to evaluate the Project's potential to result in cumulatively significant impacts, the City of Newport Beach Planning Division compiled a list of other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. The list of cumulative projects is provided below: Project Name Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ciosa - Irvine Project Newport Dunes Hoag Hospital Phase III St. Mark Presbyterian Church 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Executive Court Hoag Health Center North Newport Center Santa Barbara Condo (Marriott) Newport Beach City Hall 328 Old Newport Medical Office Coastline Community College Bayview Medical Office Mariner's Point Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-131 ME O❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.0 Environmental Checklist and Environmental Analysis 4221 Dolphin Striker San Joaquin Hills Plaza Uptown Newport (Phase 2) Uptown Newport (Phase 1) Marina Park Based on this list of projects and the evaluation of Project impacts in this document and Technical Appendices A through M2, the Project's impacts in every environmental subject area would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation applied for the Project's direct impacts. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project for its direct impacts would also mitigate its contribution to cumulative effects. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 5-132 No E❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Aesthetics MM AE -1 Prior to approval of a S ite Development Review, the City of Newport Prior to SDR City Planning Division shall review the proposed Beach / City of Approval architectural design of the marine commercial Newport Beach building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE -2 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City of Newport Prior to SDR City Planning Division shall review the architectural Beach / City of Approval design of the proposed marine commercial building Newport Beach to ensure that non -reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. Biological Resources MM BR -1 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant / Prior to Issuance Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of City of Newport of Construction Newport Beach that all required permits and Beach and State Permits clearances regarding biological resources have been and Federal obtained from the regulatory and resource agencies. Resource Agencies MM BR -2 The Project Applicant shall conduct a pre - construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days prior to dredging and a post -construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days after project construction is complete. Said surveys shall be consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service Project Applicant / City of Newport Beacy Prior to Commencement of Construction and Following Construction Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-1 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-2 RESPONSIBLE•COMPLIANCE MITIGATION MONITORING Control Protocol. If this species is found, protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia shall be implemented to remove this species from the Project site. MM BR -3 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, an Project Applicant/ Prior to eelgrass mitigation plan shall be prepared requiring a State and Federal Commencement minimum 1.2:1 mitigation ratio for eelgrass impacts Resource of Construction pursuant to the provisions of the Southern California Agencies Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). At least 618 SF (57.4 square meters) of eelgrass shall be successfully transplanted at the end of a five-year post -transplant monitoring period. The location of the transplant area shall be the Balboa Eelgrass Mitigation Area which was established during the reconstruction of the Balboa Marina in 2008-2009 or as determined by the resource agencies. MM BR -4 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant / Prior to Project Applicant shall ensure that dredging and City of Newport Commencement excavation operations are surrounded with a silt Beach of Construction curtain to reduce the level of turbidity. The curtain shall be maintained in good condition throughout the dredging and excavation process. MM BR -5 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant / Prior to Project Applicant shall ensure that a qualified City of Newport Commencement biological monitor is retained to monitor turbidity and Beach of Construction effects on marine mammals during pile driving operations. Said monitor shall comply with standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for water quality protection and applicable Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-2 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION —M requirements for protection of marine mammals. LYA 101011163:110 lei W-11 MM BR -6 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed City of Newport Concurrent with on the Project's applicable implementing permits and Beach / City of Implementing approvals. Newport Beach Permits and Approvals COA: Construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with applicable requirements of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Contracts shall include a provision that in the unlikely event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the contractor shall immediately contact the NMFS Southwest Regional Office's Standing Coordinator, submit a report to the NMFS Regional Office and comply with all associated and feasible directives. COA: Pile driving shall be conditioned to require employment of a "soft -start" approach to lessen the potential for short-term construction impacts to marine mammals. This approach requires slowly ramping up pile driving activities at the start of the day and at restarting after breaks or any interruption longer than 15 minutes. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act shall be required if the "soft -start" approach is not employed. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-3 No E❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • •COMPLIANCE MITIGATION E�Wgliremllrellv,m= STAGE STATUS Cultural Resources MM CR -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall City of Newport Prior to Issuance verify that the following note is included on the Beach / City of of a Grading grading plan(s). Newport Beach Permit "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground -disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100 - foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the City of Newport Beach shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-4 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE•COMPLIANCE MONITORING Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HM -1 During Project grading and construction activities, the Construction During Grading construction contractor shall ensure that possible Contractor / and Construction locations where the USTs may have been located, Orange County Activities either near the existing building or along the western Environmental side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Health Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), Department are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land -side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-5 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE•COMPLIANCE MONITORING MM HM -2 The following Condition of Approval shall be placed City of Newport Prior to Issuance on the Project's demolition permits. Beach / City of of Demolition Newport Beach Permits COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead-based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HWQ-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other Project Applicant/ Prior fo Issuance permits a M arina Management Plan shall be City of Newport of Grading or prepared by the Project Applicant and approved by Beach Building Permit the City of Newport Beach. The Marina Management Plan shall identify construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential water quality impacts to Newport Bay. The Management Plan shall include BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. MM HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare, and the City of Newport Beach shall review and approve, a Stormwafer Pollution Protection Plan SWPPP in compliance with Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-6 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE•COMPLIANCE MONITORING the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit and be provided evidence that the RWQCB has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. MM HWQ 3 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: All construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Marina Management Plan related to construction -related activities. The Management Plan shall be implemented as a requirement of the long-term operation of Balboa Marina. The marina operator shall be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. COA: The dredging permit shall state that scow doors used to release dredged material at the approved dredge materials disposal location shall be required to remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-7 No E❑ Mitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • • • MITIGATION Land Use and Planning MM LU -1 The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall City of Newport Prior to SDR and review the Project's applications for a Site Beach / City of CUP Approvals Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for Newport Beach compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. and ensure compliance. Noise MM N-1 As a condition of CUP issuance for a restaurant use in Project Applicant / Prior to Issuance the marine commercial building and prior to the City of Newport of a CUP and issuance of occupancy permits for any restaurant, Beach Prior to Issuance bar, lounge, or nightclub to be located in the marine of an commercial building, an acoustical study shall be Occupancy prepared by a qualified acoustician and reviewed Permit and approved by the City of Newport Beach to verify that the building operations, including operations in the outdoor patio, comply with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.090(E) of the City's Municipal Code. MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building City of Newport Prior to Issuance permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach / City of of a Grading Beach Community Development Department shall Newport Beach Permit or Building confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and Permit specifications stipulate that:: a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State- required noise attenuation Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-8 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 6.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MITIGATION • Il ki Lei W-11 devices. b) During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. c) When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d) During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e) Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 6-9 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 References 7.0 References Cited As Reference Anchor QEA, LP., 2013 Anchor QEA, LP., 2013. Jurisdictional Delineation Report Balboa Marina West Expansion. December 2013 (Appendix C). CAA Planning, 2014 CAA Planning, 2014.E -mail correspondence from Tom Mathews to Tracy Zinn. May 15, 2014. CDC, 2010 California Department of Conservation, 2010. Orange County Important Farmland 2010. 2010. Available on-line at: fto://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/ora l 0.pdf CDC, 2012 California Department of Conservation, 2012. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land. 2012. Available on-line at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/WA/2012%a2OStatewide%2OMar)/WA 2 012 8xll.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach General Plan. July 25, 2006a 2006. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newr)ortbeachco.gov/index.aslpx?lpaqe=l 73 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2006. City of Newport Beach Draft Environmental 2006b Impact Report, General Plan 2006 Update (SCH No. 2006011119). July 25, 2006. Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paae=196 City of Newport City of Newport Beach Mitigated Negative Declaration Balboa Marina Beach, Dock Replacement SCH No. 2007010017. Available for review at City of 2007 Newport Beach, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, 2009 Newport Beach, 2009. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Program Coastal Land Use Plan. July 14, 2009. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newportbeachca.aov/index.ospx?paae=1317 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2010. Newport Beach Zoning Map. November 25, 2010. 2010a Available on-line at: htto://www6.citv.newport- beach.ca.us/website/ais/pdf maps/Zonina 36X48.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2010. Tsunami Run Up Area (Map). April 2010. Available 2010b on-line at: httr)://www6.city.newport- beach.ca.us/website/gis/odf maps/CitvLocationsTsunamiRunupB 11X1 7.pdf Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2011. 2011 a Available on-line at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.asr)x?doc umentid=10182 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2011. City of Newport Beach Emergency Management 2011 c Plan. 2011. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newr)ortbeachco.gov/modules/ShowDocument.aslpx?doc Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-1 No En Mitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 References Cited As Reference umentid=11179 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2012. Newport Beach Municipal Code. March 12, 2013. 2012a Available on-line at: httr)://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Newr)ortBeach/ Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2012. Complete Cruising Guide to Newport Harbor 2012b (Second Edition). March 2012. Available on-line at: http://www.newpartbeachca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?doc umentid=12498 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2013. Newport Beach Fire Department (web site). 2013b Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: httr)://www.newiportbeachca.gov/index.osipx?ipaqe=58 Newport Beach, Newport Beach, 2013. Newport Beach Police Department (web site). 2013c Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: httr)://www.nbpd.org/ City of Newport City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.28.010 Loud and Beach Unreasonable Noise. Available online at: Municipal Code, 2014 http://www.codepublishina.com/CA/NewgortBeach/ County of Orange, State of California -County of Orange. Tsunami Inundation Map for 2009 Emergency Planning. Newport Beach Quadrangle. March 15, 2009. Available online at: http://www.conservation.ca.aov/cas/aeoloaic hazards/Tsunami/Inund ation Mogs/Oranae/Documents/Tsunami Inundation NewgortBeach Quad Oranae.odf Coastal Resources Coastal Resources Management Inc., 2013. Marine Biological Impact Management, Inc. Assessment for the Balboa Marina West Project. December 12, 2013. 2013 (Appendix B). Environmental Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. 2014a. Phase I Engineering Environmental Site Assessment. April 30, 2014 (Appendix H) & Contracting, Inc., 2014a Environmental Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. 2014b. Phase II Engineering Environmental Site Assessment. May 16, 2014. (Appendix H) & Contracting, Inc. 2014b Everest International Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Impact Analysis for Proposed Consultants, Inc., Alternatives. March 2013. (Appendix E). 2013 Everest International Balboa West Marina Expansion Project Coastal Engineering Study. July Consultants, Inc., 2013. (Appendix D). 2013 Fuscoe Engineering, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Inc., 2014 (WQMP) Balboa Marina West Redevelopment Project. April 23, 2014. Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-2 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 References Cited As Reference (Appendix I). Geotechnical Geotechnical Professionals, Inc. 2014. Geotechnical Investigation Professionals, Proposed Restaurant Balboa Marina Newport Beach, California. April 8, Inc., 2014 2014. (Appendix G). Harbor Resources Harbor Resources Divisions, City of Newport Beach 2010. Harbor Area Division Management Plan April 2010 Final. Available online at: City of Newport http://www.newr)ortbeachco.00v/Modules/ShowDocument.CslDx?doc Beach, 2010 umentid=9186 KPC EHS, 2014 KPC EHS Consultants, 2014. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment. June 2014. (Technical Appendix A) Kunzman Associates, Kunzman Associates, Inc,. 2014. Balboa Marina West Traffic Impact Inc. Analysis. April 17, 2014 (Technical Appendix K). Magnuson -Stevens Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Public Fishery Law 94-265 as amended through October 11, 1996. Available online at: Conservation and htto://www.habitat.noaa.aov/odf/maanusonstevensact.pdf Management Act, 1996 NOAA, 1991 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (Adopted July 31, 1991) Available online at: httr)://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/habitat/coliforni a eelarass mitigation/eelpolrevl l final.indf OCALUC, 2008 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission, 2008. Airport Land Use Commission Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. April 17, 2008. Available on-line at: http://www.ocair.com/commissions/cluc/docs/JWA AELUP-April-17- 2008.pdf OCPW, 2013 Orange County Public Works, 2013. OC Watersheds: Newport Bay Watershed (web site). Accessed May 17, 2013. Available on-line at: https://med ia.ocaov.com/aov/pw/watersheds/programs/ourws/n pb/d efault.asp OCTA, 2011 Orange County Transportation Authority, 2011. 2011 Orange County Congestion Management Program. 2011. Available on-line at: httr)://www.octo.net/Plans-and-Programs/Congestion-Manaaement- Proaram/Overview/ Orange County, 1996 Orange County, 1996. Natural Community Conservation Plan & Habitat Conservation Plan, County of Orange, Central & Coastal Subregion. July 17, 1996. Available on-line at: httr)://www.naturereserveoc.ora/documents.htm SCAG, 2001 Southern California Association of Governments, 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report. October 31, 2001. Available on-line at: http://www.mwcoa.orci/uploads/committee- Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-3 No NoMitigated Negative Declaration 7.0 References Cited As Reference documents/bl5aX 1 pa20091008155406.ladf SCAQMD, 2008a South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. Available on-line at: httip://www.aamd.gov/cega/handbook/GHG/2008/oct22mtq/GHGqui dance.pdf SCAQMD, 2008b South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July 2008. Available on-line at: httr)://www.aamd.00v/ceaa/handbook/Ist/Method final.pdf SCAQMD, 2013 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2013. Asbestos Removal and Demolition (web site). Accessed May 15, 2013. Available on-line at: http://www.agmd.00v/comply/asbestos/asbestos.html UCSB, 2013 United States Census Bureau, 2013. State & County QuickFacts, Newport Beach (city), California (web site). Accessed May 16, 2013. Available on-line at: http://q uickfacts.census.aov/afd/states/06/0651 182.htm] Stantec, 2014 StStantec, 2014. Balboa Marina West Grading Plan. Wieland Acoustics, Wieland Acoustics, 2014. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed 2014. Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA. July 17, 2014 (Technical Appendix J). Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 7-4 No 01-1 mitigated Negative Declaration 8.0 Persons Contributing to IS/MND Preparation 8.1 Persons Contributing to Initial Study/Addendum Preparation City of Newport Beach (Lead Agency) Patrick J. Alford, Planning Program Manager; Community Development Department, Planning Division T&B Planning, Inc. (Primary CEQA Consultant and Water Supply Assessment Preparer) Tracy Zinn, AICP, Principal Jerrica Harding, AICP, Senior Project Manger Eric Horowitz, GISP, Senior Graphics/GIS Manager Connie Anderson, Environmental Analyst Balboa Marina West August 18, 2014 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Page 8-1 Attachment CC 3 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO. 2 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) Site Location: 151 and 201 Coast Hwy E Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and called for a staff report. Deputy Director of Community Development, Brenda Wisneski, reported that staff received an extensive comment letter just prior to the meeting and that staff has reviewed the letter and Is prepared to address it. She suggested continuing with the presentation and addressing those comments as the meeting progressed. Planning Program Manager, Patrick Alford, provided details of the subject action noting that the request is unique in that the Planning Commission would typically do an environmental review along with a project. However, staff is asking that the Commission review and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in advance of the development application. If adopted, a separate application will be filed for the land side development. The water side improvements will be done through an approval in concept with the Harbor Resources Director. If both sides are approved, the entire project will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission as part of a unified Coastal Development Permit. He addressed the project location, surrounding properties, expansion of the marina, relocation of existing public slips, new public slips, amenities, parking and landscaping. He presented information regarding the development areas, private marina expansion, land side and water side site plans, visual simulation for the marine commercial building, construction schedule, the public -review period of the MND and noticing efforts. Mr. Alford then introduced Tracy Zinn of T&B Planning for a continuation of the report. Tracy Zinn, Consultant for T&B Planning, detailed the analysis of the project Impacts and proposed mitigation measures. She addressed the environmental issue areas that were studied, noting that the majority have less - than -significant Impacts or no impacts, with no mitigation required. These included agriculture, air quality, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic and utilities and service systems. Those issues with significant impacts requiring mitigation include aesthetics, land use, biology, cultural resources, hazardous materials, and noise, and listed applicable mitigation efforts for each. Chair Tucker commented on the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh letter and suggested that Ms. Zinn continue with her presentation and that staff provide responses to the letter, subsequently. Ms. Zinn reported that she will provide responses to comments made and that the late -communication received today is somewhat repetitive, but she will respond to that as well. She referenced a letter received by "Still Protecting Our Newport," (SPON) which expressed disagreement, stating that the MND was an inappropriate form of environmental documentation. The letter requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, but did not provide detail or substantive evidence that the MND was not adequate. The written response addresses all of the issues listed in the SPON letter. In response to Chair Tucker's inquiry regarding aesthetics, Ms. Zinn reported on the key issues reviewed under aesthetics including whether or not the proposal is compatible with the character of the property and the surrounding community and whether the property results in offensive views In addition to other matters. Commissioner Koetting stated that because of the Importance of the site, he would expect that the applicant would submit a schematic of the proposed buildings. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reminded the Commission that the project is not being reviewed at this time, but rather the MND. The elements addressed by Commissioner Koetting would be reviewed during the site development review process. Commissioner Koetting commented on the standards being assessed and in response to his inquiry, it was noted that the Planning Commission will review the actual building plans to determine compatibility with the standards at a future date. in reply to Commissioner Hiligren's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that a determination of CEQA compliance does not predetermine a future action and that the Commission is not obligated to approve the massing analysis that Page 2 of 7 21-12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 was presented in the MND. She added that the site development review will have the specific findings requiring the Commission to assess compatibility with on-site and surrounding neighborhoods as well as design issues. The MND is not as specific as the site development review. Ms. Zinn reported that it is a review of the conceptual project. The City has proceeded effectively in projecting what the eventual build -out could be based on the concept submitted. Chair Tucker added that what the Commission is reviewing at this time are the potential impacts on the environment of an assumed maximum boundary of a project but with separate decision on a specific site development permit application to be made at a later point. Discussion followed regarding the differences between the environmental review and the site review processes. Ms. Wisneski addressed CEQA requirements related to the level of analysis required under aesthetics. She added that the site development review will be evaluated in terms of the findings and presented the level of review in terms of the site development plan. Ms. Zinn addressed the letter received from Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, who represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. She listed the points of concern stated in the letter including a claim that the MND did not appropriately evaluate cumulative impacts of two (2) projects: the Back Bay Landing project and the water -bus taxi project and she provided details of responses. Relative to the water taxi project, she indicated that is not a project, as defined by CEQA, is still being reviewed in terms of feasibility and there is no application yet filed. In terms of noise vibration impacts, she reported that the noise expert determined that the noise monitoring locations were appropriate and relied on an extensive noise study that was monitored on Linda Isle in the original reconstruction of Balboa Marina. Regarding the project's water and waste -water demands, Ms. Zen reported that the City's engineer completed an analysis of water demand for the project and noted that it addressed the specific issues under CEQA successfully and that there is sufficient water supply and waste -water treatment capacity to service the project. She added that landscaping will be drought -tolerant, as required by City Code. In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry regarding the water study and why it was not conducted for the entire site, originally, Ms. Zinn feported that it was an oversight. She added that water -demand factors that were used were from Irvine Water District and the City is obligated to use the demand factors provided by the water purveyor. Ms. Zinn addressed concerns with changes in the grade on the land side portion of the project and potential issues from headlights shining across the water into the Linda Isle Community. She noted that there is a very large parking lot currently on the property and that there will be tuck -under parking at the site of the potential restaurant that will be reconfigured to have fewer spaces with headlights pointing in that direction. Additionally, she noted that the back portion of the property will be lowered, not raised, and that there will be landscaping added to block potential headlights. In response to Chair Tucker's question, Ms. Zinn reported that parts of the parking lot will be higher and there is an area for landscaping to be installed to block headlights. That would be part of the site development review. Ms. Wisneski noted that a landscaping plan will be made available. Discussion followed regarding a reconfiguration of the parking lot and areas where there will be fewer parking spaces. Regarding the construction process, the amount of materials that will be hauled to and from the site and the claim that the MND did not adequately address construction -related traffic, Ms. Zinn reported on the number of construction workers and disposal of dredge material for the water side and results of a study conducted in terms of construction -related traffic regarding the land side. Planning Project Manager Alford asked for a clarification of the water demand for construction and landscaping. Ms. Zinn addressed the water requirements for both construction and landscaping. Page 3 of 7 21-13 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02114 In response to Commissioner Brown's inquiry regarding the calculation of water demand, Ms. Zinn reported that normal and dry years were calculated for information -disclosure purposes. The MND calculated only a normal year for the original assessment and a dry and normal year was calculated, subsequently. Mr. Alford requested clarification of noise in relation to pedestrians. Ms. Zinn noted that pedestrian noise was taken into consideration in the noise analysis and noted that the location of the pedestrian access will be moved Interiorly, away from Linda Isle. She added that this will be reviewed during the development site review. Commissioner Lawler asked for clarification regarding the Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh claim that the MND failed to analyze trips for hauling demolition materials. Ms. Zinn reiterated that there will be export from the property of demolition materials and a small amount of import trips for a small amount of earth work that is needed. The number of trips during the construction period will be less than the number of trips that would occur when the project is operational. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill added that the City Attorney's office received a copy of the correspondence and that the City Attorney's office works closely with the Community Development Department to ensure that the City satisfies all of Its obligations under CEQA; one of which is to provide responses to comments received during the public review period. That was done in this instance. Out of an abundance of caution, the City Attorney's office reviewed the late communication received today so that the Planning Commission can have the benefit of any information needed. She added that the one issue of concern was whether or not the cumulative analysis was sufficient and stated that the cumulative impacts of aesthetics were not analyzed as staff did not feel It was an Impact to be evaluated. CEQA does not require the cumulative impact analysis to address all issues but rather those that are reasonably foreseeable to be impacted. She added that staff looked at the Back Bay Landing Project as well as traffic, noise and air quality. Relative to other issues, she stated that staff's prior responses provide sufficient information to address them. Chair Tucker suggested that, if the project is appealed to the City Council, staff provide written response to the late communication, for the record. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the pedestrian circulation plan noting that the walkway would be better placed along the waterfront. Ms. Zinn reported that the noise level from pedestrian activity is generally low, but that it is a concern to residents on Linda Isle. She added that when the site development plan is presented to the Planning Commission, it will be subject to CEQA and that the Commission will need to determine whether the analysis in the MND was appropriate. If there is a potential for a substantive change to the noise level based on a proposed relocation of the pedestrian pathway, the City could request that the applicant prepare technical support information to show that the conclusions in the MND are valid. If not, subsequent CEQA documentation could be presented to the Commission. Commissioner Hillgren commented on the site plan and on the project boundary. He asked about consideration of modifying traffic lanes in terms of increasing bicycle safety. Ms. Zinn reported that the only physical disturbance that will occur is related to the Marina Driveway entrance. No bicycles lanes would be affected by the project. Mr. Alford reported that the applicant will not be providing a presentation but is available to respond to questions from the Commission. Ms. Wisneski reiterated that approval of the MND is not approving any aspects of the project and solely relates to any potential environmental impacts. if changes are made to the project which were not reviewed in the MND, additional environmental review may be required. In response to Commissioner Koetting's inquiry, Ms. Wisneski reported that the MND is based upon a conceptual plan. Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on this item to do so at this time. Page 4 of 7 21-14 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 Michelle Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus & Peckenpaugh, representing Linda Isle, highlighted mistakes in the MND, responses and staff report Including confirmation that the cumulative Impact analyses are incorrect relative to the Back Bay Landing Project and Area 2. She expressed concerns with the vibration impact analysis relative to the dock replacement. Regarding noise impacts, she reported that the MND uses an outdated analysis and there were no noise monitoring measurements taken at Linda Isle, currently. She added that the MND ignores noise impacts experienced at Linda Isle due to existing restaurants and the resolution addressing measures needed for outdoor dining areas. She stated no outdoor dining should be allowed until an evaluation and mitigation measures are taken. She continued, claiming that the MND is inconsistent with construction noise impacts identified in the Back Bay Landing Project and there is no mitigation for this project, even though it is closer to Linda Isle. She commented on the proposed raising of an area in the parking lot and expressed concerns with headlights and parking lot lights affecting Linda Isle residents. Additionally, she commented on inconsistencies with drought -tolerant landscaping and Irrigation as well as challenges related to proposed building heights. She requested that the MND be corrected and recirculated, noted that residents are happy to work with staff and indicated there is no rush on proceeding with this project with such a flawed document. She asked that the project be continued in order to have an opportunity to work with the City and the applicant to address the issues of concern. Marge Austin, 401 Bayside, commented on the need to mitigate construction traffic issues, on noise and other Issues posing an inconvenience to residents. In response to her inquiry, Chair Tucker reported that the parking lot will be raised in one (1) area. Jim Mosher stated he does not understand the logic of acting on this matter at this time and questioned the evaluation of the MND prior to having a specific project review. He acknowledged the concerns of nearby residents including the cumulative traffic impacts and aesthetic visual impacts. He commented on tuck -under parking and on negative comments from the public about the architecture at Mariner's Pointe. Dan Miller of The Irvine Company reported that some are presupposing that there will be a restaurant and stated that the decision has not been made. He added that the MND is focusing on marine commercial, which could include a restaurant. When the specific plan comes before the Commission, it must fit within the set framework of what is being presented at this time. He stated that many of the comments made will be addressed during the site development review process. He addressed parking and ingress/egress and hoped that a user will be found so that they can return to the Planning Commission with a site review addressing details and present both to the Coastal Commission. He added that they may decide that they are not ready to do land side activities. He explained plans for the parking lot and existing conditions and noted they will mitigate with improvements. He addressed the pedestrian walkway and reported it is being moved further from Linda Isle in response to the community. There being no others wishing to address the Planning Commission, Chair Tucker closed the public hearing. Harbor Resources Manager Chris Miller addressed landscaping to mitigate light and noise impacts and a comparison of construction noise related to pile driving and mitigation efforts for the proposed project versus the original marina renovations. He added that this project is considerably smaller and that the current practice is as good or better. Mr. Alford addressed Area 2 of Back Bay Landing and commented on the uses slated for that area. He added that it is not physically connected to the subject site and that there are no uses proposed that would result in a cumulative impact. He commented on height limits at Back Bay Landing and reported that height limits will be reviewed when the project is presented to the Planning Commission for review. Presently, the Commission's duty is to review impacts in a worst-case scenario. The appropriateness of the height limit will be decided at a later time in the site development review process. He addressed grading and corrections made to the administrative record. Ms. Zinn added that the grading plan was included in the administrative record but not bound into the MND document. In terms of the MND relying on old data, Ms. Zinn reported that is not the case as the noise expert took noise monitoring measures recently. The data used for vibration analysis is real data, not theoretical data and she explained the calculation of same. Page 5 of 7 21-15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/02/14 Chair Tucker addressed whether there was a need to recirculate the environmental document noting that according to the guidelines there did not appear to be a basis to ask for recirculation. The Commission concurred there was no substantial Information in the record that mandated recirculation. Vice Chair Kramer commented positively regarding the MND and expressed his interest in outdoor dining within the project. Chair Tucker stated that when the project returns for site development review, he will state his concerns regarding tuck -under parking, if it were to be proposed. He commented on other commercial properties in town that are close to residential properties and that those situations require a balancing of interests. He also commented on the duty of all uses to comply with the existing noise ordinance. He added that the Planning Commission will also look at the landscaping plan when a specific project comes forward. Motion made by Chair Tucker and seconded by Vice Chair Kramer and carried (7 — 0) to adopt Resolution No. 1958 approving Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. AYES: Brown, Hillgren, Koetting, Kramer, Lawler, Myers and Tucker NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None ITEM NO. 3 Balboa Village Design Guidelines Update (PA2014-141) Site Location: Balboa Village between Adams Street and A Street Chair Tucker introduced the item, opened the public hearing and reported that there has been a previous study session on this matter and that it has been thoroughly reviewed. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that the PowerPoint presentation had been made available in the staff report and addressed the need for updating the guidelines to provide additional guidance for new developers. She reported that Balboa Village is undergoing a revitalization effort and noted that staff felt that an update was necessary to make the design guidelines clear and concise. She addressed comments made by the Planning Commission during the study session and highlighted changes made since that meeting. Changes proposed by the Balboa Village Advisory Committee were also incorporated in the document. Chair Tucker reviewed elements of the document and asked a question regarding the ability to place outdoor dining in the public right-of-way. Ms. Wisneski stated that the City has the ability to place it in the public right-of-way. Chair Tucker suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He commented on the excess of commercial space in the area and stated that there should be more residential instead so there would be less commercial space to fill and more customers to frequent the commercial space that is there. Commissioner Koetting suggested changes and additions to language within specific sections of the document. He addressed the need for carefully -designed circulation and Ms. Wisneski pointed out a section in the guidelines that addresses circulation. Discussion followed regarding additional changes to the language in the document, planning for various types of uses at the front end, encouraging the elimination of excessive window signs, the City's existing sign ordinance and encouraging the use of roof -top dining, if practical. Chair Tucker invited those interested in addressing the Planning Commission on this item to do so at this time. Jim Mosher commented on the resolution, noting that it seems to be vague and suggested specificity in terms of what is being approved. He commented on keeping fagades clean and in good repair and pointed out Page 6 of 7 21-16 Attachment CC 4 RESOLUTION NO. 1958 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITAGED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) FOR BALBOA MARINA WEST LOCATED AT 151 AND 201 EAST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2012-103) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway, to construct a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina, and construct a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. 2. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2014, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on August 18, 2014, and ending on September 17, 2014. The environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the Planning Commission. 3. An Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit "B"), dated September 23, 2014, was prepared which clarifies and augments data in the document, and supports the conclusions reached in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required when new information is added to the document which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached as Exhibit "A". The Response to Comments and Errata are attached as Exhibit "B". The documents and all material, which 21-17 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 Paqe 2 of 4 5. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 6. 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. SECTION 4. DECISION NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH NO. 2014081044) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as depicted in Exhibit "A", and the Response to Comments and Errata as depicted in Exhibit "B", which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014. AYES: BROWN, HILLGREN, KOETTING, KRAMER, LAWLER, MYERS, AND TUCKER NOES: BY:� / Larry Tucker, Chairman BY:— J M ers, 1ec tary 21-18 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 Paae 3 of 4 Exhibit "A" Mitigated Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) Including the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program This document is available at: http://www.newportbeachca.aov/ceaadocuments 21-19 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1958 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit "B" Response to Comments and Errata 21-20 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) i PM� Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA 7N 923-003 A N N I -NSB 17542 East 17th Sueet, Suite 100 TuSEIn, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 f714.305.6361 MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach From: Tracy Zinn, Principal Re: BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Date: September 23, 2014 As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to the City of Newport Beach for the Balboa Marina West project, you asked t11at I supply responses to the comment letters received by the City of Newport Beach related to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Responses to the substantive points of each letter are provided below. NOTE: There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which throws off the numbering sequence (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, the second page 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason, page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given below for all page number references. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRPA) August 18, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter discusses concerns related to the potential discovery of significant archaeological resources and potential disturbance to humans remains. With respect to Mitigation Measure CR -1, the CCRPA suggests that ground disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. In addition, the CCRPA suggests that a mitigation measure be added to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, pertaining to the discovery of human remains. The CCRPA also requests that if significant archaeological resources are discovered and archaeological data recovery excavations are implemented, the data recovery plan should include the preparation of a non-technical report and public exhibit. The comment references the goals and policies of the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 and Section I of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, concerning historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance. Response In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure MM CR -I has been revised to require that the construction contractor be trained to identify suspected archaeological resources; or, that a professional archaeological monitor be retained to monitor ground -disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, native soils. Either circumstance would provide the same assurance that suspected resources are identified for evaluation. The IS/MND acknowledges the remote potential for Native American human remains to be unearthed during construction activity (IS/MND electronic version pp. 5-63, 64 and printed version pp. 5-60, 61). Compliance with www. rbp lnnni n p,. c a In PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-21 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 ® Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) i A BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS l September 23, 2014 Page 2 of 14 P1.ANN IN California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains" is required by state law. The mandatory provisions of state law are not required to be repeated as mitigation measures. As specified by Mitigation Measure MM CR -1, a data recovery plan is required if a suspected archaeological resource is uncovered and a professional archaeologist determines that the resource is significant or potentially significant. The specifics of the data recovery plan will depend on the nature of the resource. Significant resources are required to be documented and placed in a public or private repository. Recovered resources are not required by state or federal law to be exhibited. The potential that any uncovered resource would rise to a level of national significance and be eligible for recognition under the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is highly unlikely and not reasonably foreseeable. The City has revised IS/MND Mitigation Measure MM CR -1. The revised mitigation measure is an amplification of the measure, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California August 28, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has no existing facilities or rights of way within the limits of the project site. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted City of Irvine Community Development August 28, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the City of Irvine staff have received and reviewed the information provided and have no comments. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh September 9. 2014 Summary of Comments This letter requests a copy of the Project's gradingplan citedin the IS/MND as "Stantec, 2014." Additionally, the letter requests reference material for a statement in the IS/NMD that the Project is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water. www.tbplanning.coni PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-22 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) A BALBOA MARINA WEST IS(MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 r Page 3 of 14 P LAN N I N G Resroonse The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division, provided the grading plan and requested reference material (filed in the Project's administrative record with the City of Newport Beach) to the commenter by e-mail on September 11, 2014. IS/MND, Section 7, "References," has been revised to includes citation for the water demand reference material. The City has added a reference citation to the IS(MND. The reference material was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 September 12. 2014 Summary of Comments This letter identifies Caltrans as a conmmenting and responsible agency on the Project. Caltrans indicates that any work performed within the Caltrans right-of-way (East Coast Highway) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans, and an encroachment permit and traffic control plan will be required. Response The Project proposes a small amount of physical disturbance in the Caltrans right-of-way at the Balboa Marina entrance driveway as shown on IS/MND Figure 3-11. In response to this comment, IS/MND Table 3-1 has been revised to list Caltrans as a responsible public agency, for issuance of an encroachment permit and approval of a traffic control plan. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify Caltrans. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. State Clearinghouse September 16, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environment documents pursuant to CEQA. This comment is noted. Resroonse This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) September 16, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter expresses disagreement with the City's determination that a MND adequately addresses the impacts of the Project due to proposed heights, visual impacts, parking impacts, ingress and egress from Pacific Coast Highway, and increased intensity of bay use. The letter requests that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). www. tbplan ning. com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-23 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 Page 4 of 14 P I.. A N N I N G Response The comment letter does not provide any detail or evidence to support the commentor's claim that the MND does not adequately address the Project's environmental effects. The IS/MND evaluates the Project and determines that all impacts would be less than significant or reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures applied. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the issue of proposed heights and visual impacts under the topic of "Aesthetics" (IS/MND Section 5.4.1; pp. 5-14 to 5-36). As concluded by IS/MND Section 5.4.1, although the Project would introduce a new marine commercial building up to 40 feet in height that could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in amanner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. Changes due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that occur in Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot and associated landscaping would not be prominently visible from off-site locations and would not represent a substantial change as compared to the existing condition. Six (6) visual simulations are included in the IS/MND as Figures 5-6 to 5-1 J to support this conclusion. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, Project -related impacts associated with building height and visual quality would be reduced to below a level of significance. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of parking and ingress and egress from East Coast Highway under the topic of"Transportation/Traffic" (IS/MND Section 5.4.16; electronic version pp. 5-112 to 5-124 and printed version pp. 5-108 to 5-120). The Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. These trips would increase traffic by less than 1 % at intersections that experience congestion (defined as operating at a Level of Service D (LOS D) or worse during the morning/evening peak hours). The Project site's ingress and egress point is a driveway connecting to East Coast Highway and is not congested or projected to become congested. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Regarding parking, the Project is required to supply an adequate number of parking spaces on the property consistent with the City's Municipal Code parking requirements. Also, the overall layout of the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. Parking and ingress and egress impacts will be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of increased bay use intensity under the topic of"Land Use and Planning" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5 -9 5 and printed version 5 -8 6 to 5-91). The City of Newport Beach land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed Project include the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Based on the information presented in the IS/MND and in its Technical Appendix Ml, "General Plan Consistency Analysis" and Technical Appendix M2, "Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis," the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A 0.00-0.30 FAR) by the Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project is consistent with those designations. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure LU -1 ensures that City review of future applications for a Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit will require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The IS/MND also evaluates the topic of bay use under the topics of "Aesthetics" (IS/MND Section 5.4-1; pp. 5-14 to 5-36), "Biological Resources (IS/MND Section 5.4.4; electronic version pp. 5-49 to 5-60 and printed versionpp. 5-45 www. tbplanning. coin PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-24 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 Page 5 of 14 P I. A N N I N G to 5-56) "Hydrology and Water Quality" (ISIMND Section 5.4-9;.electronic version pp. 5-82 to 5-90 and printed version pp. 5-78 to 5-86), and "Land Use and Plannhig" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5-95 and printed version 5-86 to 5-91). Aesthetic changes in the bay due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that already occur in Newport Harbor and the new slips would not obstruct a scenic view or substantially degrade the existing visual quality or character of the area. Six (6) visual simulations are included in the IS/MND to support that conclusion. In regards to biological resource impacts, all impacts in the bay would be temporary and occur during the Project's construction period. This conclusion is supported by Technical Appendix B, "Marine Biological Assessment, Technical Appendix C, "Jurisdictional Delineation Report," Technical Appendix D, "Coastal Engineering Study, Technical Appendix E, "Impact Assessment for Proposed Project Alteratives," and Technical Appendix F, "Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report." Based on the conclusions of these extensive technical analyses, the Project's biological impacts would be limited to temporary impacts during its construction period and impacts to a small area of eelgrass. Mitigation Measures MM BR -1 to MM BR -6 are required to ensure that all biological resource impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. Similarly, temporary water quality impacts identified in the IS/MND associated with turbidity during water -side construction would be reduced to below a level of significance by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-2. Potential operational -related water quality impacts are identified and addressed in Technical Appendix I, "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan," and potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by the preparation and implementation of a Marina Management Plan required by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-1. In conclusion, based on the IS/MND and all of the information contained in the IS/MND Technical Appendices and Project's administrative record, the City finds no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, an EIR is not -required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh September 17, 2014 Summary of Comment 1 The letter claims that the IS/MND violates CEQA by failing to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project together with the approved Back Bay Landing and pending harbor water bus/taxi projects. Response The IS/MND contains an analysis of cumulative effects and considers the Back Bay Landing project. The IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128) listed the cumulative projects that were considered in the analyses, but inadvertently only listed the approved projects and not the projects that are under consideration and not yet approved. Table 7 of the Project's traffic study (IS/MND Technical Appendix K, p. 44) listed those projects as follows: Pro' ect Name Koll- Bacic Ba Banning Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Newport Coast - TAZ 1 www. tbplannrng.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-25 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 �!j ® Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) ,� ■ P"\ BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 Page 6 of 14 P L A N N i N Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Although the list of these projects was inadvertently omitted from the IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131,132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128), they were considered and evaluated in the IS/MND analyses and in the analyses provided in Technical Appendices A (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas), J (Noise), and K (Traffic). The IS/MND (electronic version p. 5-132 and printed version p. 128) has been revised accordingly to list the above projects. The "Water Bus/Taxi" project noted in this comment is speculative. Although the City has discussed the possibility of a water bus/taxi, an application has not been filed, its feasibility is uncertain, and a feasibility study is not yet complete. As such, it is not a "project" as defined by CEQA and is certainly not a reasonably foreseeable project that warrants consideration in a cumulative effects analysis. In addition, because of its speculative nature, there are no details to study at this time. The Back Bay Landing project and the proposed Balboa Marina West project are two distinct projects and are not the same project. The Back Bay Landing project proponent is Bayside Village Marina, LLC, whereas the Balboa Marina West project proponents are Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach. The Back Bay Landing Draft EIR was completed and circulated for public review in October 2013, whereas the Balboa Marina West project application was not on file with the City of Newport Beach until December 2013. Regarding the cumulative evaluation of aesthetics, the Back Bay Landing project is located on the north side of East Coast Highway whereas the Balboa Marina West project is proposed on the south side of East Coast Highway. The highway provides a clear visual separation. In addition, the Back Bay Landing EIR (SCH No. 2012101003) concluded that the Back Bay Landing project's aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. The one building proposed on the Balboa Marina West property wouldbave a less than significant potential to result in a significant, cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact, especially considering that the two projects are physically separated by a highway. The City has added the full list of evaluated cumulative projects to the IS/MND. The full list of projects was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. SummaU of Comment 2 The comment letter suggests that the IS/MND should be revised to include additional information to analyze and mitigate the Project's temporary and permanent noise and vibration effects on residences on Linda Isle. Linda Isle is a private, gate -guarded community. As stated in the MND and noise study (Technical Appendix J), data gathered during the 2008/9 noise and vibration monitoring conducted by Anchor QEA at Linda Isle during the construction of the original Balboa Marina dock replacement project was used to analyze and access potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project. The 2008/9 Balboa Marina dock replacement project involved demolition, seawall repair, pile installation, dredging, and new marina construction and the same contractor, equipment, and construction techniques will be employed by the currently proposed Project. Therefore, additional measurements taken from Linda Isle were unnecessary. Based on the professional opinion of David Wieland, Principal Consultant of Wieland Acoustics having more than 30 years of experience in acoustical and vibration analyses, the acoustical study prepared by Wieland for the operation of the proposed marine commercial building, including a potential restaurant tenant, presents an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for protecting the residents of Linda Isle from significant noise level increases associated with the www.tbplanning.cum PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-26 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS I September 23, 2014 p Page 7 of 14 P L A N N I N G building's operation. As stated in the MND and the noise study (Technical Appendix J), a potentially significant impact is only anticipated if the proposed building has noise -generating activities on an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process, it is not known whether the future building will have such noise -generating uses. In addition, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known, including the location and design of any outdoor dining areas. The need for such measures will be addressed in a subsequent acoustical study that will be prepared once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the building tenants are known as required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 specifies the requirement for the subsequent acoustical study and provides a performance measure (compliance with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.909(E) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which address noise.) The issue of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed marine commercial building is not addressed directly in the Wieland Acoustics study (Technical Appendix J); however, pedestrian activity was included in the analysis. The SoundPLAN model that was used to analyze parking lot noise levels (refer to Section 9.2.3 of Technical Appendix J) included a+3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot. This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. In addition, the issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of the Technical Appendix J. As indicated in the Wieland Acoustics study, it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot (vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, patrons talking, etc.) will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards, as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, mitigation is not required or recommended. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the issue of vibration, Technical Appendix J indicates that there is always the potential risk for structural damage, even at relatively low vibration velocities. To address this, there was an extensive monitoring program conducted during the initial reconstruction of Balboa Marina in 2008/9. The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA (included as Enclosure 1 of Technical Appendix J) showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the Project's vicinity, including at Linda Isle. Because the waterside improvements associated with the proposed Balboa Marina West project will include fewer piles than with 2008/9 reconstruction, and because most of the piles will be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the 2008/9 reconstruction, it is the professional opinion of Wieland Acoustics, based on substantial evidence from the 2008/9 monitoring program, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements. The methodology that will be used to install the piles for the landside improvements will produce even less vibration than the methodology used to install the waterside improvements. Therefore, the MND appropriately concludes, with sufficient evidence from the extensive monitoring that occurred in 2008/9, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of Balboa Marina West. AttachmentA to this Response to Comments document is an exhibit that was included in the final noise/vibration report prepared by Anchor QEA. The report documented the results of extensive noise and vibration monitoring during the 200819 reconstruction of Balboa Marina. The exhibit shows 16 locations for meter installations. The range of the monitoring activity is depicted by a blue line along the property seawalls extending along the entire frontage of properties facing Balboa Marina. Monitors and meters were re -positioned as required since equipment and construction activity changed location as work progressed. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts. www.tbplanninb+.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-27 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) J BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 l N Page 8 of 14 P 1, A N N 1 N Summary of Comment 3 The comment letter requests revisions to the IS/MND to provide additional infonnation and analysis of the Project's water and wastewater demands. Response IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 states that based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the proposed marine commercial building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of water and 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity. In response to this comment, Stantec was asked to provide more detail, and supply water and wastewater treatment demand calculations for the entirety of the Project site, without taking any credit for water demand or wastewater generation by existing uses on the property. Stantec's full memorandum, dated September 23, 2014, is attached to this Response to Comments document. Stantec provided the following table, based on normal year water demand factors provided by Irvine Ranch Water District. The calculation of water demand for landscape areas is based the City's Landscape Ordinance and requirement for drought tolerant plant material pursuant to California Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17). Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where water demand reduction measures are required to be implemented. A normal - year water demand for the Project is calculated by Stantec to be 4,479 gpd. A dry -year 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a usage of 3,583 gpd. Table'I - Normal Year Annual Water Demands Use Area Water Demand Demand Restaurant & ratio MOW sf 200 sf 2 7 s, 36,941 sF factor (9f}d) P,estaurart & Patio 19;00o sf 175 gpd/ i,4GO st 3,325 --- Yacht Brokerage Office .___�.-_ 200 sf 175 gpol1,400 d 35 Mrarina Restrooms- 200 sf _ 175gpd/It007 sf 35 Subtotal Domestic Water Demands 19,400d 3,395 Landscape Area Intgation Demands 36.947 sf - 1,084 - Total Normal 'Year Water Demands 4,479 -tundmape CVcUmeatasedW Tt?Ciryig Newport 6e n Larmoape Crdnawe far Bffr l_ R.nniY34?hIl]iLUie TcAVJa1. Caiatc8crs 9f QnaGnea_ Stantec also provided the following table, which verifies that the figure of 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity demand cited in IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 is accurate. Tattle 2- Wastewater Generation: Use Area Water Demand Factor Demand (gpd) Restaurant & ratio MOW sf 200 sf 2 7 s, 36,941 sF 142 gpd/1.400 a 2,698 Yacht Brokerage Office 142 pd/1,406 it 28 Marina Restrooms 142 gpoll„400 sf 28 landscape Area - - iota[ WaslewaterGeneration 2,755 wwwApinnnin,U,.corn PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-28 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 f® ® Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) BALBOA MARINA WBST IS/MI1D: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 Page 9 of 14 G I., A N N I N G The conclusion given in the IS/MND that there is a sufficient water supply and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to service the proposed Project is accurate. As shown above, there is no change to the IS/MND's reported wastewater generation calculation of 2,755 gpd. IS/MND Section 5.4.17 (electronic version p. 5-127 and printed version p. 123), has been updated to indicate a total normal year water demand of 4,479 gpd, including water demand for landscaping taking no credit for water used by existing uses on the property (including landscaping). Even through the Project's total water demand will be greater than the building -only demand reported in the IS/MND distributed for public review, the total demand would still result in a less than significant impact to the environment. The City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assumes build -out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designates the Project site as Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation, and thus its water demand is planned forby the UWMP, and the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where water use reduction measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed Project, like all development in the City, would be required to implement the necessary measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd. This would be achievable through conservation efforts by the marine commercial building tenant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations imposed by the City. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City has revised IS/MND to identify the water demand for the entire Project site. The revision is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Comment 4 The comment letter requests additional information and analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts, particularly related to light, glare, and building height. Response The IS/MND contains an extensive evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, including the effects of light, glare, and scenic view obstruction associated with building height. The existing Balboa Marina parking lot is tiered under existing conditions. Some portions of the parking lot are proposed to be raised in grade, and other portions are proposed to be lowered in grade. The parking spaces in the southern portion of the Project site would be lowered, not raised. Also, a portion of the raised area would be located munediately north of the proposed building and the building would block vehicle headlights from view of Linda Isle. In addition, a number of the proposed parking spaces will occur under the proposed marine commercial building, which also will effectively block light from vehicles parked in those spaces from view of Linda Isle. The portion of the parking lot that is proposed to be raised and within view of Linda Isle is designed to be positioned behind a landscape zone densely planted with trees. Refer to IS/MND Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. As shown, a double row of trees is proposed in this landscape island. This landscaped island is a Project design feature, not a mitigation measure. Therefore, there is no potential for vehicle headlights in the reconfigured parking lot to result in a new source of substantial light or glare. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot and light from vehicle headlights would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the conceptual design of the proposed building, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known. Regardless, the IS/MND presents an extensive evaluation of www.tbplanning.coni PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-29 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) A 13ALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS aq September 23, 2014 —A Page 10 of 14 P I A N N I N the maximum permitted bulk and scale of the building, to a maximum height of 40 feet. Six (6) visual simulations were prepared, presented in the IS/MND, and analyzed for the building's potential to substantially block public views or result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The IS/MND concluded that the maximum buildingheight of 40 feet would not substantially block public views or degrade visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, because the specific architectural details of the building are not known at this time, Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and AE -2 are imposed to ensure that when the future building design is reviewed by the City, it meets all of the applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Because impacts would be less than significant, there is no need to impose a height restriction on the structure beyond the height restriction already imposed by the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant light, glare, or aesthetic impacts. Summary of Comment 5 The letter suggests that the MND should be revised to provide additional information and clarify the project's grading impacts. Response The earthwork quantities presented in the IS/MND are accurate. A preliminary calculation conducted by Stantec and attached to the Project's grading plan estimates 3,653 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 7,860 cy of fill. The difference of 2,843 cy (needed fill) would be accomplished by approximately 1,300 cy of upland soils removed as part of the waterside development (IS/MND Subsection 3.2,p. 3-6) and remainder by import. The import quantity using Stantec's calculations would be approximately 1,543 cy whereas the MND identifies 1,364 cy of import. The difference of 179 cy equates to approximately only nine dump trick trips, as one dump truck carries 20 cy. The Project proponent (Irvine Company) owns many properties within one -mile of the Project site, from which the earth material would be hauled. The haul distance of one mile is therefore established, and accurate for analysis. Based on the design characteristics of the Project disclosed in IS/MND Section 3.0, Project Description, the number of construction -related trips wouldbe far less than the operational -related trips fully analyzed for the Project. Reference citations to the Stantec grading plans have been corrected in the IS/MND. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts resulting from the hauling of earth material. Summary of Comment 6 The comment letter suggests that the MND must be revised and recirculated. Response CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 describes the conditions under which a MND that was circulated for public review is required to be re -circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states a lead agency is required to recirculate a MND when the document is substantially revised. A "substantial revision" is defined as a circumstance under which: a. Anew, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or, b. The lead agency detennines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measure or revisions must be required. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-30 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) �L BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 `r Page 11 of 14 PLANNING As summarized above and listed below in the "Errata Table of Corrections and Revisions," there were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the Balboa Marina West IS/MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect requiring mitigation. In addition, based on comments received on the Balboa Marina West IS/MND, only minor, non -substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the IS/MND were required (as described below in the Errata Table of Corrections and Additions). Additionally, the IS/MND circulated for public review was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND were supported by evidence provided within the MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND does not need to be recirculated based on Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) September 17, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter advises the City that OCSD will be studying realignment options for force mains and relocation options for sewer pump stations that may impact the Project site. The letter requests that the City of Newport Beach provide connection points and confirm that capacity is available in the local sewer collection system for the project. In addition, the letter notes that any construction dewatering operations must be permitted by OCSD before discharges begin. Response The OCSD's pending sewer force main and pump station study is acknowledged. The Project would not preclude OCSD from conducting its study or identifying the Project site as a potential location for relocated facilities. The City will work with OCSD as requested in a cooperative manner. The IS/MND discloses that the Project would generate approximately 2,755 gallons per day of wastewater (electronic version p. 5-125 and printed version p. 5-121). Connection points to OCSD collection lines would be installed on-site by the Project with adequate conveyance capacity. OCSD review and approval of the water quality of any discharges and related measures is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) September 19, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges that the CDFW does not object to the Project's eelgrass mitigation proposal and identifies current eelgrass transplantation requirements, which requires two authorizations instead of one. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the CDFW and cites the requirement for a Letter of Authorization. The additional authorization for a Scientific Collecting Permit to remove eelgrass has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify CDFW's requirement for a Scientific Collecting Permit. The addition is not a substantial modification to the ISIMND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. www, t6 p 1111 ni n g. corn PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-31 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS L September 23, 2014 Page 12 of 14 PLANNING Orange County Parks September 22, 2014 and September 17, 2014 Summary of Comments This correspondence requests that Table 3-1 be revised to reflect the approval/permit action of securing a lease from the County to cover the area within County Tidelands and, in the case of private boat slips, pay fair market rent. Response IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the County of Orange and cites the requirements for an encroachment permit and State Lands Commission coordination. The additional requirement for a lease for the portion of the Project in County Tidelands has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify the County of Orange's requirement for a lease. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Errata Table of IS/MND Corrections and Revisions NOTE: There is a pagination error in theprinted version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which throws off the numbering sequence (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, the second page 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason, page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given in the table below for all page number references. Global References to "Project Applicant" has been changed to "Irvine Company" throughout the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 2.5 The IS/MND indicates that the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations Figure 2-5 for the property located north of the Project site, north of the East Coast Highway Figure 2-6 bridge, are Marine Commercial (CM). The City of Newport Beach acted on a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (Back Bay Landing project) on February 11, 2014, to change the designations for that property to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -Hl and MUH, respectively). The land use change will not become effective until such time as the California Coastal Commission approves the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Table 3-1 Additional responsible public agencies and approvals have been added to Table 3-1: California Department of Transportation— Encroachment Permit and Traffic Control Plan County of Orange — Lease in County Tidelands California Department of Fish and Wildlife- Scientific Collecting Permit to remove eelgrass.Letter ofAuthorization` '' a -a' "arispil,,«mto_placeeelgrass back into the environment. www.rb plan n n g.co in PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-32 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 ® Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) -A ' r^'� BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS L; l September 23, 2014 Page 13 of 14 P I. A N N I N O MM AE -1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE -l: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE -2 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE -E: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non -reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. MM CR -1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM CR -1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall be provided evidence that the construction contractor is trained to identify suspected archaeological resources: or, a professional archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor ground -disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the -ading plants): MM LU -1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM LU -1: The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to ensure compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. Section The following revision has been made: 5.4.17(d) The marine commercial building proposed for the land -side portion of the Project site is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water, assuming a 19.000 s.f. restaurant, 200 s.f yacht brokerage office, and 200 s.f. marina restrooms(Stantec 2014a). Landscape irrigation demands are calculated to be 1,084 gpd, for a total Proiect water demand of 4,479 gpd in a normal year. In a dry year, water use reductions would be required pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% water use reduction in a dry year would total 3,583 gpd. (Stantec 2014b Electronic Page 5-132 has been revised to be consistent with the complete list of cumulative projects Version that were evaluated for cumulative impacts in the IS/MND. These projects were Page 5-132 considered in the ISIMND and were presented in Table 7 of Technical Appendix K (the traffic study). Although these projects were inadvertently excluded from the list appearing Printed Version on IS/MND electronic version p. 132 and printed version p. 128, they were fully Page 5-128 considered as part of the Project's cumulative effects evaluation: www. rbp l a n nin g. coin PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-33 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Exhibit "B" to Resolution No. 1958 Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) .4 13ALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS September 23, 2014 �Page 14of14 P L A N N I N G Attachments 1. Stantec Memo: Balboa Marina West— Draft Initial Study/MND—Response to Comments —Project Water and Wastewater Demands 2. Wieland Associates Letter: Response to Comment Regarding Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach 3. Anchor QEA: Monitoring Locations www.tbplanning,.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-34 Project Name I1,011 - Back Ba Banning Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Newport Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Section 7.0 Reference citations have been added. Stantec 2014a — Stantec. 2014a, Balboa Marina West — Water & Wastewater Generation Estimate. May 13.2014. Stantec 2014b — Stantec. 2014b, Balboa Marina West — Draft Initial Study/MND — Response to Comments —Proiect Water and Wastewater Demands. September 23, 2014. Attachments 1. Stantec Memo: Balboa Marina West— Draft Initial Study/MND—Response to Comments —Project Water and Wastewater Demands 2. Wieland Associates Letter: Response to Comment Regarding Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach 3. Anchor QEA: Monitoring Locations www.tbplanning,.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-34 Attachment CC 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 2, 2014 Meeting Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Balboa Marina West MND (PA2012-103) • Negative Declaration ND2013-002 APPLICANT: City of Newport Beach/Irvine Company PLANNER: Patrick Alford, Planning Manager (949) 644-3235, palford@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Balboa Marina West project at 151 and 201 East Coast Highway. Balboa Marina West is a proposed plan to construct a new public boat dock in the Newport Harbor, improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina, and construct a 19,400 square feet marine commercial building for a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the attached resolution approving Negative Declaration ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment No. PC 1). 1 21-35 2 21-36 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 2 VICINITY MAP 3�. GENERAL PLAN ZONING LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Recreational and Marine Commercial Recreational Marina, yacht brokerage, parking Commercial CM and Marine CM NORTH Recreational and Marine Planned Community RV/boat storage, floating fish Commercial CM market, pump station, arkin SOUTH Single -Unit Residential Single -Unit Residential Single -unit residences with Detached (RS -D) private docks EAST Recreational and Marine Commercial Recreational and offices Commercial CM and Marine(CM)Restaurants Multiple -Unit Residential Multi -Unit Residential WEST (RM) and Mixed -Use (RM) and Mixed -Use Apartments, office, marina Water Related (MU -W2) Water Related (MU -W2) S 21-37 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 3 The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is for the Balboa Marina West project, a joint project between the City and the Irvine Company. The Planning Commission is requested to review and adopt the MND before reviewing the application for the land -side component of the project. The reason for this is that while the water- side (public dock and marina expansion) portion of the project is ready, plans for the land -side (the marine commercial building) have not been finalized by the Irvine Company. This will allow the processing of the water -side portion of the project by Harbor Resources while plans for the land -side portion are completed. Balboa Marina West The Balboa Marina West project would construct a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and 12 public boat slips including eight new slips and four slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips and a new gangway are proposed. In the land -side area of the marina, the project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 square feet building located at 201 East Coast Highway. In their place, a reconfigured parking lot and 19,400 square feet marine commercial building is proposed to house a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. Should the Planning Commission approve the MND, the Irvine Company will file an application for the land -side component. It is anticipated that this application will include a site development review for the marine commercial building and reconfigured parking lot and a conditional use permit for the restaurant. Should the Planning Commission approve the land -side portion of the project, the City will issue an approval in concept (AIC), and a joint City/Irvine Company application will be filed with the California Coastal Commission requesting issuance of a coastal development permit (CDP). The CDP application will include both the water -side and land -side project components. Project Setting The project site is located south of East Coast Highway between the Coast Highway Bridge and Bayside Drive. The project site comprises 4.4 acres, of which 0.87 acres is comprised of water surface and 3.5 acres is comprised of land. The land -side development area is occupied by a 1,200 -square -foot building, which houses a yacht brokerage business and marina restrooms. The water -side development area currently supports a private dock area with 107 boat slips, including four public transient boat slips. Primary vehicular access is via East Coast Highway and secondary access is provided via Bayside Drive. 4 21-38 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 4 Background The Harbor Commission reviewed the project at a study session on August 13, 2014. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at a study session on September 4, 2014. DISCUSSION An Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is a written statement by the City of Newport Beach acting as the Lead Agency briefly describing the reasons why a proposed project, which is not exempt from the requirements of CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft MND (see Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit A)' was prepared in accordance with the criteria, standards, and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. NOTE. There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which affects the numbering sequence (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. Notwithstanding this pagination error, the information in the electronic draft is identical to the printed version. Analysis The Environmental Checklist/Initial Study and its associated analyses covered eighteen environmental factors that could be potentially affected by the proposed project. The environmental analysis concluded that ten environmental factors where the proposed project had "no impact' or a "less than significant impact': Agriculture Air Quality Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mineral Resources Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems As the proposed project would have no impact or a less than significant impact, no mitigation for these environmental factors is required. ' The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed the Planning Commission on August 15, 2014. It can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. S 21-39 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 5 The environmental analysis also concluded that there were eight environmental factors where the proposed project would have a "less than significant impact with mitigation": Aesthetics Cultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Land Use and Planning Mandatory Findings of Significance The proposed project would introduce a new, 19,400 -square -foot marine commercial building with tuck -under parking. As no development is proposed at this time, the visual impact analysis was conducted on a conceptual design of the proposed marine commercial building. Therefore, there are not specifics regarding its architectural characteristics. The conceptual design of the marine commercial building was analyzed with a height of 40 feet, the maximum height permitted for a structure with a sloped roof in the Non -Residential Shoreline Height Limit Area. The analysis concluded that the new marine commercial building could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations and has the potential to adversely affect the existing visual quality or character of the area. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in a manner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. MM AE -1 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. The analysis also concluded that without specifics regarding the building's exterior architectural materials, the marine commercial building has the potential to include reflective materials that could cause glare. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM AE -2 is recommended to require project design features (PDFs) to reduce potential impacts to a level below significant. MM AE -2 Prior to approval of a Site Development Review, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non -reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and MM AE -2 would reduce the Project's potential impacts to aesthetics to below a level of significance. 0 21-40 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 6 Biological Resources The proposed project construction activities would result in short-term temporary impacts to the avian, marine mammal, and fish species and habitats, including California brown pelican and California least tern, marine mammals, California halibut, Fishery Management Species (FMS) Essential Fish Habitat (EFP), and Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). In the case of these species, impacts would result from temporary construction activities in the water, such as dredging and pile driving. Species are expected to temporarily leave the project area due to short-term (estimated to be 4 weeks) construction -related disturbance and/or irritation. These species are expected to return to the area upon completion of the construction activities. In addition, dredging activity would result in a long-term impact to eelgrass, a HAPC. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BR-1through MM BR -6 would reduce the proposed project's impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance: MM BR -1 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Newport Beach that all required permits and clearances regarding biological resources have been obtained from the regulatory and resource agencies. MM BR -2 The Project Applicant shall conduct a pre -construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days prior to dredging and a post -construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey within 30 to 90 days after project construction is complete. Said surveys shall be consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol. If this species is found, protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa taxifolia shall be implemented to remove this species from the Project site. MM BR -3 Prior to the issuance of construction permits, an eelgrass mitigation plan shall be prepared requiring a minimum 1.2:1 mitigation ratio for eelgrass impacts pursuant to the provisions of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). At least 618 SF (57.4 square meters) of eelgrass shall be successfully transplanted at the end of a five- year post -transplant monitoring period. The location of the transplant area shall be the Balboa Eelgrass Mitigation Area which was established during the reconstruction of the Balboa Marina in 2008-2009 or as determined by the resource agencies. MM BR -4 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that dredging and excavation operations are surrounded with a silt curtain to reduce the level of turbidity. The curtain shall be maintained in good condition throughout the dredging and excavation process. 7 21-41 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 7 MM BR -5 Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Project Applicant shall ensure that a qualified biological monitor is retained to monitor turbidity and effects on marine mammals during pile driving operations. Said monitor shall comply with standards of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board for water quality protection and applicable requirements for protection of marine mammals. MM BR -6 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: Construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with applicable requirements of the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act overseen by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Contracts shall include a provision that in the unlikely event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the contractor shall immediately contact the NMFS Southwest Regional Office's Standing Coordinator, submit a report to the NMFS Regional Office and comply with all associated and feasible directives. COA: Pile driving shall be conditioned to require employment of a "softstart" approach to lessen the potential for short-term construction impacts to marine mammals. This approach requires slowly ramping up pile driving activities at the start of the day and at restarting after breaks or any interruption longer than 15 minutes. An Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act shall be required if the "soft -start" approach is not employed. Cultural Resources Both the land and water -bottom surfaces of the proposed project site are developed and disturbed. Therefore, it is unlikely that archaeological resources could be encountered during grading of native soils in the land -side portion of the proposed project site. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measure MM CR -1 would ensure that impacts to archaeological resources, if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below significance. MM CRA Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s). "If suspected archaeological resources are encountered during ground - disturbing construction activities, the construction contractor shall temporarily halt work in a 100 -foot radius around the find until a qualified archaeologist can be called to the site to assess the significance of the 2 21-42 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 8 find, and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of Newport Beach." The grading contractor shall be responsible for complying with the note. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) criteria for cultural significance, construction shall be permitted to proceed. However, if the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, the City of Newport Beach shall be notified and a data recovery plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City, which may include the implementation of a Phase II and/or III archaeological investigation per City guidelines. All significant cultural resources recovered shall be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information System, South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC). The archaeologist shall incorporate analysis and interpretation of any significant find(s) into a final Phase IV report that identifies the level of significance pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2(G). The City and Project Applicant, in consultation with the archaeologist, shall designate repositories in the event that resources are recovered. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Although underground storage tanks (USTs) were not identified on the land -side portion of the property, the potential exists that such tanks may be uncovered during grading activities. In addition, the existing building on the property that would be demolished may contain friable asbestos materials and materials coated with lead-based paint, both of which have the potential to expose construction workers and/or nearby sensitive receptors to health risks during demolition activities. Asbestos -containing materials and materials containing lead-based paints have the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. In addition, there is an empty vault on the southwest corner of the land -side portion of the property, previously used to house an electrical transformer that may contain Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a level below significant: MM HM -1 During Project grading and construction activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that possible locations where the USTs may have been located, either near the existing building or along the western side of the existing parking lot, as identified by Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC), are potholed using heavy equipment to confirm the presence or absence of UST's on the land -side portion of the Project site. If USTs are discovered, they shall be disposed of properly per applicable State of California and federal guidelines. The Orange County 9 21-43 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 9 Environmental Health Department provides oversight and conducts inspections of all underground tanks removals. MM HM -2 The following Condition of Approval shall be placed on the Project's demolition permits. COA: All demolition permits shall comply with: a) SCAQMD Rule 1403 with respect to asbestos containing materials. b) Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8, which addresses the removal of components painted with lead- based paint (LBP). c) Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) regarding the removal and disposal of PCBs. Hydrology/Water Quality The proposed project has the potential to temporarily impact the water quality of Newport Bay through sedimentation and turbidity during water -side construction and dredging activity. The following mitigation measures would reduce construction -related effects to below a level of significance. MM HWQ-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other permits a Marina Management Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant and approved by the City of Newport Beach. The Marina Management Plan shall identify construction and operational best management practices (BMPs) to reduce potential water quality impacts to Newport Bay. The Management Plan shall include BMPs, safety guidelines, and steps to take in response to accidental spills, leakages, and fires to reduce the potential for water quality degradation. MM HWQ-2 Prior to issuance of construction permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare, and the City of Newport Beach shall review and approve, a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater General Permit and be provided evidence that the RWQCB has issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. MM HWQ 3 The following Conditions of Approval shall be placed on the Project's a applicable implementing permits and approvals. COA: All construction contracts shall disclose and require strict compliance with the requirements and recommendations of the Marina Management Plan related to construction -related activities. 10 21-44 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 10 The Management Plan shall be implemented as a requirement of the longterm operation of Balboa Marina. The marina operator shall be required to supply a copy of the Management Plan to boat slip renters at the Balboa Marina. COA: The dredging permit shall state that scow doors used to release dredged material at the approved dredge materials disposal location shall be required to remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. Land Use and Planning The proposed Project is not anticipated to conflict with applicable policies or regulations of the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or Zoning Code. However, Mitigation Measure LU -1 ensures that City review of applications for a site development review and a conditional use permit, which require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. MM LU -1 The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit for compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection and ensure compliance. Noise Compliance with the City's Municipal Code noise ordinance standards would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's Municipal Code or General Plan Noise Element, or the California Building Code. However, mitigation is recommended to ensure that operation of an outdoor patio at the future marine commercial building complies with the qualitative provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that require noise from such establishments to be inaudible at the property lines (Section 20.48.090E), or that prohibit "loud or raucous" noise (Section 10.28.020). Because noise from operation of the restaurant's outdoor patio could potentially conflict with City noise ordinance standards, the impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is required. MM N-1 As a condition of CUP issuance for a restaurant use in the marine commercial building and prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any restaurant, bar, lounge, or nightclub to be located in the marine commercial building, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustician and reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach to verify that the building operations, including operations in the outdoor 11 21-45 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 11 patio, comply with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.090(E) of the City's Municipal Code. The proposed project would generate temporary or periodic noise increases associated with construction activities. Over the estimated 15 -month construction period, estimated average noise levels experienced by surrounding properties would range from 85 dBA during pile installation to 56 dBA during architectural coating activities (painting). However, compliance with the timing provisions of Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity—Noise Regulations) during construction activities, the proposed project impacts to would be reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure MM N-2 requires compliance with Section 10.28.040 and other noise control measures to reduce temporary construction noise impacts to a level less than significant. MM N-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or building permit for new construction, the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall confirm that the grading plan, building plans, and specifications stipulate that: a) All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State - required noise attenuation devices. b) During the construction phase, the Project Applicant shall ensure that construction hours, allowable work days, and the telephone number of the job superintendent are clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow residents to contact the job superintendent. If the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the appropriate party. c) When feasible, construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses (e.g., residences, convalescent homes, etc.). d) During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. e) Construction activities that produce noise shall not take place outside of the allowable hours specified by the City's Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays). 12 21-46 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 12 Mandatory Findings of Significance As discussed in the Biological Resources section, waterside construction and dredging activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, temporarily reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species, and eliminate eelgrass. However, mitigation measures would ensure that these impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting CEQA requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant project impacts. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City is the lead agency for the proposed project and is therefore responsible for implementing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The MMRP provides a timeframe for performance of the Project Design Features (PDFs), Standard Conditions (SCs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs) or review of evidence that mitigation has taken place, is provided. The MMRP also identifies the responsible party for implementing the mitigation measures. Finally, the MMRP provides the criteria for mitigation; either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation (see Page 6-1 of the Draft MND). Public Review and Comments The 30 -day public review period for the MND began on August 18, 2014, and ended on September 17, 2014. Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was distributed to the 1) organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City; 2) direct mailing to the owners of property within a 300 -foot radius of the project site; 3) responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed project); 4) the County of Orange Clerk; and 5) the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, for review by State agencies. A copy of the MND was made available on the City's website, at each branch of the Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The City received ten letters and/or emails with comments on the Draft MND (see Attachment PC 2). The City's environmental consultant has prepared detailed responses to these comments (see Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit B). 13 21-47 Balboa Marina West MND October 2, 2014 Page 13 Errata An errata has been prepared to clarify, refine, and provide supplemental information for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit B). Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: PC 1 Draft Resolution a. Exhibit A — MND and MMRP(under separate cover)' b. Exhibit B — Response to Comment Letters/Errata PC 2 Comments on the Draft MND , Deputy Director 2 The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed the Planning Commission on August 15, 2014. It can be viewed and downloaded at htto://www.newi)ortbeachca.gov/cegadocuments. 14 21-48 Offnnhmanf rr R Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA20 Jackson I DeMarco I Tidus Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION Summary of Defects Requiring Recirculation of the Balboa Marina West MND Submitted on Behalf of Linda Isle Homeowners Association October 2, 2014 MICHAEL L. TIDUS, ESQ. MICHELE A. STAPLES, ESQ. PAIGE H. GOSNEY, ESQ. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh 2030 Main Street 121h Floor Irvine, California 92614 (949)752-8585 103) Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) SUMMARY OF DEFECTS REQUIRING RECIRCULATION OF THE BALBOA MARINA WEST MND Submitted on Behalf of Linda Isle Homeowners Association October 2, 2014 The Balboa Marina West MND fails to account for, adequately analyze and/or mitigate the following environmental impacts associated with the Project: • The cumulative environmental impacts of the Back Bay Landing project and Balboa Marina West project, including as to aesthetics, traffic and noise. For example, the Aesthetics analysis is clearly inadequate as the visual simulations included as Appendix L to the MND do not reflect any development from the Back Bay Landing project. The City cannot piecemeal its CEQA analysis on the grounds that potential impacts will be evaluated in the future when applications for the ultimate development projects for Back Bay Landing and the Balboa Marina West commercial building are submitted. Projectfeatures that cannot yet be evaluated cannot be approved as part of the MND. • Additional analysis and mitigation is needed to address the impacts caused by vehicle headlights from raising the northern portion of the parking lot up to 10 feet, and intensifying the use of the southern portion of the parking lot adjacent to the marina docks. The dense foliage referenced in the City's response to Linda Isle's comments is not required by the project's landscaping plans or mitigation measures, and there is no project standard or mitigation measure requiring shielding of headlights and parking lot lights. Maintenance of dense foliage in the northern parking lot is also inconsistent with the City's reliance on cut-backs of landscape irrigation to comply with drought -level water restrictions. Although there is currently no screening in place for the southern portion of the parking area under existing conditions, use of this area will be significantly intensified with the new commercial building and public dock. • The MND's analysis and mitigation of noise and construction vibration impacts is inadequate and must be substantially revised as it fails to analyze project -specific and cumulative noise and construction vibration impacts and impose necessary mitigation measures. The City took no actual noise measurements from Linda Isle and is improperly relying upon an outdated noise/vibration analysis that fails to account for current conditions and ambient noise levels. • Additional analysis and mitigation is needed to address the increased noise impacts from the proposed restaurant and from the increase in pedestrians walking to and from parking areas to the new commercial building and public docks. CEQA does not allow the City to delay its analysis of these impacts until applications for development of the commercial building are submitted. • The NIND's analysis of the restaurant and landscaping water use requirements is inadequate and must be substantially revised. The MND water use estimates are based upon general zoning assumptions rather than restaurant uses. Also, the landscaping water use estimates are based 21-50 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) on low water use plants (Response to Comments, p. 40); however, this is inconsistent with the City's assertion that a "landscape zone densely planted with trees" will block headlight impacts to residents of Linda Isle from the raised northern portion of the reconfigured parking lot. • The MND fails to analyze trips required for hauling demolition materials from the site in MND traffic calculations, and to include mitigation measure(s) requiring all excavated dirt to be used on-site. Based upon the above, Linda Isle Homeowners Association requests that the City take the following actions in connection with the Balboa Marina West MND: 1. Revise and recirculate the MND to disclose, analyze and mitigate all cumulative impacts of the Balboa Marina West project together with the Back Bay Landing project. 2. Prepare a supplemental noise analysis that evaluates noise impacts to Linda Isle residences based on actual, current measurable data, including impacts associated with increased parking lot vehicle and pedestrian traffic. 3. Revise the MND to incorporate additional measures to mitigate noise impacts from the proposed restaurant, including installation of sound attenuating windows at the south side of the restaurant and prohibiting any patio or other outdoor use except at the restaurant's north side to shield noise from Linda Isle residences. 4. Revise the MND to incorporate analysis of construction vibration impacts and potential structural damage to Linda Isle residences associated with boring and pile activities based on current, measurable data, and corresponding mitigation measures to reduce or minimize these impacts. S. Revise the MND to provide analysis of the actual water and wastewater demands associated with the restaurant and yacht brokerage business proposed for the commercial building and to clarify the Project's landscaping water demands. 6. Revise the MND to reduce the allowable maximum building height from 40 feet to 35 feet so that it is consistent with the standards approved for the adjacent Back Bay Landing project. 7. Revise the MND to incorporate additional mitigation measures that address the impacts caused by vehicle headlights from both the raised northern portion of the parking lot and southern portion of the parking lot adjacent to the marina docks. B. Revise the MND to incorporate additional analysis of traffic trips required for hauling demolition materials from the site in the Project's traffic calculations, and to include mitigation requiring all excavated dirt to be used on-site. 21-51 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial Map of Nearby Projects 2. Excerpts from Balboa Marina Dock Replacement Project MND and report analyzing pile driving impacts 3. City Resolution No. 2011-80 regarding 333 CUP Application 4. Excerpts from Back Bay Landing Project EIR S. Project grading map for Balboa Marina West MND 21-52 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) TAB 1 21-53 C_ _ _ _ • - �T lop CD Vx ter" cl O a - y k Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) TAB 2 21-55 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) o���, m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH �^ 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 ,ft' Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 GVseFN�e (949)644-3200 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To: ElOffice of Planning and Research P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 9$412-3044 ❑County perk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238' Santa Ana, CA 92702 From: City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department 829 Harbor Island Drive _ Newport Beach, CA 92660 (Osage County) Date received for fling at OPR/County Clerk Publicreviewperiod: January 5, 2007 to February 7, 2007 Name ojProject. Balboa Marina Dock Replacement (Permit Application p 2171-2004) Project Location: 203 E. Const Highway ProjectDocription: The Balboa Marina reconstruction project proposes to replace an existing. 132 slip, 27,550 -SF dock with a 20,483 -SF dock to accommodate 102 slips rang ng in size from 22 to 58 feet in length. The existing dock was constructed in 1964 and is reaching the end of its useful life. The proposed floating dock would be constructed of concrete and consist of 5- to 6 -foot -wide slip fingers and an 8 -foot -wide walkway. Dredging will be required within the project boundary, which includes the adjacent channel, to a depth of 8-10 feet The reconstruction will include the installation of new lighting, electrical power connections, water supply liars, communication hook-ups, a pump -outstation; and fire fighting facilitics.The marina redesign is based on current Califomia Department of Boating and Waterways design criteria and Amcriaes with Disabilities Act access requiremmm The design also incorporates accommodation for on-site mitigation of impacts to Eelgrass associated with the reconstruction. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K-3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Bach has evaluated the proposed project and do- termined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Acopy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is OO attached ❑ on file at the Plan- ning Department The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision-maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is at - trached. . Additional. plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact the undersigned If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your corrunerhls should be submitted in writing prior to the close of the public review period Your comments should specifically identify what arvi- ronmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they we significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document. Ifyou any questio or would Ii er information, please contact the undersigned at (949)644-3200. Tom Rossmiller, Manager Date 21-56 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) I • I 4.11 Noise Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). To further refine the measure- ment, the A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) discriminates against varying frequency sensitivities among human ears. In terms of human response to noise, a sound that is 10 dBA higher than another is judged to be twice as loud, 20 dBA higher is four times louder, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dB to 100 dB. Noise impacts are divided into two categories: short-term and long-term. While the long-term noise levels will.remain similar, or slightly reduced, with the proposed project, the short-term impacts of demolition and construction activities will result in temporary impacts. In order to fully assess the potential noise impacts from the demolition and reconstruction of the dock facility at Balboa Marina, an Environmental Noise Study dated January 2006 and a Report Addendum k " Regarding the Revised Site layout for Balboa Marina dated June 29, 2006 were prepared by Wieland Associates, Inc (Wieland) and are included herein as Appendix L and Appendix M, respeeiivply in a4di- Si4Sr a_a Rtfimarr t Noise 8s Vibration analysis was prepared by AROP utilizing their expeYiekce and ret sei rch iti1lie 8eldofacoustics'and vibration and available published data The facts and analysis contained in this section are based on the referenced documents. Section 4.4, Biological Resources, will include additional information and analysis regarding potential impacts to fish and birds in the area. City of Newport Beach 60 Balboa Marina Dock Replacement o„�„e,,,,�u„a„ 21-57 potentially Slgnieoanl Potentially Unims Less Than signifimnt Mlagation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact RI. Noise— Would the project result in: a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ® ❑ ❑ grouudbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c. A substanliat permanent increase in ambient noise levels ❑ ❑ ❑ in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ED ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? o. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ 123 where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive notsc levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ ❑ the project expose people residing or working in the pro- ject area to excessive noise levels? City of Newport Beach 60 Balboa Marina Dock Replacement o„�„e,,,,�u„a„ 21-57 T Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item -No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting, Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) Would the project result in exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess ofstan- dards established in the local general plan or wise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate The City's Noise Ordinance is contained in Title 10, Chapter 1026, of the Newport Beach Munici- pal Code and contains the City's policies on noise. Project implementation will result in noise impacts due to demolition and construction. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment Demolition and pile driving will create the highest noise levels. The nearest homes are located directly across the channel on Linda Isle. It is possible that noise associated with project demolition and construction could exceed the city's exterior noise standards for very short periods. The City's Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 10.26) has designated noise zones by property use. As a Recreational Marine Commercial area, the project is designated Noise Zone IL The noise standards for Noise Zone II include an exterior noise level of 65 dBA between 7:00 am. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Construotion of the project could result in noise levels at residential areas itt.exeess of the City's Noise Oidinartct, However, Section 1016.035— Exemptions 0 26.035—Exemptions — allows construction activities to exceed establishe(Inoise thresholds if the demolition and construction activity occurs between 7:00 am. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction work is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. The City's Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities, nor does it provide any standards or guidelines with respect to ground vibration. The following miti- gation measure will ensure compliance with the City's standards and will reduce impacts to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measure N-1 During demolition and construction activities, to reduce construction -related noise im- pacts, the project applicant shall ensure that construction is limited to periods of reduced noise sensitivity and thus reduce sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance potential. Pursuant to the City's Noise Ordinance, the construction contractor shall ensure that general construction activities (which include construction vehicle staging and idling en- gines) be conducted only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are not al- lowed at any time on Sundays or local, state or federal holidays. b) Would the project result in exposure ofpersons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) The project will expose people to groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels. The City's standard construction regulations require that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mo- bile, be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers to minimize noise and vibration. Pile Driving Two forms of pile driving are being considered for the proposed project: impact and vibra- tory. The preferred method for the project is impact pile driving, which uses a diesel - powered, pneumatically actuated ram to pound the pile into the ground. In studies conducted over the years, the typical noise level produced during impact pile driving is 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet The maximum noise level produced during impact pile driving can range up to 111 dBA at a distance of 50 feet The Addendum to the Wieland study places the resi- dences on Linda Isle at a distance of 209 feet and the commercial buildings at a distance of 54 feet from impact source. Based on this distance, the average noise level is estimated to be 75 dBA on Linda Isle and 86 dBA at the commercial buildings. Results of daytime ambient City of Newport Beach Balboa Marina Dock Replacement 61 21-58 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) I' noise measurements (Leq) for existing conditions range from 55.6 dBA to 60.0 dBA at the two Linda Isle measurement locations and 55.1 dBA to 57.4 dBA at the commercial loca- tions. Consequently, it is estimated that the increase at the Linda Isle residences will be 15 to I 20 dBA with an impact pile driver. At the commercial properties, it is estimated that the in- crease in noise will be 29 to 31 dBA with an impact pile driver. However, all pile driving ac- tivities will take place during the hours identified in the City's Noise Ordinance. In addition, ' an acoustical shroud will be in place to reduce the level of noise. Mitigation is provided to assure that the level of impact is reduced to less than significant Vibration The Wieland study analyzed ambient vibration measurements at two of the four locations se- lected for noise measurements. These two locations were Ristorante Mamma Gina and Or- ange Coast Yachts, both adjacent to Balboa Marina. Existing ambient vibration levels are well below the limit of 1 in/see (inch per second) for building damage. The primary vibratory activities during the construction phase of the project would be the extraction of the existing ;* piles and the driving of new piles A vibratory Oe driver operates by continuously shaking to the pile a1 a �ksd'ffequency, literallymltrtiting is Shtaikte ground. This operattrsn maybe - 4 more noticeable to nearby residents Irit{faat'pd daVe is otf the other hand, produce a high vibration level for a short time (0.2 seconds) with sufficient time between impacts to allow any resonant response to decay. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration amplitude. Of these, peak particle velocity (PPV) is most appropriate for evaluating potential building damage, s ` since it is related to the stresses that are exerted upon the buildings. Exhibit 7 — Contour for . I Impact Pile Driving, delineates the projected area of impact for impacts at a PPV value of 1 in/sec. The heavy line overlaying the marina in Exhibit 7 depicts the limit of the potential pile driving vibration impact. Analysis using a root mean square (ruts) particle velocity of 2 . in/sec is commonly used as a safe threshold Haut for buildings. For an rms velocity of 1 in/see, the equivalent PPV value is 1.4 in/see. This is the level where minor damage may oc-. t cur. The Wieland study has concluded that no damage should be expected at a PPV of 1 in/sec. However, a small risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils) unless mitigation is incorporated. This potential risk would include the commercial buildings, but not the resi- dences on Linda Isle. City of Newport Beach i Balboa Marina Dock Replacement 62 cwies�w„c �„mn 21-59 H Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting :Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration:(PA2012-103) m m S. n E e U r w u� 21-60 U FSI; I.101 G4M ` Ielei i H Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting :Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration:(PA2012-103) m m S. n E e U r w u� 21-60 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting - Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) The following mitigation measures are incorporated, as suggested in the Wieland study, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level: Mitigation Measures N-2 During construction, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified structural engineer and a qualified geotechnical engineer are on-site to perform tests and observations dur- ing pile driving to ensure the structural stability of surrounding structures based on a peak particle velocity (PPV) which is not to exceed the threshold value of 1.4 in/sec. N-3 During construction, the project applicant shall ensure that vibration velocity measure- ments shall be obtained inside and outside the residential and commercial buildings throughout pile driving activities. Data shall be reviewed by a qualified structural engi- neer and a qualified geotechnical engineer to assess structural stability of buildings. N4 During pile driving, the project applicant shall ensure that the pile and driver shall be completely enclosed on all sides by an acoustical shroud. The shroud shall extend from the barge or water surface to a point at least 5 feet above the top of the pile to be driven. The acoustical shroud, held in place by a crane, shall surround the pile driving assembly during pile driving activities. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (No Impact) The majority of the permanent noise generated by the proposed project will be consistent with, and potentially less than, the levels that already exist. Completion of the proposed project will result in a reduction of boat slips from 132 slips to 102 slips. This reduction would result in fewer cars arriving and departing at the dock parking lot and fewer boats, with their attendant engine noise, making trips into and out of the marina. The project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and no impact will result from project implementation. aq Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) It is anticipated that the project will result in a substantial temporary impact to noise levels in the project vicinity due to demolition and construction activities. However, construction impacts are short-term, and mitigation measures will be incorporated to reduce levels to less than significant. In addition, the project will comply with City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance standards per Mitiga- tion Measure N-1 in order to reduce impacts. The primary sources of construction -related noise will be demolition, pile driving, and dredging op- erations. Noise may also be increased due to a portion of the existing parking lot being used as a staging area for construction equipment and prefabricated dock assembly. Equipment to be used dur- ing the demolition and reconstruction process will include a crane barge, an impact hammer, a dredge, generators, and a small work boat. Demolition A crane barge will be utilized during the construction process. During removal of the docks, the barge will be moored to the existing piles. The pilings will either be removed by vibra- tory extraction or will be cut at the mudline if vibratory extraction fails to remove the pile. City of Newport Beach 64 Balboa Marina Dock Replacement �,,,�,.,,,,,�,,,,a,e 21-61 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) Dredging Currently, the matins has accommodation for larger boats and, in order to enable the contin- ued use of the marina, the dredge profile proposed to -10 feet is necessary to ensure safe op- eration and berthing. The barge engines are the primary noise sources associated with dredg- ing. The Wieland study projects the following noise levels based on an average noise level of 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet: 72 dBA at the Linda Isle residences (approximately 160 feet distant), 76 dBA at the commercial buildings (approximately 100 feet distant), and 33 dBA at Least Tem Island (approximately 14,800 feet distant). Construction The construction phase of the project will involve the placement of the guide piles and the assembly and placement of the dock. The concrete floats will be pre -fabricated off-site and assembled at the project staging area. Noise from the pile driving activities is discussed I above in item (b). As noted above, the City's Noise ordinance exempts construction projects during the hours from 7:00 am. to 6:30 pm. on weekdays and 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No con- struction activities are allowed on Sundays or legal holidays. However, incorporation of mitigation measures contained herein will reduce short -tern noise impacts resulting from the demolition and construction of the marina. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, I within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing l or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) i The nearest airport to the project site is the John Wayne Airport, approximately five miles away. The project is not within the CNEL contour line for noise impact zones. Additionally, the project site is not within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for any airport. The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels and no impact will occur. jJJ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would theproject expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact) There is no private airstrip located within the vicinity of the proposed project Therefore, the project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels, and no impact will occur. City of Newport Beach 65 Balboa Marina Dock Replacement 21-62 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) 5. ' Summary of Mitigation Measures Topical Area Mitigation Measure Air Quality AQ -1 During demolition, the project applicant shall ensure that all dock materials removed from the marina will be transported off-site the same day they aro removed Biological 13-1 During all dock removal, dredging and construction activities, the project applicant shall Resources ensure that a qualified biologist is stationed on-site to monitor and keep recordation of Least Tem numbers, behavior, and foraging capabilities. The on-site biologist shall submit monitoring reports to USFWS and CDFG at an interval and in detail as the federal and state resource agencies deem appropriate. In the event that the on-site biologist, the USF WS, or the CDFG determine that project activities are a detriment to the Least Tem foraging capabilities, all activities shall cease until a resolution is reached. B-2 During construction, the project applicant shall reduce the impact of sediment and contaminants through the implementation of Best Management Practices (HNPs), includ- ing, but not limited to, placement of trash receptacles and silt fences, particularly within the construction staging area- reaB-3 B-3During all dredging activities, the project applicant shall ensure that an on-site biologist shall conduct visual observations of the water column during dredging, which shall consist of monitoring turbidity 100 feet downcurrent from the dredging activities to determine if the turbidity is 20% greater than ambient conditions (such as 100 feet upcurreno as a re- sult of dredging activities. In the event that water column turbidity reaches a threshold of 20% greater than ambient conditions, a silt curtain will be installed. If the silt curtain is not a feasible remedy or cannot reduce the level of turbidity to below the said level of duwh- old, dredging activities will cease until turbidity returns to normal. B4 The project applicant shall conduct a pre -construction eelgra is survey prior to construction efforts, and a post -construction celgtass survey upon project completion. Said surveys shall include the project area and the surrounding vicinity for the purpose of documenting all existing celgrass beds and ensuring that all construction impacts on eelgrass are miti- gated in their entirety, including those due to the anchoring of construction -related boats outside the dredge footprint Said surveys shall be consistent with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (SCENP), and include the five-year post -planting monitoring required by the SCEMP. Reports shall be submitted to the appropriate resource agencies to ensure success criteria are met B-5 The project applicant shall ensure that all impacts to eelgrass, as indicated by pre- mmtnrction and post -construction w1grass surveys, shall be mitigated to a ratio of 1.2 square feet for every 1.0 square foot impacted. The project applicant shall coordinate with state and federal resource agencies regarding the feasibility of on-site mitigation. B-6 Prior to dredging and construction activities, the project applicant shall ensure that all on - water construction vehicles and dredging machinery be provided with a detailed and com- prehendible map delineating existing eclgrass beds in the project vicinity, including a 20 - foot perimeter outside the project area The project proponent shall also be responsible for ensuring that all on -water construction vehicles and dredging machinery avoid the mapped celgrass beds. In the event that eelgrass outside the dredge plan area is unavoidably im- pacted due to concoction activities or vehicles, mitigation measures B4 and 13-5 shall enure that these areas are properly mitigated by the project applicant B-7 The project applicant shall conduct a pre -construction Caulerpa Taxifubs survey 30 to 90 days prior to dredging efforts, and a post -construction Caulerpa Taxifotia survey within 30 to 90 days after project completion. Said surveys shall be consistent with the Southern California Eelgraac Mitigation Policy and the City of Newport Beach Harbor Permitting Policy H-1 City of Newport Beach Balboa Marina Dock Replacement 76 21-63 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) Topical Area Mitigation Measure B-8 Prior to project initiation, the project applicant shall obtain a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, as required by haw, to protect federally protected wetlands. Geology and Soils G-1 During dredging operations, the project applicant shall ensure that no dredging will occur within eight (8) feet of the bulkhead, as measured horizontally. Beyond this limit, slopes shall be dredged to a 4:1 horizontal to vertical ratio, or flatter. G-2 During dredging operations, the project applicant shall ensure that dredge slopes adjacent to Mamma Gina s along the southern shore of the channel will be inclined at a 5:1 hori- zontal to vertical ratio, or flatter. G-3 During dock concoction, the project applicant shall ensure that all pile driving activitiu maintain a minimum distance of 30 feel from the shoreline not supported by a bulkhead adjacent to Mamma Gina's. Hazards mmd Ha -I Prior to commencement of demolition, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits for Hazardous Materials the demolition and removal of existing docks to ensure compliance with the City's stan- dards for such activities. Hydrology and H-1— Prior to commencement of dredging activities, project applicant shall perform sediment Water Quality sampling test results following protocol requirements of the ACOE and RWQCB. Test re- sults shall be sent to the ACOE and RWQCB, as well as the City of Newport Beach for re- view and approval H-2— During demolition and construction, project applicant shall comply with all regulations and conditions, including monitoring and reporting, as set forth in the Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Certification. Noise N-1 During demolition and concoction activities, to reduce construction -related noise impacts, the project applicant shall ensure that construction is limited to periods of re- duced noise sensitivity and thus reduce sleep disturbance and other noise nuisance poten- tial. Pursuant to the City's Noise Ordinance, the construction contractor shall ensure that general construction activities (which include construction vehicle staging and idling en- gines) be conducted only between the haus of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 am. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction activities are not allowed at any time on Sundays or local, state or federal holidays. N-2 During concoction, the project applicant shall ensure that a qualified stmetuml engineer and a qualified geotechnical engineer are on-site to perform tests and observations during pile driving to ensure the structural stability of surrounding structures baud on a peak par - ti clo velocity (PPV) which is not to exceed the threshold value of 1.4 in/sm. N-3 During construction, the project applicant shall ensure that vibration velocity measure- ments shall be obtained inside and outside the residential and commercial buildings throughout pile driving activities. Data shall be reviewed by a qualified structural engin and a qualified geotechnical engineer to assess structural stability of buildings. NA During pile driving, the project applicant shall ensure that the pile and driver shall be completely inclosed on all sides by an amustical shroud The shroud shall extend from the barge or water surface to a point at least 5 feet above the top of the pile to be driven. The acoustical shroud, held in place by a crane, shall surround the pile driving assembly during pile driving activities. Recreation R-1 Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall insure that lessees requiring temporary accommodation for their boats will be relocated to other California Recreation Company marinas in Newport Harbor subject to availability or will he provided re- location assistance. City of Newport Beach Balboa Marina Dock Replacement T7 oma, �.�wsNwmnn 21-64 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) Topical Area Mitigation Measure R-2 Prior to the commencemeet of construction, applicant shall insure that lessees permanently displaced by the reconstruction will be relocated to other California Recreation Company marinas in Newport Harbor subject to availability or will be provided relocation assis- tance. City of Newport Beach Balboa Marina Dock Replacement 78 21-65 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. December 20, 2007 Linda Isle Homeowners Association c/o Mr. Bill O'Connor 90 Linda Isle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: Balboa Marina Proposed Dock Replacement Pile Driving Impacts on Linda Isle, Newport Beach, Orange County. Dear Homeowners Association: At your request, GeoSoils Inc. (GSI) is pleased to provide this written summary of our review of the pile driving impact analysis prepared by noise and vibration consultant Wieland Associates, Inc., for the proposed Balboa Marina Dock Replacement Project. Our scope of work includes visual observations of the Marina site and portions of Linda Isle, a review of the referenced plans, a review of portions of the referenced Mitigated Negative Declaration, a review of the referenced California Department of Transportation technical advisory, a review of the referenced Wieland Associates, Inc. reports and addendums, and preparation of this summary report. The Marina area, and portions of Linda Isle, were observed by GSI personnel on November 6, 2007. The Linda Isle improvement closest to the Balboa Marina Project is the Linda Isle Access Bridge, approximately 75 feet (22.8 m) west of the nearest proposed Marina Dock pile. The Linda Isle Access Bridge is a critical structure. It not only provides the sole access to the island, but also carries all power, water, and sewer utilities to the island residences. In addition to observing the bridge, some of the docks, bulkheads, and residential patio improvements were observed. All of the observed patio decks were covered with decorative tile or other settlement sensitive improvements. Portions of the Marina and existing dock system were observed from the public parking lot along Bayside Drive. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-66 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. 2 REPORT REVIEW Wieland Associates, Inc., the project noise and vibration consultant, included an analysis of the potential impact of pile driving on the surrounding area in their April 4, 2006 study. They also prepared two subsequent addendum reports, with additional analyses, in response to project changes. Two methods of pile installation were evaluated, vibratory and impact driving. Benefits and drawbacks of each method were discussed, as quoted in part below, from Wieland Associates, Inc (2006b). From Table 7-1, the PPV created by vibratorypile drivers is 2.1-3.8 times lower than the PPV induced by impact pile drivers under the same environmental conditions. However, the additional vibration effects of vibratory pile drivers may limit their use in sensitive locations. A vibratory pile driver operates by continuously shaking the pile at a fixed frequency, literally vibrating it into the ground. However, continuous operation at a fixed frequency may be more noticeable to nearby residents, even at lower vibration levels. Furthermore, the steady-state excitation of the ground may increase resonance response of building components. Impact pile drivers, on the other hand, produce a high vibration level for a short time (0.2 seconds) with sufficient time between impacts to allow any resonant response to decay. The permit application allows for use of either method. The Wieland Associates, Inc analysis covers both methods. It is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) that is calculated verses the distance from the pile driving. Their analysis plots the lines of constant PPV called isovels. The report and subsequent addendums plot the 1 in/sec isovel for both pile driving methods. They do qualify their analysis and state that, " It should be noted that the most reliable way to evaluate vibrations is in situ. The theoretical analysis in this study provides approximate results and may not be accurate." They also point out that, "Because it is outside our area of expertise, the risk of structural damage due to transmitted vibrations or dynamic settlements has not been evaluated in this study. However, this potential issue is addressed in the mitigation measures of Section 9. It is noteworthy that at relatively short distances from pile drivers, damage to buildings caused by soil settlement incited by vibration can be more significant than the structural damage caused by vibration fatigue j1J. In particular, notable dynamic settlements can result from even relatively small ground vibrations in loose soils. While this study does not address the issues of structural damage, it should be noted that the commercial buildings are at risk of structural damage because they are located very close to the reconstruction site." Wieland Associates, Inc., states clearly that risk of structural damage is outside their area of expertise. Notwithstanding, their analysis clearly implies that any structure outside of the 1 in/sec isovel will not be subject to "damage" or "significant damage." Based upon our review of the California Department of Transportation document entitled 'Transportation related earthborne vibrations (Caltrans experiences)," which provides an engineering 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-67 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. standard for pile driving impact analysis, this 1 in/sec threshold is incorrect and under estimates the areas that may be subject to some form of distress from pile driving. Table 2 from the Cal Trans Report; reproduced below, identifies a threshold of 0.2 in/sec as the critical threshold PPV for damage. Based upon the Cal Trans Report, Wieland Associates, Inc should plot additional isovels, including the 0.2 in/sec isovel, to more accurately identify areas where potential damage, as a result of pile driving, could occur. Vibration Level Peak Particle Veloci " molts In/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings 0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; Vibrations unlikely to cause ossibility of intrusion damage of any type 2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily Recommended upper level perceptible of the vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected 2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous Virtually no risk of vibrations begin to annoy "architectural" damage to people normal buildings 5.0 0.20 Vibrations annoying to Threshold at which there is people in buildings (this a risk of "architectural" agrees with the levels damage to normal dwelling - extablished for people houses with plastered walls standing on bridges and and ceilings subjected to relative short periods of vibrations) Special types of finish such as lining of walls, flexible ceiling treatment, etc., would minimize "architectural" damage 10-15 0.4-0.6 Vibrations considered Vibrations at a greater level unpleasant by people than normally expected subjected to continuous from traffic, but would vibrations and unacceptable cause "architectural" to some people walking on damage and possibly minor bridges structural damage. - The vibration levels are based on peak particle ..achy in the wrticnd direction. When human reactions ate concerned, the tmhte is at the point at which the person is situated. For buildings, the. value refers to the ground motion. No onotvanae is included for the mnpbfying effect, if my, of structured components. Source. "A Survey of Treble- induced vibrations" by Whiftn and Leonard, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, RRL Report LR418, Crowthorn4 Berkshire, England, 1971. Table 2- Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings at Various Continuous Vibration Levels. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-68 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. To illustrate that the extent of the area that may be subject to damage from pile placement, GSI performed an analysis using Figure 1, the pile driving attenuation curve, from the Cal Trans Report, to determine PPV for both impact and vibratory pile installation at the Linda Isle bridge. Using a PPV of 1.08 in/sec at 25 feet for impact driving, the calculated PPV at the bridge (75 feet) is 0.28 in/sec. This PPV is above the threshold for risk of damage to buildings (including the bridge). Using a PPV of 0.45 in/sec at 25 feet for vibratory placement, the calculated PPV at the bridge (75 feet) is 0.12 in/sec. This is in between the "no risk" level and the threshold of risk level in the above table. Because of the noted inherent lack of accuracy in the vibration analysis and the disclaimers within the Wieland Associates, Inc reports, it is reasonable to conclude that there is definitely potential risk to the Linda Isle Bridge and arguably risks to improvements (bulkheads, buildings, walls, and flatwork) at the Linda Isle areas adjacent to the Balboa Marina. This is clearly acknowledged in the Wieland Associates, Inc, report. The report provides for mitigation of these impacts as stated and recommended below. Qualified structural and geotechnical engineers should review the peak vibration velocities estimated in this report, and determine whether it is safe to proceed with pile driving at the marina. Of particular concern is a potential dynamic soil settlement that may produce unsafe structural conditions at the commercial properties and residences. 2. Vibratorypile driving shall be used rather than impact pile driving if permitted by the geological conditions at the project site. This shall be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 3. A qualified structural engineer and geotechnical engineer shall be onsite during the pile driving activities and perform such tests and observations as are necessary to ensure the structural stability of the residences, commercial buildings, and other structures in the vicinity of the construction area. 4. Vibration velocity measurements shall be obtained inside and outside of the residences and commercial buildings throughout the pile driving activities. This data shall be reviewed by a qualified structural engineer and geotechnical engineer to assist in assessing the structural stability of the buildings. The residences identified in the mitigation measures are clearly the Linda Isle residences adjacent to the project. These mitigation measures need to not only be a condition of any regulatory permits but they should be furthered developed into an actionable and definitive mitigation and monitoring plan. The nature of the tests and observations, along with the 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 WO.S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-69 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. monitoring locations need to be identified by the applicant. The preliminary plan should be reviewed by the interested affected parties and their consultants, and refined as appropriate. The permit conditions should also have a clear methodology for resolving resident or HOA claims of damage to Linda Isle improvements as a result of the proposed development. OTHER PILE DRIVING POSSIBLE IMPACTS The construction sequence has the dredging of the channel being performed prior to the driving of the new dock guide piles. Dredging of the channel will create bank slopes of 1/2, 1/4 and 1/5 at the edges of the channel and within the Balboa Marina. The equilibrium slope of the natural bottom sediments is much flatter than 1/5 artificial dredged slope. The dredging of the channel will create a sink for sediments from the adjacent areas including sediments that are beneath Linda Isle docks and in front of the Linda Isle bulkhead. The vibratory action of pile placement will cause the bottom sediments to mobilize and move down slope. Based upon our review of the information provided there has been no analysis of this settlement. The downslope settlement will impact the slope along the Balboa Marina waterfront and may impact the Linda Isle bulkhead. This vibration induced sediment movement should be addressed by the applicant. M191 � G1N1WW\:l The following work plan outlines recommended observations and documentation to be performed by a Linda Isle Homeowners Association consultant as part of the Balboa Marina project. It specifically does not include monitoring at the Balboa Marina site which would be provided by the builder of the Balboa Marina project. GSI or the chosen consultant should perform monitoring designed to verify the findings of the builder's vibration monitoring program, and provide further protection for the Linda Isle dwellings and facilities. We recommend that the following elements be incorporated in the vibration monitoring program to specifically monitor the buildings nearest the planned Balboa Marina project: Pre -Construction Monitoring and Documentation Prior to pile driving and construction operations, preconstruction measurements and observations of the Linda Isle dwellings and facilities should be made including: 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-70 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. 6 Photographs and HD Video photography of the Linda Isle Bridge, and any visible utilities, seawalls surrounding Linda Isle, interior and exterior dwelling walls and flooring, and exterior flatwork. Documentation work should primarily be performed for structures nearest the Marina construction, and may be extended to include any or all other dwellings on the island. Floor level (manometer) survey of the interior floor of the dwellings to determine initial baseline levels. Should distress occur, a subsequent floor level survey will document the extent of differential settlement throughout each dwelling. Surveying (by a qualified land surveyor) to determine baseline elevations of the seawall bulkheads, flatwork, dwelling floors, and monuments (i.e., small nails) attached to the exterior of the dwellings) prior to construction of the Marina facilities. Test Pile Vibration Monitoring and Documentation Monitoring should begin with the first pile to be driven. Initial readings should include monitoring of the vibration levels both at the Marina parking lot, and at the Linda Isle bulkhead and dwellings. All testing should be performed with at least one manometer leveling system installed at the nearest Linda Isle dwelling to monitor settlement of the bulkhead, flatwork and interior floor of the dwelling. Vibration readings should be taken to determine the following: • Compare simultaneous readings between the contractor's vibration monitoring equipment and consultant/GSI's equipment. Calibration of the instruments should be similar. Once convinced that the instruments are acquiring similar readings, using the same low pile driving vibration or impact levels, take a series readings at the Linda Isle seawall flatwork and dwellings, approximately 10 feet apart to develop attenuation curves. • Test monitoring at selected points across the Linda Isle access bridge would complete the initial testing phase of our monitoring and documentation. Construction Monitoring • Following the construction of the first few piles, and at various intervals during the entire pile driving/construction operation, periodic limited measurements and observations of the Linda Isle buildings should be made including: 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 WO.S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-71 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. 7 • Vibration monitoring to ensure that subsurface conditions do not amplify vibrations in unexpected areas, as well as confirmation that the impact energy settings of the pile driving equipment are properly maintained. • Observations of seawalls, flatwork, building walls and floors, and exterior flatwork to identify any changed conditions, with photographs or video as deemed necessary. • Evaluation of the wall and ceiling cracks observed in the baseline monitor photographs and videos. • Floor level (manometer) measurements at selected points to identify any interior or exterior movements. • As the Construction moves closer to the Linda Isle Bridge, periodic readings and observations should be performed, at least daily, to evaluate vibration levels, and any distress to the structure or utilities. Post -Construction Monitoring • After the Pile driving and construction is completed, additional measurements and observations of the Linda Isle dwellings and facilities should be made including: • Photographs and video of the building walls and floors and exterior flatwork. • Floor level (manometer) survey of the floor to determine post -construction levels. • Measurements of previously existing cracks over doors and ceilings, and comparison to original readings. • Surveying of the baseline survey points throughout Linda Isle (by the same land surveyor who performed the initial surveying). 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-72 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. Follow -Up Monitoring 0 Approximately 1 month after completion of the Marina pile driving, the Post - Construction monitoring program should be repeated. It should be the responsibility of the applicant to further develop the testing and monitoring programs. The type of testing and monitoring programs proposed herein are not necessarily meant to be complete or comprehensive but rather an outline of some of the elements that should be included in the applicant's mitigation plans and permit conditions. Once these programs have been drafted they should be reviewed by this office. 111LitiIF_r➢19I&I Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our evaluation of the technical information gathered, partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements have been prepared in accordance with current accepted standards of engineering practice; we do not guarantee the performance of the project in any respect. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied. Respectfully Submitted, GeoSoils Inc. David W. Skelly, MS RCE #47857 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-73 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) GeoSoils Inc. APPENDIX Bellport Group, 2003, Balboa Marina - base plan, prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., survey date: October 6, 2003 - October 15, 2003, Agreement no. RP -14060, Sheet C-2, Drawing name Balboa -Marina, dated November 7. California Department of Transportation, 2002, 'Transportation related earthborne vibrations (Caltrans experiences)", Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-02-R9601, dated February 20. City of Newport Beach, 2007, Mitigated negative declaration, Public review period: January 5, 2007 to February 7, 2007, Balboa Marina Dock Replace (Permit Application #2171-2004), 201 E. Coast Highway, dated January 3. Concept Marine Associates, 2005, Balboa Marina, Proposed reconstruction boat slip layout, dated January 5. Wieland Associates, Inc., 2007, Second report addendum regarding the revised site layout for Balboa Marina, Project file 725-05.01, dated January 3. 2006a, Report addendum regarding the revised site layout for Balboa Marina, dated June 29. 2006b, Environmental noise study for the construction of the proposed Balboa Marina dock replacement project in the City of Newport Beach, Project file 725-05.01, dated April 4. 5741 Palmer Way, Suite D, Carlsbad CA 92010 W.O. S5563 Phone 760-438-3155 21-74 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) TAB 3 21-75 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) RESOLUTION NO. 2011-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2011-007 FOR AN EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 333 BAYSIDE DRIVE (PA2011- 041) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Jeff Reuter, with respect to the property located at 333 Bayside Drive, and legally described as Lot B of Parcel Map Book 16 Page 10 (Resubdivision No. 249), requesting approval of a new conditional use permit. 2. The applicant filed an application requesting a new conditional use permit to extend the hours of operation granted by Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit No. 2007-001 for an existing outdoor dining patio from 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily to 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. daily. No other changes to the existing restaurant operations were requested or proposed. 3. The subject property is located within the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM). 4. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan category is Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A). A public hearing was held on May 19, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. At the May 19, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5 ayes, 2 excused) to deny the project without prejudice. 7. On May 25, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision to deny Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-007 was appealed by City Councilmember Edward Selich. The appeal was filed to discuss and review the inconsistency of the denial with approval of Outdoor Dining Permit No. 49 granted to Ristorante Mamma Gina's (now Sol Cocina) adjacent to the subject property, and to discuss and review the requirement that the operator obtain an Operator License pursuant to NBMC Chapter 5.25 to allow a higher level of control over the operation of the existing outdoor dining patio. 21-76 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 2011-80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 2 of 13 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on June 28, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 9. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it was a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 1- Existing Facilities. 2. This exemption applies to existing facilities where it can be demonstrated the project involves no expansion of the existing use. The change in hours of operation does not involve an expansion of the existing use. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. In accordance with Section 20.48.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following finding and facts in support of such finding is set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support Finding: A-1. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that the purpose and intent of Section 20.48.030 (Alcohol Sales) of the Zoning Code is maintained and that a healthy environment for residents and businesses is preserved. The service of alcoholic beverages is intended for the convenience of customers of the restaurant. Operational conditions of approval recommended by the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) relative to the sale of alcoholic beverages will ensure compatibility with the surrounding use and minimize alcohol-related impacts. A-2. Pursuant to Chapter 5.25 of the NBMC, the project has been conditioned to require that the applicant, as well as any future operators of the existing eating and drinking establishment, obtain an Operator License to ensure the establishment is operated in a safe manner. TmpIL 03/08/11 21-77 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 3 of 13 In accordance with Section 20.20.020 of the Zoning Code, eating and drinking establishments classified as "Food Service, Late Hours' require the approval of a conditional use permit within the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District. In accordance with Section 20.52.020.E of the Zoning Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: B. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) land use designation of the General Plan is intended to encourage and provide for mutually supportive business and visitor - serving uses. The operation of a "Food Service, Late Hours" use with alcoholic beverage sales is consistent with the purpose and intent of this land use designation. B-2. Food service uses are expected to be located in commercial areas, and are complementary to the existing commercial and residential uses in the area. Such uses are frequented by visitors, tenants of the nearby commercial uses, and residents alike. B-3. The subject property is not part of a specific plan area. Finding: C. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The subject property is located in the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) Zoning District, and eating and drinking establishments classified as "Food Service, Late Hours" require the approval of a conditional use permit. C-2. As conditioned, the project will comply with Zoning Code standards for eating and drinking establishments. Conditions are included related to on -sale alcoholic beverage activities, including the training of personnel, and the provision of security personnel while live entertainment is offered. C-3. Pursuant to Chapter 5.25 of the NEMC, the project has been conditioned to require the applicant, and any future operator of the eating and drinking establishment, to obtain an Operator License from the NBPD in order to maintain operating hours beyond 11:00 P.M. Tmplt: 03/08/11 21-78 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 4 of 13 Finding: D. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with the surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both residents and businesses. D-2. Adequate parking is maintained on-site and provided by complimentary valet service during all hours of operation. D-3. The location of the valet parking pick-up and drop-off area, and the designated smoking area, is shielded from the residences by the restaurant building, thereby mitigating noise impacts from this activity. D-4. The design and construction materials of the outdoor dining patio prevent excessive noise from emanating from this area. As conditioned, the sound attenuating windows are required to be closed from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. A condition of approval is included requiring that recorded music or other types of sound amplification within the outdoor patio area shall only be audible to the audience within the patio area, and shall cease after the hour of 10:00 p.m. daily. Findinq: E. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding: E-1. This is an existing eating and drinking establishment that has existed in this location since 1968, and the project site has proven to be physically suitable in size to accommodate the use. E-2. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Bayside Drive and East Coast Highway, and is surrounded by similar commercial uses located to the west, and the southeast of the use. This is an appropriate location for an eating and drinking establishment. The use is complementary to the existing commercial uses in the area, as well as the residential uses located to the south of the project site. Tmpll 0108111 21-79 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 2011-80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 5 of 13 E-3. The Traffic Engineer has previously reviewed the configuration of the parking lot, as well as the valet parking plan, and has determined the parking lot design functions safely and does not prevent emergency vehicle access to the establishment. E-4. The site is currently served by public services and utilities. Finding: F. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: F-1. The project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure the continued operation of the existing eating and drinking establishment will not be detrimental to the community. F-2. An increase in pedestrian and vehicular activity from patrons using the outdoor dining area during late night and early morning hours may occur. However, impacts from this increase in activity would be mitigated due to the location of the existing valet parking pick-up and drop-off area, and the designated smoking area, which are shielded from residences on Linda Isle by the restaurant building. F-3. The applicant has operated the existing eating and drinking establishment in this location since 2004, and has demonstrated the continued willingness and ability to control noise generated by patrons of the restaurant. The applicant will be required to obtain an Operator License from the NBPD in order to extend the hours of operation of the outdoor dining patio to 1:00 a.m. The Operator License will provide for enhanced control of noise, loitering, litter, disorderly conduct, parking/circulation, and other potential disturbances resulting from the existing establishment, and will provide the NBPD with means to modify, suspend, or revoke the operator's ability to maintain late - hour operations if objectionable condition occur. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOVO, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission. Approval of Use Permit No. UP2011-041 shall be subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Tmplt 03/UM 21-80 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 2011-80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Paqe 6 of 13 2. This resolution supersedes Use Permit No. 3325 (amended) and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1724, which upon vesting of the rights authorized by this Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-007, shall become null and void. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 28th day of June, 2011. MAYOR ATTEST: C - Q *W - CITY CLERK Tmplt: 03/08/11 21-81 r. a: Lt -O Tmplt: 03/08/11 21-81 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 7 of 13 -ie.IN- hili'% CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING 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. Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-007 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), unless an extension is otherwise granted. The hours of operations shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily, unless the applicant/operator, including any future operator, secures and maintains an Operator License issued by the Chief of Police, pursuant to Chapter 5.25 of the NBMC. In no case shall the interior portion of the eating and drinking establishment be permitted to operate beyond the hour of 2:00 a.m. daily. The outdoor dining patio shall not be permitted to operate beyond the hour of 1:00 a.m., daily. 4. The Outdoor Dining Patio shall be subject to the following requirements: a. Require the outdoor dining patio to be attenuated to the same sound level as the main restaurant building when all exterior openings are closed. The plans for modifying the patio shall be reviewed and certified by an acoustical engineer as meeting the same sound attenuation levels as the main restaurant building subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Director. Subsequent to construction, the installation shall be tested by an acoustical engineer and certified as to meeting city code noise standards. b. Require the applicant to fund a quarterly monitoring test and report by an acoustical engineer selected by the Community Development Director as to meeting city codes. The monitoring shall include a minimum of one Thursday, Friday, or Saturday between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. of operation until the one-year review by the Planning Commission. The monitoring program shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. At least one such monitoring test shall take place during the months of July or August. Code compliance includes compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control. c. Require that the outdoor patio windows and roof openings be closed at the currently required time of T00 p.m. daily. d. Extend the outdoor dining patio hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Tmplt: 03/08/11 21-82 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Paoe 8 of 13 e. Require that the conditional use permit be reviewed by the Planning Commission one year from the date of this approval to ensure the increased hours of operation on the outdoor dining patio have not resulted in detrimental impacts. 5. All doors and windows of the interior of the eating and drinking establishment shall remain closed at all times except for the ingress and egress of patrons and employees. 6. The Operator License required to be obtained pursuant to Condition No. 3 and Chapter 5.25 may be subject to additional and/or more restrictive conditions to regulate and control potential late -hour nuisances associated with the operation of the establishment. 7. Full meal service shall be provided and available for ordering at all times the establishment is open for business. 8. The outdoor dining area shall be used in conjunction with the eating and drinking establishment. No special events/promotional activities shall be allowed within the area of the outdoor dining patio. 9. The outdoor dining patio shall be limited to 636 square feet in area. 10. The outdoor dining area shall be limited to a maximum of 37 seats, including disabled seats/table space. The seating and dining in the outdoor dining patio shall be limited to dining table height (approximately 30 inches) and the use of the elevated counters and barstools is prohibited. 11. All employees shall park on on-site. 12. The net public area of the interior portion of the eating and drinking establishment shall not exceed 2,560 square feet. 13. A minimum of 34 parking spaces shall be provided on-site for the daytime operation of the eating and drinking establishment Monday through Friday. A total of 64 parking spaces shall be provided on-site for all other hours of operation of the establishment (one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area). 14. Prior to implementation of the late hours on the outdoor dining patio, the applicant/operator shall submit a valet parking plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department and Community Development Department/Planning Division. The valet parking plan shall demonstrate that adequate on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems are provided. The valet parking plan shall include the location of valet parking pick-up and drop-off area so as to be shielded from nearby residences on Linda Isle by the subject restaurant building in order to minimize the transmission of noise to Linda isle to the maximum extent feasible. The parking plan Tmplt: 03/08/11 21-83 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Page 9 of 13 shall include a waitinglqueuing area for guests dropping off or picking up automobiles from valet parking and a designated smoking area for patrons of the restaurant. 15. The appficanfloperator shall conspicuously post and maintain signs at all outdoor dining, waiting, smoking and parking areas indicating to patrons the proximity of the restaurant and public dock and boat slip areas to the residential areas, requesting patrons be courteous to residential neighbors while outside the establishment. 16. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 17. The applicant/operator shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. 18. The applicant/operator shall maintain a copy of the most recent City permit conditions of approval on the premises and shall post a notice that these are available for review on the premises. The posted notice shall be signed by the permittee. 19. 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. 20. This Conditional Use Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 21. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2011-007 is for the operation of an eating and drinking establishment defined as "Food Service, Late Hours" per Title 20 of the NBMC, and does not permit or authorize the use or operation of a bar, tavern, cocktail lounge, nightclub or commercial recreational entertainment venue. 22. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit or the processing of a new Conditional Use Permit. 23. The type of alcoholic beverage license issued by the California Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control shall be a Type 47 in conjunction with the service of food as the principal use of the facility. Any upgrade in the alcoholic beverage license shall be subject to the approval of an amendment to this application, and may require the approval of the Planning Commission. Tmplt: 03/08111 21-84 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Paqe 10 of 13 24. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 25. Water should not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 26. The washing of the outdoor dining patio with any cleaning solutions or the use of high pressure or steam cleaning devices is prohibited. 27. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 28. All noise generated by the existing eating and drinking establishment use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 29. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise/acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the outdoor dining activity to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Community Development Director. 30. The applicant/operator of the facility shall be responsible for and shall actively control any noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. 31. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future Tmplt 03108111 21-85 Between the hours of Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Measured at the property line of commercially zoned property: 65 dBA 60 dBA Measured at the property line of residentially zoned property: 55 dBA 50 dBA Measured in the interior of a 45 dBA 40 dBA residential structure 29. The applicant shall retain a qualified engineer specializing in noise/acoustics to monitor the sound generated by the outdoor dining activity to insure compliance with these conditions, if required by the Community Development Director. 30. The applicant/operator of the facility shall be responsible for and shall actively control any noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. 31. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future Tmplt 03108111 21-85 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 32. No live entertainment shall be allowed in the interior of the eating and drinking establishment unless the operator has first obtained a permit from the City. 33. No outside paging system or loudspeaker device shall be used in conjunction with this establishment. 34. No live entertainment shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area. Recorded music or other types of sound amplification within the outdoor dining area shall only be audible to the audience within this area, and shall cease after the hour of 10:00 p.m.. daily. 35. No dancing shall be allowed on the premises of the eating and drinking establishment. 36. The applicant/operator shall provide licensed security personnel while offering live entertainment. A comprehensive security plan for the permitted uses shall be submitted for review and approval by the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD). The procedures included in the plan and any recommendations made by the NBPD shall be implemented and adhered to for the life of the Conditional Use Permit. 37. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self -latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 38. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right-of- way. 39. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 40. The applicant/operator shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Code Enforcement Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 41. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, and may require an amendment to this Use Permit. Tmpll: 03/08111 21-86 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Pape 12 of 13 42. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 43. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on- site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 44. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed/maintained in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code. The issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 45. All exists shall remain free of obstructions and available for ingress and egress at all times. 46. Strict adherence to maximum occupancy limits is required. 47. The use of private (enclosed) "VIP" rooms or any other temporary or permanent enclosures separate from public areas are prohibited. 48. All owners, managers and employees selling, serving or giving away alcoholic beverages shall undergo and successfully complete a certified training program in responsible methods and skills for selling alcoholic beverages. The certified program must meet the standards of the California Coordinating Council on Responsible Beverage Service or other certifying/licensing body, which the State may designate. The establishment shall comply with the requirements of this section within 180 days of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Records of each owner's, manager's and employee's successful completion of the required certified training program shall be maintained on the premises and shall be presented upon request by a representative of the City of Newport Beach. 49. Any event or activity staged by an outside promoter or entity, where the restaurant owner or his employees or representatives share in any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person based upon money collected as a door charge, cover charge or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders or sale of drinks is prohibited. 50. No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the license. 51. No "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shall be allowed except in conjunction with food service available from the full service menu. There shall be no reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion after 9:00 p.m. Tmpltt 0310&11 21-87 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) City Council Resolution No. 80 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant (PA2011-041) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2011-041 Pape 13 of 13 52. "VIP" passes or other passes to enter the establishment, as well as door charges, cover charges, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink order or sale of drinks is prohibited. 53. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food and retail sales during the same period. The licensee shall maintain records that reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the NBPD on demand. 54. No on-site radio, television, video, film or other media broadcasts from the establishment that includes the service of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted without first obtaining an approved Special Event Permit issued by the City. This prohibition of media broadcasts includes recordings to be broadcasted at a later time. 55. All signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 56. There shall be no exterior advertising or signs of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs that are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. 57. No games or contests requiring or involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 58. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant/operator 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 3 -Thirty -3 Waterfront Restaurant including, but not limited to, the Use Permit No. 2011-007. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attomeys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant/operator, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant/operator 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 applicantloperator shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Tmplt 03/08/11 NA -L Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ) I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2011-80 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 28th day of June, 2011, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Hill, Rosansky, Selich, Daigle, Mayor Henn Noes: Gardner, Curry Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 29th day of June, 2011. City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal) 21-89 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) 21-90 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) BACK BAY LANDING PROJECT PCR FEBRUARY 2014 21-91 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) October 2013 2. Project Description a. Within Planning Area 1, a single coastal public view tower, or similar structure, that includes public access to a functioning public viewing platform would be developed at a maximum height of 65 feet b. Within Planning Area 1, maximum allowable height for any parldng structure would not exceed 30 feet for flat roofs and 35 feet for sloped roofs. c. Maximum allowable building height within Planning Area 2 would not exceed 26 feet for flat roofs and 31 feet for sloped roofs. d. Within Planning Area 4, maximum allowable building height would not exceed 20 feet for flat roofs and 25 feet for sloped roofs. e. All other exceptions to height would be regulated pursuant to Section 20.30.060.D of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. It should be noted that the grade elevation for the purposes of measuring building height would be measured from the established baseline elevation of either 11 feet or 14 feet (per the NAVD 88 vertical datum) above mean sea level within Planning Area 1, as illustrated in Figure 2-6. Within Planning Areas 2 and 4, building height would be measured from the established baseline elevation of 12 feet (per NAVD 88) above mean sea level. (3) Residential Units Development standards for residential units within a future mixed-use development on-site include requirements for common and private open space, a ground -floor non-residential only requirement for SO percent of units, sound reduction requirements, and buffering and screening requirements. The PCDP's residential development standards are further discussed below. (a) Open Space (i) Common Open Space A minimum of 75 square feet per dwelling would be provided for common open space (e.g., pool, patio, decldng, and barbecue areas, common meeting rooms, etc.), and the minimum dimension (length and width) would be 15 feet The common open space areas would be separated from non-residential uses on the site and would be sited and designed to limit intrusion by non-residents and customers of non-residential uses. However, sharing of common open space may be allowed, subject to Site Development Review, when it is clear that the open space will provide a direct benefit to project residents. Common open space uses may be provided on rooftops for use only by project residents. (ii) Private Open Space Five percent of the gross floor area for each unit would be provided as private open space, with the minimum dimension (length and width) being six feet. The private open space would be designed and located to be used by individual units (e g., patios, balconies, etc.). City of Newport Bead1 Back Bay W nding PCR Sewlces Corporation/S0 Na. 2012101003 2.19 21-92 E Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) c m -2 C_ v N O p O O N O C � O O O d' N OIC h E `0 a o o u ._ F: E rn c 2 .€ g � E b E2ol W5 a 6 21-93 d � U� 0 o rn c c o. a rn c m Q ca vi a J �+ J ama mo'a � ao cm c C W tO O.6 2 N M E c o y o.o m SQ N tO C `ol `o a n_^ ! o a O Tom. O� � J m c c A Uw mo- Q`p u> c m Eis -S u m c a"g OC 00 00 dOIJ NN J E o�A c �$� a o� rnL5 0 2 m m c m C o vl h o d al 0 L... N OOdJ COJ LC C Nuv C .�u C U a N C_tO E Zd d o �OW m 2.0 o J y mD3` n, � d� C ` G G N _ c O W 0 m.0 dm an d O N 4 'AN N N E 3 c .2 D¢ 3va OtO o'.o y '95 aaiEoo. p C 2 N '5¢ o �l ` u c E C m m 9 d¢ V y vl a of 3 m E c UN l0 a_d Qj+dpfON f0GN MCVI v.`m E 'v ERA—m..•.Gm of div o>f a �.o� �Noa�E O Z'L J n o m v O L. L m m al Oq C a .g 2- J Jo c m a m a a p a v a G 00 w� a`aE o-nE CZ= • �'— aai E a c w -2 K m ou V W v. h c m -2 C_ v N O p O O N O C � O O O d' N OIC h E `0 a o o u ._ F: E rn c 2 .€ g � E b E2ol W5 a 6 21-93 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2012-103) TAB 5 21-94 Planning Commission - October 02, 2014 Item No. 2b: Additional Materials Received At Meeting Balboa Marina West Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA201; 0 ) m 'a f a ala m a is • �•e • 1t A T 1 e• 1 f . 111 e t I e 2-103) Attachment CC 7 Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 T (949) 6443005 Appeal the Decision of: ❑ Hearing Officer - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Operator License - NBMC §5.25.060 Attention: City Manager) El Planning Commission - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Zoning Administrator (Development Agreements) - NBMC 15.45.080 ❑ Other Appellant Information: Applicable Appeal Fees Pursuant to Master Fee +zy�r�uttt- Hearing Officer - $4,289.00 Operator License - $692.00 Planning Commission - $4,289.00 Zoning Administrator - $4,289.00 Other - $ Name(s): Linda Isle Homeowners Association Address: c/o Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh, 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 (Attn: Michele A. Staples) City/State/Zip: Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 752-8585 Fax: (949) 752-0597 Email: mstaples@jdtplaw.com Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s): City of Newport Beach / The Irvine Co. Date of Decision: Project No.: PA 2012-103 Activity No.:, Site Address: 151 and 201 E. Coast Highway Description of application: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Balboa Marina West Project. 10/02/2014 Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): see attached correspondence. Signature of Appellant: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: City Clerk CC: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff File 20_ F.IUserslClerklSharedlFormslAppeal Application 21-96 Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION October 16, 2014 Direct Dial: 949.851.7409 Email: mstaples@jdtplaw.com Reply to: Irvine Office File No: 6008-46360 VIA E-MAIL (lbrownCrimcwportbcachca.aov) AND HAND DELIVERY City Council Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Bay East, Second Floor 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Appeal re: Planning Commission Approval of Balboa Marina West Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (October 2, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2) Dear Honorable Councilmembers: We represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association ("Linda Isle") in connection with the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Responses to Comments and Errata (collectively, "MND") for the Balboa Marina West project ("Project") proposed by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and The Irvine Company ("TIC"). Linda Isle is the nearest residential community, located directly across the harbor from the Project site. In accordance with City Municipal Code section 20.64, this letter serves as formal notice of Linda Isle's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND on October 2, 2014. We request that this letter be included as part of the administrative record for this matter along with the prior correspondence and materials submitted by Linda Isle. As outlined below, the Planning Commission's approval of the MND should be rescinded for failure to comply with several requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. sec. 15000, et seq.), including, among other things: failing to adequately analyze and mitigate potential Project -specific environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, construction noise, operational noise, vibration from pile driving, light and glare, and water use impacts; failing to adequately analyze and mitigate cumulative impacts of the Project together with the adjacent Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project associated with air quality, Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 www.jdtplaw.com Irvine, California 92614 Westlake Village, California 91361 1949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 21-97 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 2 construction noise, operational noise, aesthetics, light and glare, and traffic impacts; piecemealing its analysis of the Project; and failing to provide a stable Project description. The Planning Commission erred in approving the MND despite these serious defects which, both individually and collectively, support a fair argument that the analysis in the MND is inadequate and that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b).) The City Council should, accordingly, vacate the Planning Commission's decision and direct Staff to revise and re -circulate the MND to incorporate the additional Project impact analyses, corrections, clarifications, and mitigation measures discussed below, or otherwise prepare an environmental impact report due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. The MND Violates CEOA By Failing to Analvze and Mitigate the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project Together With the Approved Back Bav Landing Project. CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate a project's cumulative impacts when "viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobablefutureprojects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(c) (emphasis added).) Projects currently under environmental review unequivocally qualify as reasonably probable future projects to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74, fn.13.) In addition, projects anticipated beyond the near future should be analyzed for their cumulative effect if they are reasonably foreseeable. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n (1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 284.) The cumulative impacts concept recognizes that "[t]he full environmental impact of a proposed ... action cannot be gauged in a vacuum." (Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408.) The requirement of a cumulative impacts analysis of project's regional impacts is considered a "vital provision" of CEQA. (Bozung, 13 Ca1.3d at p. 283.) Moreover, an EIR must examine not only the anticipated cumulative impacts, but also reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b)(3).) Both the "D's Response to Comments submitted by Linda Isle on September 17, 2014 and the City's presentation to the Planning Commission on October 2, 2014 confirm that the MND mistakenly evaluated only the cumulative impacts of the Project together with the portion of the Back Bay Landing project located north of East Coast Highway. The MND failed to analyze any potential cumulative impacts of the Planning Area 2 portion of the Back Bay Landing project located south of East Coast Highway. (Response to Comments, p. 28, and October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [see Planning Commission hearing recording at 28:40].) The Back Bay Landing project, which is a proposed mixed-use bayfront village development, includes five proposed planning areas. Planning Areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 are located on the north side of East Coast Highway, while Planning Area 2 is located directly adjacent to the Project site on the south side of East Coast Highway. According to the City, the 21-98 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 3 MND evaluated the cumulative impacts of Planning Areas 1 and 3-5, but did not disclose or evaluate any potential cumulative impacts of Planning Area 2. (See Attachment Ito October 2, 2014, hearing submittal package [Aerial Map of Nearby Projects].) The City approved the future development of commercial and recreational marine land uses on Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. During the October 2nd Planning Commission hearing, City staff explained that it considers the MND's failure to evaluate any environmental impacts associated with the Planning Area 2 portion of the Back Bay Landing project to be a non -issue based on the City's assumption that there couldn't be any cumulative impacts attributable to Planning Area 2. (October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 1:09:50].) Contrary to the City's statements during the October 2nd hearing, the failure to account for any impacts from Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project is a significant error that affects all of the cumulative impact analyses. For example, the MND's aesthetics analysis is clearly inadequate as the visual simulations included as Appendix L do not reflect any development on Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. Similarly, the MND includes no analysis of the potential cumulative light and glare, noise, traffic and air quality impacts that may result from the proposed Project together with Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project during periods when both projects are being constructed or operated. In addition, although both projects obtain access from Bayside Drive, the cumulative traffic analysis does not address Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. The City cannot approve findings that there would be no significant cumulative environmental impacts based upon technical studies that never even evaluated the question. By evaluating only a portion of the adjacent Back Bay Landing project's environmental impacts, the MND violates the cumulative impact analysis requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The MND must be revised and recirculated to disclose, analyze and mitigate the potential cumulative impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project together with the entire Back Bay Landing project, including Planning Area 2. 2. The MND Must be Revised to Include Additional Information Necessary to Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Temporary and Permanent Noise and Vibration Impacts to Linda Isle Residents. The Wieland Acoustics Report prepared in connection with the Project measured noise impacts at only two locations — neither of which were on Linda Isle. (See Technical Appendix J, Wieland Report, pp. 17-18, Figure 8-1.) Rather, the MND relied entirely on outdated monitoring data gathered in 2008-2009 by a different consultant (Anchor QEA) analyzing noise impacts to a Linda Isle residents for a different project (Balboa Marina Dock Replacement project) that fails to account for current conditions and ambient noise levels at Linda Isle. The MND and underlying Wieland Report cannot accurately analyze noise impacts to Linda Isle associated with construction and operation of the Project without current baseline noise measurements from this nearest sensitive receptor location. The MND must be revised and a supplemental noise analysis prepared that discloses and analyzes these impacts based on current, measurable data from Linda 21-99 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 4 Isle, the nearest sensitive receptor most likely to be affected by the Project's construction and operational noise impacts. The MND states that the restaurant proposed to be constructed as part of the Project, particularly music and events conducted on the restaurant's outdoor patio, has the potential to violate the City's Noise Ordinance and produce significant noise levels at residences on Linda Isle. (MND, p. 5-105.) However, based on noise measurements performed for other restaurants in the City and "taking into account the distances to the nearest residences on Linda Isle or Bayshore Drive (270' to 650')," the MND concludes that any such impacts would be less than significant and therefore mitigation is not required. In fact, the only mitigation measure included in the MND other than temporary construction mitigation, is a requirement that the applicant for the restaurant/bar/lounge/nightclub perform an acoustical study as part of any conditional use permit application to verify that the proposed business operations comply with the City's noise ordinance. (MND, p. 5-108 [MM N-1].) Additionally, the MND's analysis of construction noise impacts and mitigation is inadequate. Although the City required a noise barrier as mitigation for construction within the Back Bay Landing project's Planning Area 2, which is located farther away from Linda Isle, no such mitigation has been included for the Project. The MND is inadequate and insufficient to disclose, analyze and mitigate the Project's potential noise impacts to Linda Isle residents. Moreover, delaying the analysis and mitigation of noise impacts to Linda Isle until after the use permit application is submitted is also a violation of CEQA's prohibition on deferred mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b).) "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. [Citations.]" (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Ca1.App.3d 296, 307.) Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. (See, e.g., Gentry v. Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396 [conditioning a permit on "recommendations of a report that had yet to be performed" constituted improper deferral of mitigation]; Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 1261, 1275 [deferral is impermissible when the agency "simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report"]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 ["mitigation measure [that] does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, ... without setting any standards" found improper deferral]; Sandstrom, supra; 202 CaLApp.3d at p. 306 [future study of hydrology and sewer disposal problems held impermissible]; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1605, fn. 4 [city is prohibited from relying on "postapproval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process"].) 21-100 Atm: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 5 Assuming that a restaurant is included in the commercial building, the MND should, at minimum, be revised to incorporate additional mitigation measures to address noise impacts from the proposed restaurant and patio, including prohibiting any patio or other outdoor use of the restaurant's south side closest to Linda Isle, prohibiting amplification, and requiring installation of sound attenuating windows at the restaurant's south side. The City also should incorporate mitigation consistent with the measures approved for the nearby 333 restaurant to require outdoor dining to be attenuated to the same sound level as the main restaurant building when all exterior openings are closed. (City Council Resolution No. 2011-80, see Attachment 3 to October 2, 2014, hearing submittal package.) hi addition to the impacts associated with the proposed restaurant and outdoor patio, the MND fails to provide any analysis of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed restaurant along the marina frontage. The Project does include a designated public pedestrian walkway that will direct pedestrians from the parking areas along East Coast Highway to the restaurant and public docks (see Figure 3-7); however, there is no impediment or restriction that would prevent these same pedestrians and restaurant customers from choosing to instead walk along the docks within much closer proximity to Linda Isle residences. Allowing public access along the south side of the commercial building by late night revelers and customers of the proposed restaurant and visitors to the public dock would generate additional noise impacts to Linda Isle residents above and beyond the impacts attributable to the restaurant and outdoor patio. The City must, accordingly, revise the MND to disclose these additional potential noise impacts and incorporate measures to restrict public pedestrian access along the private Balboa Marina portion of the Project site. According to the MND and information included in the Stantec grading report, the parking area is to be reconfigured and raised in some areas as much as 9 feet above existing grade. Additionally, restaurant parking use will be a significant expansion over existing parking usage at the Project site and will generate increased noise impacts to Linda Isle residents. There are currently no measures proposed to mitigate potential noise impacts from these changes. The MND must be revised to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design to address noise from increased vehicles entering and leaving the site, car alarms, and other potential sources of parking lot -related noise. Further, the MND mistakenly concludes that there is no risk of structural damage to residences on Linda Isle (or any other structures) due to low vibration impacts caused by pile driving and boring activities. This conclusion is groundless and contrary to the language in the Wieland Report acknowledging that "the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils)." (Technical Appendix J, Wieland Report, p. 15.) There is no dispute that the soils in the water bottom where the primary pile driving activities will be conducted consist of loose sand (MND, p. 5-66) thereby increasing the risk of dynamic settlement and associated structural damage. Additional information and mitigation is required regarding geology and construction methods for the proposed subterranean restaurant parking garage. The MND must be revised to incorporate additional analysis of these risks and mitigation measures designed to address the 21-101 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 6 potential structural impacts to Linda Isle residences associated with the boring and pile driving activities. Moreover, the City's analysis in the MND regarding potential construction vibration impacts is premised on the fact that there were no such impacts to Linda Isle during construction of the 2008 marina dock replacement project. However, the 2008 project included several vibration -related mitigation measures and a monitoring program that are not included in the MND and/or required for the current Balboa Marina West project. (Response to Comments, p. 29.) The fact that fewer pilings will be installed at a distance slightly further from Linda Isle than occurred in 2008 does not mean that there will be no impacts to Linda Isle and therefore no requirement for mitigation. (Id.; October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 1:08:00].) In order to ensure that there will be no construction vibration impacts to Linda Isle during construction of the current project, the City should, at minimum, impose the same measures and require the same monitoring program required on the 2008 project. The City cannot expect to have the same result — no impacts — without the same protective measures in place. CEQA declares that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of California with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. (Pub. Resources Code, § 2 100 1, subd. (b).) The MND must evaluate the potential noise impacts to Linda Isle residences both during the construction period and following Project completion based on actual, measurable data. The City cannot defer its analysis of these impacts and the development of mitigation until after permit plans are submitted. (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.AppAth at p. 1605, fn. 4.) The City must analyze and incorporate feasible mitigation measures now to mitigate the Project's direct and indirect noise impacts. In the absence of such measures, the right of Linda Isle residents to quiet enjoyment of their properties will be significantly impaired. 3. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information and Analysis of the Project's Water and Wastewater Demands. The Project proposes a two-story commercial building with up to 19,400 square feet of commercial space and tuck -under parking that would accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina bathrooms and an office for the yacht brokerage business that will be displaced from the small onsite building that is proposed for demolition, and associated landscaping. (MND, p. 3-5.) According to the Water and Wastewater Generation Estimate prepared by the City's consultant, Stantec, the water and wastewater figures were calculated based upon Land Use and Water Use factors provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") for generic "Community Commercial" land uses, not for the Project's proposed restaurant, yacht brokerage business offices, public restrooms, associated landscaping, and other uses included in the Project description. 21-102 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 7 Additionally, the water use analysis does not address the January 17, 2014, Governor Proclamation No. 1-17-2014 declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions. The January Proclamation notes that the State is experiencing record dry conditions, with 2014 projected to become the driest year on record. Due to the State's dry conditions, lack of precipitation and the resulting effects on drinking water supplies, the January Proclamation calls on all Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. The MND does not analyze the Project's water use compared with existing water use at the Project site, or otherwise address how the Project's restaurant and landscape irrigation and other water demands comply with the Proclamation. Also, although the landscaping water use estimates are based on low water use plants (City Response to Comments, p. 40 [Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations]), this is inconsistent with the City's assertion that a "landscape zone densely planted with trees" will block headlight impacts to residents of Linda Isle from the raised northern portion of the reconfigured parking lot, and that the Project's water conservation measures rely on cut-backs to irrigation water. (Response to Comments, p. 31 [Response to Linda Isle Comment No. 4].) Absent this information, the MND's water/wastewater analysis is inadequate and must be revised. 4. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information and Analysis of the Project's Aesthetic Impacts. The MND's analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts fails to adequately address the potential light and glare impacts to Linda Isle residents from the commercial building windows, and reconfiguration and intensified use of the parking lot and internal circulation. As noted above, the MND and information included in the Stantec grading report show that the parking area will be raised as much as 9 feet above existing grade. This increase would create the potential for vehicle headlights and parking lot lights to shine across the water directly into Linda Isle residences. Although there is currently no screening in place for the southern portion of the parking lot adjacent to the marina docks directly across from Linda Isle under existing conditions, use of this area will be significantly intensified with the new commercial building and public dock. The dense foliage referenced in the City's response to Linda Isle's comments (Response to Comments, p. 31) is not required by the Project's landscaping plans or mitigation measures, and there is currently no Project standard or mitigation measure requiring shielding of headlights and parking lot lights. The maintenance of dense foliage in the northern parking lot is also inconsistent with the City's reliance on cut-backs of landscape irrigation to comply with drought -level water restrictions. The MND must be revised to disclose, analyze and incorporate changes to the Project design or enforceable measures to mitigate potential light and glare from vehicles entering and leaving the Project site, such as Plexiglas shields along the perimeter of the parking lot. In addition, the MND states that the proposed commercial building will be a maximum 40 feet high from existing grade. (MND, p. 3-5.) This is inconsistent with the City's recent approval of the development plan for Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing Project, located 21-103 Atm: Leilam I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 8 immediately adjacent to the Project site south of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge. The original development plan for Planning Area 2 would have allowed for 35 feet for flat roofs and 40 feet for sloped roofs; however, the City revised these standards to limit building heights in Planning Area 2 to a maximum 26 feet for flat roofs or 31 feet for sloped roofs. The City should impose the same height requirements on the Project's proposed commercial building in order to reduce visual impacts and ensure consistency between development approvals in the surrounding area. 5. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information of the Project's Gradine Impacts. The MND "assumes a haul distance of one -mile as the source for imported material." (MND, p. 3-7.) There is no analysis of the potential traffic impacts associated with traveling back and forth from the source location to the Project site. In fact, neither the MND nor the April 14, 2014, Traffic Study prepared on behalf of the City by Kurtzman Associates, Inc., includes any information about earthwork -related traffic impacts. These impacts could be potentially significant depending on the number of trips required to transport the material and other considerations for which there was no information or analysis provided in the MND. The City's response to Linda Isle's comments on this point states only that the Project proponent, TIC, owns several properties nearby from which the earth material would be hauled and therefore the assumption of a one -mile haul distance is "accurate." (Response to Comments, p. 32.) However, there is no specific information provided about the addresses of these properties, their distance from the Project site and/or their capacity to store earth material. Absent this information, the MND fails to provide a full and complete analysis of the Project's grading impacts and, accordingly, must be revised. 6. The City Has "Piecemealed" the Project's Environmental Analysis and Failed to Provide a Stable Project Description. Under CEQA, a "`Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...... (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) A "`project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c).) The lead agency must consider "[a]]1 phases of project planning, implementation, and operation." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(1).) CEQA prohibits a lead agency from "segmenting" or "piecemealing" a project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. The California Supreme Court has explained that the requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from "chopping a large project into many little ones — each with a minimal potential impact on the environment — which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) Rather, the examination of a "project" requires an analysis of "all relevant parts of a project, including reasonably foreseeable future expansion or other activities that are part of the project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of University of Cal (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 394.) 21-104 Atm: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 9 Likewise, "[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the Sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Cnty. oflnyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 193.) During the October 2nd Planning Commission hearing, Dan Miller of TIC, which is a co - applicant for the Project along with the City, told the Commission that the commercial building proposed as part of the Project may or may not be a restaurant. (October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 103:30].) The proposed commercial building could be any one of numerous commercial uses permitted in the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) zoning designation under the City's Municipal Code, each of which would involve varying degrees of noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts. Additionally, the City has attempted to justify its failure to disclose, analyze and mitigate several of the Project -specific environmental impacts discussed above on grounds that its action is simply "approval in concept" of the Project and that the analyses will be undertaken at a later stage in the approval process. The City cannot find that the Project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts when it has not disclosed or analyzed potential impacts of the Project's uses described in the MND. The City cannot piecemeal its CEQA analysis on the grounds that potential impacts will be evaluated and corresponding mitigation measures developed in the future when applications for the ultimate development projects for the Balboa Marina West commercial building are submitted (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b)). The MND's analysis of the Project's impacts and proposed mitigation measures is inadequate, and the Project description itself is not stable or finite, in violation of CEQA. The MND must be revised and recirculated to disclose, analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project as described in the MND. The MND Must be Revised and Recirculated. Under CEQA section 21068, a significant environmental impact is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 requires a lead agency to re -circulate a negative declaration when the MND must be revised to address any new, avoidable significant effect that is identified and to add mitigation measures or project revisions in order to reduce the effect to insignificance. Revision and recirculation of the MND for public comment would be required because the proposed MND has not analyzed or mitigated several "potentially substantial adverse environmental effects" discussed above. (Vineyard, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 447-448.) In order for the City to approve the MND, measures must be added to fully mitigate the potential impacts discussed above. Otherwise, because there is substantial evidence in the record to support a "fair argument" that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA would require preparation of an EIR instead of a MND. (Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, supra, 160 Ca1.AppAth at p. 1331; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1399-1400.) 21-105 Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 10 8. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above and in the prior correspondence and exhibits submitted by Linda Isle, Linda Isle respectfully requests that the City Council: (i) vacate the Planning Commission's October 2, 2014, decision to approve the MND and the Project; and (ii) and direct Staff to revise and re -circulate the MND to incorporate the additional Project corrections, clarifications, and mitigation measures discussed above, or, alternatively, prepare an environmental impact report due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. Sincerely, TAIle A. Staples cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Members Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director David Kiff, City Manager Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney Dan Miller, The Irvine Company 21-106 I E Attachment CC 8 14 ITustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA JN 923-003 P L A N N I G 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 (714.505.6361 MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach From: Tracy Zinn, Principal Re: BALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION Date: November 13, 2014 As the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Consultant contracted to the City of Newport Beach for the Balboa Marina West project, you asked that I supply an analysis of the points raised by Jackson I DeMarco I Tidus Peckenpaugh Law Corporation ("JDTP Law") as part of an appeal application filed on October 16, 2014, regarding the Planning Commission's October 2, 2014, approval of the Balboa Marina West Project ("Project") and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND"). JDTP Law represents the Linda Isle Homeowners Association. A letter attached to the appeal application suggests that the Balboa Marina West IS/MND did not comply with CEQA and requests that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission's approval of the IS/MND. As indicated by the analysis provided below, none of the information provided in the JDTP Law letter demonstrates a need to incorporate "substantial revisions" to the public review draft IS/MND as defined by CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. Therefore, it is our professional opinion as the City's CEQA Consultant that none of the discussion points raised by JDTP Law warrant recirculation of the draft IS/MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. NOTE: There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which causes the page numbering sequence to repeat (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, the second page 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason, page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given below for all page number references. Summary of Appeal Application Point 1 The appeal application claims that the IS/MND violates CEQA by failing to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project together with the approved Back Bay Landing project, including portions of the Back Bay Landing project located south of East Coast Highway ("Planning Area 2"). Analysis of Application Point 1 The Back Bay Landing project involves various legislative approvals for a site located north of the Balboa Marina West property (and primarily on the north side of East Coast Highway), that would lead to the reasonably foreseeable development of an integrated, mixed-use village comprised of visitor -serving commercial, marine services, and limited residential uses. Project -level applications, such as a Site Development Review, have not yet been submitted for Back Bay Landing. The Back Bay Landing EIR (SCH No. 2012101003) analyzed the proposed legislative approvals as well as a conceptual physical development plan provided by the Back Bay Landing project applicant that represents a development design that could occur on the property pursuant to the legislative approvals. The conceptual design is not approved; it was merely studied in the Back Bay Landing EIR to disclose the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects that could eventually result from the requested legislative approvals. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-107 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 2 of 11 P LAN NIN The portion of the Back Bay Landing project site located southerly of East Coast Highway and referred to as "Planning Area 2" is identified for a maximum development of 8,390 square feet (s.f.) of building area, inclusive of the "Boat Service & Marine Related Office" use planned in the southern portion of Planning Area 2 and the "Kayak & Stand Up Paddle Board Rental, Launch, and Storage" use planned beneath the East Coast Highway bay bridge. (Newport Beach, October 2013; Back Bay Landing EIR, Table 2-2 and Figure 2-6) As more fully described below, the Back Bay Landing project was considered a cumulative development project by the Balboa Marina West IS/MND, and there are no portions of the Back Bay Landing project with a potential to result in cumulatively considerable effects beyond what is already identified and disclosed in the Balboa Marina West IS/MND. Contrary to statements made in the JDTP Law appeal application, the IS/MND did not fail to evaluate cumulative effects associated with the Back Bay Landing project, including Planning Area 2. Rather, Pages 5-6 of the September 23, 2014 responses to comments prepared by T&B Planning, provided herein as Attachment A, establish that the draft IS/MND listed approved projects studied for cumulative effects and inadvertently failed to list pending projects that were under consideration and not yet approved. However, Table 7 of the Project's traffic study (IS/MND Technical Appendix K, p. 44) listed the Back Bay Landing project and studied it as a cumulative project. Thus, although its listing was omitted from the draft IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128), Back Bay Landing was considered and evaluated in the IS/MND analyses and in the analyses provided in Technical Appendices A (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas), J (Noise), and K (Traffic). Furthermore, the IS/MND appropriately considered the cumulative effects of the Back Bay Landing project, including Planning Area 2, under other issue areas that were not reliant on technical studies. Regarding the cumulative evaluation of aesthetics, the Back Bay Landing project primarily is located on the north side of East Coast Highway whereas the Balboa Marina West project is proposed on the south side of East Coast Highway. The highway provides a clear visual separation. Only up to 8,390 square feet of non-residential uses are contemplated to be constructed southerly of the centerline for East Coast Highway as part of the Back Bay Landing project, and a portion of this square footage would be accommodated beneath the bridge of East Coast Highway and would not be visible from key viewing points in the surrounding area. In addition, the Back Bay Landing FIR concluded that the Back Bay Landing project's aesthetic impacts would be less than significant on both a direct and cumulative basis, requiring no mitigation. As stated in the Back Bay Landing EIR, "[i]mplementation of the proposed [Back Bay Landing] project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, including public views of scenic resources from City -designated Public View Points and Coastal View Corridors. This impact [to views/scenic vistas] is considered less than significant." (Back Bay Landing EIR, p. ES -14). In its evaluation of cumulative effects, the Back Bay Landing EIR considered future buildout of Balboa Marina West with "up to 35,000 square feet of marine commercial uses" (Back Bay Landing EIR Table 3-2, p. 3-7), which is 45% more square footage that the Balboa Marina West Project proposes. The Back Bay Landing FIR was certified by the City of Newport Beach, was not contested, and is presumed by law to be legally adequate. Consistent with the conclusion reached in the Back Bay Landing EIR, the one building of up to 19,400 square feet proposed on the Balboa Marina West property would have a less than significant potential to result in a significant, cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact. Additionally, the Back Bay Landing project, similar to the Balboa Marina West Project, requires review and approval by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in order to move forward in its entitlement process. If the CCC approves the Back Bay Landing project, Back Bay Landing will need to obtain additional discretionary approvals from the City of Newport Beach in order to be implemented, including but not limited to a Site Development Review(s) that will specify details such as building placement, size, and architecture. The only approvals that would be effectuated if the CCC approval is granted are General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan amendments and a Planned Community Development Plan, which serves as zoning, to provide the legislative framework for future development of the Back Bay Landing site. Specific designs for buildings that would be located in Planning Area 2 and other areas of Back Bay www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-108 IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 3 of 11 P LAN NIN Landing have not been provided to the City and will not be submitted unless and until the Back Bay Landing Project obtains approval from the CCC. Thus, any visual simulation depicting buildings on the Back Bay Landing site would be conceptual in nature because the precise architectural characteristics and design are not known at this time. With regard to potential cumulative effects associated with light and glare, the Back Bay Landing site occurs to the north of the Balboa Marina West Project site. The area targeted for development with a "Boat Service & Marine Related Office" would be north of the proposed Balboa Marina West marine commercial building, and thus there would be no line -of -sight between future building(s) within Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project and key off-site viewing areas, such as residences located on Linda Isle. Similarly, because the future building(s) within Planning Area 2 would occur at an elevation that is approximately 15 feet below the East Coast Highway bridge, no components of the future building(s) within Planning Area 2 would have the potential to contribute cumulatively considerable light or glare impacts to traffic/pedestrians along East Coast Highway. The Back Bay Landing EIR, which considered up to 35,000 square feet of future development on the Balboa Marina West property, did not identify any significant cumulative effects. The City has clarified the list of evaluated cumulative projects in the Balboa Marina IS/MND Errata as presented to the Planning Commission, and that list is repeated below. The full list of projects includes the Back Bay Landing project and was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. List of Cumulative Projects evaluated in the Balboa Marina West IS/MND: APPROVED Fashion Island Expansion Temple Bat Yahm Expansion Ciosa - Irvine Project Newport Dunes Hoag Hospital Phase III St. Mark Presbyterian Church 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Executive Court Hoag Health Center North Newport Center Santa Barbara Condo (Marriott) Newport Beach City Hall 328 Old Newport Medical Office Coastline Community College Bayview Medical Office Mariner's Point 4221 Dolphin Striker San Joaquin Hills Plaza www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-109 IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 4 of 11 P LAN NIN Uptown Newport (Phase 2) Uptown Newport (Phase 1) Marina Park PENDING Koll-Conexant Back Bay Landing Banning Ranch Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Hotel Newport Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Summary Of Appeal Application Point 2 The appeal application suggests that the Wieland Acoustics Report and the IS/MND's analysis of temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts were inadequate because: a) they did not consider current conditions on Linda Isle and the IS/MND analysis of construction noise impacts and mitigation is inadequate; b) the IS/MND defers analysis/mitigation of noise impacts associated with development of the Project under long-term operating conditions; c) the IS/MND does not include adequate mitigation for operational -related noise impacts; d) the noise analysis fails to consider potential noise impacts from pedestrians and parking areas; e) the IS/MND does not adequately address increased noise impacts associated with proposed grading characteristics of the parking lot; and f) the IS/MND does not adequately address structural damage due to vibration impacts during pile driving and boring activities and that the City improperly relies on field data collected during the Balboa Marina 2008 marina dock replacement project. Analysis of Appeal Application Point 2 Ambient noise measurements were not obtained on Linda Isle as part of the Balboa Marina West IS/MND due to private property issues. Noise measurements were obtained by the firm Weiland Acoustics in May 2014 at the seawall on the Balboa Marina West Project site and in June 2014 across East Coast Highway near the mobile home park as representative noise levels in the surrounding area. Reported noise measurements were 60.1 dBA at the on-site seawall and 59.5 dBA at the off-site mobile home park. The seawall noise measurement location is only 260 feet north of Linda Isle. Additional noise measurements taken from inside Linda Isle would not have altered the analysis or the findings of the IS/MND or the noise study appended to the IS/MND as Appendix J. This is because the noise study took the most conservative approach possible when assessing the impact of the Project's operational noise levels on the residents of Linda Isle. For evaluation of Project compliance with the City Municipal Code noise standards applied as significance criteria in the IS/MND, the analysis assumed that Linda Isle is currently exposed to ambient noise levels that are at or below the City's nighttime standard of 50 dBA for residential uses. If ambient measurements had been obtained at Linda Isle, and if those measurements had indicated that the actual ambient noise level was higher than 50 dBA, the City's Municipal Code would have permitted a higher noise standard to be applied to the Project (the actual, higher ambient level), thus allowing the Project to lawfully produce more noise. If ambient measurements had been obtained at Linda Isle, and if those measurements had indicated that the actual ambient noise level was lower than 50 dBA, the City's Municipal Code standard would still apply (i.e., the 50 dBA nighttime standard for residential uses). Thus, www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-110 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 5 of 11 P LA NNIN application of the City's Municipal Code standard of 50 dBA for nighttime noise levels provides the most stringent criteria for the evaluation of operational noise impacts from the Project. As concluded in the IS/MND and the noise study (Technical Appendix J), a potentially significant noise impact would only occur if the proposed building has noise -generating activities on an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process, it is not known whether the future building will have such noise -generating uses. In addition, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known, including the precise location and design of any outdoor patio. As such, the IS/MND properly concludes that an acoustical study will be required once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the building tenants are known as required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 specifies the requirement for the subsequent acoustical study and provides a performance measure (compliance with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.909(E) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which address noise.) Because any necessary noise attenuation measures would be identified as part of an acoustical study that is required to be performed when the design characteristics of the building are determined, and because these measures cannot be determined until a specific use is identified within the building, the IS/MND does not violate CEQA's prohibition on deferred mitigation and instead provides a performance-based mitigation standard that must be achieved as part of future implementing actions to ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance. According to David Wieland, Principal Consultant of Wieland Acoustics with more than 30 years of experience in acoustical and vibration analyses, the noise impacts disclosed in the Project's acoustical study account for noise impacts associated with both pedestrian traffic and parking -related traffic. The SoundPLAN model used by Wieland to analyze parking lot noise levels (refer to Section 9.2.3 of Technical Appendix J) included a +3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot. This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. In addition, the issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of Technical Appendix J. As indicated in the Wieland Acoustics study, it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot (vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, patrons talking, etc.) will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards, as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, mitigation is not required or recommended. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot would not be a new introduced activity. The appeal application notes that a portion of the proposed parking area would be raised above existing grade, and JDTP Law claims the grade change could further expose residents on Linda Isle to significant noise levels. To clarify, the 313 -stall parking lot that currently exists on the property is tiered, and steps down from East Coast Highway to the existing seawall. To maintain a similar tiered parking lot design, the Project proposes to lower some portions of the existing parking lot and raise other portions of the lot. Attachment B to this memo (excerpted from the Project's administrative record on file with the City of Newport Beach) illustrates the proposed grade changes. As shown, areas colored red on Attachment B would be lowered in grade and areas colored blue would be raised. The portion of the parking lot nearest the seawall and closest to Linda Isle would be lowered in grade by approximately 3 inches to 1.71 feet compared to existing conditions. The middle portion of the existing parking lot would be raised in grade by approximately 1. 16 feet to feet to 10.52 feet. The raised middle section would contain a landscaped island, reconfigured drive isle, and approximately 29 parking stalls. Noise impacts associated with the proposed parking areas and associated grade changes were accounted for in the Project's acoustical study (Technical Appendix J). The analysis concludes that parking lot noise would be below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards, as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. As shown on IS/MND Figure 5-12, noise from the reconfigured parking lot is calculated to be approximately 48 dBA at Linda Isle, which is below the City's residential nighttime noise standard of 50 dBA. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21 -iii IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l Page 6 of 11 P LAN NIN The appeal application suggests that the IS/MND's analysis of noise and vibration effects on residences on Linda Isle was defective because it relied on data gathered during the 2008/9 noise and vibration monitoring conducted by Anchor QEA at Linda Isle during the construction of the original Balboa Marina dock replacement project. The data used in the IS/MND and Technical Appendix J is not outdated. For existing conditions, Technical Appendix J relied on ambient noise measurements collected by Weiland Acoustics in May 2014 at the seawall on the Balboa Marina West Project site, which is only approximately 260 feet from Linda Isle with no intervening loud sources of noise. The data used to predict future construction -related noise and vibration levels relied on actual, extensively measured construction activity in the same physical location as the proposed Project in 2008/9. The 2008/9 Balboa Marina dock replacement project involved demolition, seawall repair, pile installation, dredging, and new marina construction and the same contractor, equipment types, and construction techniques are proposed to be employed by the currently proposed Project. Thus, instead of relying on theoretical noise and vibration modeling, the 1S/MND assumed as a worst-case assumption that the same level of noise and vibration would be experienced by surrounding properties as a result of the currently proposed Project as occurred from the more extensive construction and pile driving processes measured in 2008/9. Reliance on actual field -collected data from the same type of activity that occurred in the same location several years ago is the most accurate way to predict maximum noise and vibration levels. The passage of time has no bearing on the accuracy of the collected data to represent expected worst-case conditions. No changes have occurred to the physical environment since 2008/9 to indicate that the noise and vibration monitoring data collected in 2008/9 would not be representative of worst-case predicted noise and vibration levels from the proposed Project, which proposes to use the same contractor, equipment types, and construction techniques. The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA (included as Enclosure 1 of Technical Appendix J) showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the Project site's vicinity, including at Linda Isle, in 2008/9 when the marina was reconstructed. Because the waterside improvements associated with the proposed Balboa Marina West project would include fewer piles than with 2008/9 reconstruction, and because most of the piles are proposed be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the 2008/9 reconstruction, it is the professional opinion of Wieland Acoustics, based on substantial evidence from the 2008/9 monitoring program, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements. Thus, the IS/MND properly concludes that mitigation measures for vibration during construction are unnecessary to ensure that impacts remain below a level of significance. The appeal application cites a number of cases for the proposition that CEQA prohibits deferred mitigation. (See Appeal at p. 4.) Under CEQA, it is ordinarily inappropriate to defer formulation of a mitigation measure to the future. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) However, the CEQA Guidelines acknowledge exceptions to the general rule against deferred formulation of mitigation measures, and explain that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact that might be accomplished in various ways. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) For example, in Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council, 229 Cal. App. 3d 1011 (1991), the court held that an agency may defer committing to specific mitigation measures when it approves a project if the measures that will be considered subsequently are described and performance criteria are identified. (Id. at 1029 [acknowledging that when it is known that mitigation is feasible, but it is impractical to devise specific mitigation measures during the planning process, "the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval."].) The cases cited in the appeal also recognize this exception. Appellant cites Defend the Bay v. City oflrvine, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1275 (2004), for its statement that deferral is impermissible when the agency "simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report." (Appeal at p. 4.) However, Defend the Bay actually found no improper deferral of mitigation, even though future investigations and consultation with regulatory agencies were required. The court held that an agency may defer defining the specifics of mitigation measures if it "commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed, and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan." (Defend the Bay, 119 Cal. App. 4th at 1275.) www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-112 IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 7 of 11 P LAN NIN Likewise, the appeal cites to Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange, 131 Cal. App. 4th 777 (2005) for a similar proposition. In Endangered Habitats League, however, the court rejected one measure that did not include any criteria or standards but upheld ten others that included performance criteria and mitigation commitments. For example, the court rejected a challenge to water quality mitigation because the EIR required specific "best management practices" to be implemented as part of a water quality plan. The court also upheld a habitat mitigation measure because the FIR called for off-site preservation of habitat at a specified ratio or obtaining habitat loss permits from relevant agencies. Here, Mitigation Measure MM N-1 sets forth specific performance criteria for the required acoustical study and noise attenuation measures by requiring that the measures ensure compliance with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.909(E) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which address noise. Therefore, because the proposed building is not yet designed and a tenant is not yet identified, it is too early in the planning process to commit to specific noise attenuation measures; because specific performance standards are required by MM N-1, the IS/MND does not improperly defer the formulation of mitigation measures for noise. Summary of Appeal Application Point 3 The appeal application requests revisions to the IS/MND to provide additional information and analysis of the Project's water and wastewater demands. Analysis of Appeal Application Point 3 IS/MND Section 3.1.23 states that based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the proposed marine commercial building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of water and 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity. As noted in the City's responses to comments on the draft IS/MND, dated September 23, 2014 and included herein as Attachment A, water and wastewater demand calculations were re-evaluated by the Project's engineer (Stantec), which concluded that the Project would result in a slight increase in demand for irrigation water as compared to what was disclosed by the IS/MND (4,479 gpd as compared to 3,395 gpd). There would be no change in the Project's wastewater demand as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the IS/MND. IS/MND Section 5.4.17 (electronic version p. 5-127 and printed version p. 123), was updated in the Errata to indicate a total normal year water demand of 4,479 gpd, including water demand for landscaping taking no credit for water used by existing uses on the property (including landscaping). The total water demand would result in a less -than -significant impact to the environment. The Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assumes build -out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designates the Project site as Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) and would allow up to approximately 35,000 s.f of building area. The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation and proposes only up to 19,400 s. f. of building area, and thus its water demand is planned for by the UWMP, and the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. The use of the IRWD "Community Commercial" land use designation also is appropriate for the Project because the Project would be served by the IRWD, and because the IRWD does not identify any specific water usage rates for restaurant uses. As shown in the Table 3-1 "Land Use and Water Factors" in the memorandum prepared by Stantec and dated September 23, 2014, (see attachment to Attachment A), IRWD does not have a water usage category for restaurant. Restaurants fall under the IRWD Community Commercial category. Moreover, at this early stage of the planning process, it is not known whether the future building will accommodate restaurant or other commercial occupants. Thus, the IS/MND properly relied on water demand rates supplied by the IRWD for the Community Commercial land use designation. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-113 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 8 of 11 P LAN NIN This year, the Governor of California issued Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed Project, like all development in the City, would be required to implement the necessary measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd. This would be achievable through conservation efforts by the marine commercial building tenant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations imposed by the City. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements. As concluded in the IS/MND, a less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. Finally, the landscaping water use estimates were based on the Project's proposed conceptual landscape plan, which shows the planned location of landscaping and types of plant material. There is no evidence to suggest the Project's water demand associated with landscaping would be excessive; on the contrary, future landscaping plans would be reviewed by the City for compliance with the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. Thus, there is not an internal inconsistency between the IS/MND's discussion of water demand and the IS/MND's discussion of aesthetic and noise impacts which discusses how the Project's landscaping features would serve as screening. The City revised IS/MND as presented in an Errata Table to the Planning Commission to accurately reflect the water demand for the entire Project site. The revision is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Application Point 4 The appeal application requests additional information and analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts, particularly related to light, glare, and building height. Analysis of Appeal Application Point 4 The IS/MND contains an extensive evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, including the effects of light, glare, and scenic view obstruction associated with building height. The existing Balboa Marina parking lot is tiered under existing conditions. Some portions of the parking lot are proposed to be raised in grade, and other portions are proposed to be lowered in grade (refer to Attachment B). The parking spaces in the southern portion of the Project site would be lowered, not raised. Also, a portion of the raised area would be located immediately north of the proposed building and the building would block vehicle headlights from view of Linda Isle. In addition, a number of the proposed parking spaces are planned to occur under the proposed marine commercial building, which also would effectively block light from vehicles parked in those spaces from view of Linda Isle. The portion of the parking lot that is proposed to be raised and within view of Linda Isle is designed to be positioned behind a landscape zone densely planted with trees. Refer to IS/MND Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. As shown, a double row of trees is proposed in this landscape island. This landscaped island is a Project design feature, not a mitigation measure. Therefore, there is no potential for vehicle headlights in the reconfigured parking lot to result in a new source of substantial light or glare. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot and light from vehicle headlights would not be a new introduced activity. Please refer to the analysis of Point 3, above, for a discussion of how the proposed landscaping complies with the City's drought -level water restrictions. Regarding the conceptual design of the proposed building, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known. Regardless, the IS/MND presents an extensive evaluation of the maximum permitted bulk and scale of the building, to a maximum height of 40 feet, as allowed pursuant to the site's existing zoning designation. Six (6) visual simulations were prepared, presented in the IS/MND, and analyzed for the building's potential to substantially block public views or result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The IS/MND concluded that the maximum ("worst-case") building www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-114 IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 9 of 11 P LAN NIN height of 40 feet would not substantially block public views or degrade visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, because the specific architectural details of the building are not available at this time, Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and AE -2 are imposed to ensure that when the future building design is reviewed by the City, it meets all of the applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Because impacts would be less than significant, there is no requirement under CEQA to impose a height restriction on the structure beyond the height restriction already imposed by the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. Finally, although a building height of 35 feet was proposed for Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project, the Back Bay Landing FIR did not cite the building height limitation as the basis of its conclusion that there would be a less than significant aesthetic impact resulting from the implementation of Back Bay Landing and other surrounding cumulative projects, including up to 35,000 square feet of future development on the Balboa Marina West property. As noted above, the proposed Project would result in less -than -significant visual effects following incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM AE -I and AE -2. Thus, the imposition of additional height restrictions on the Project is not required pursuant to CEQA. Summary of Appeal Application Point 5 The letter suggests that the 1S/MND should be revised to provide additional information and clarify the project's grading impacts. Analysis of Appeal Application Point 5 The earthwork quantities presented in the IS/MND are accurate. A preliminary calculation conducted by Stantec and attached to the Project's grading plan estimates 3,653 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 7,860 cy of fill. The difference of 2,843 cy (needed fill) would be accomplished by approximately 1,300 cy of upland soils removed as part of the waterside development (IS/MND Subsection 3.2, p. 3-6) and remainder by import. The import quantity using Stantec's calculations would be approximately 1,543 cy whereas the IS/MND identifies 1,364 cy of import. The difference of 179 cy equates to approximately only nine high side dump truck trips (or 18 low -side dump trucks) over the duration of the grading activities, as one high -side dump truck carries approximately 20 cy of material and one low -side dump truck carries approximately 10-12 cy of material . The Project proponent (Irvine Company) owns many properties within one -mile of the Project site, from which the earth material would be hauled. The haul distance of one mile is therefore established, and accurate for analysis. In the unlikely event that the haul distance is greater than one mile, then future discretionary or ministerial actions would be inconsistent with the Project description evaluated in this IS/MND and additional review pursuant to CEQA would be required. Based on the factors identified above, the 1,543 cy of import material would require a total of approximately 77 round trips (154 total one-way truck trips) over the life of grading operations. Even assuming that each haul truck is the equivalent of three passenger cars ("passenger car equivalents," or PCE), the total number of one-way truck trips would equal only 462 PCE one-way trips. As indicated in Table 2 of the traffic impact analysis (IS/MND Technical Appendix K), the proposed marine commercial building would generate approximately 1,506 net one-way trips (accounting for elimination of the existing yacht brokerage). Thus, even in the unlikely scenario in which the entirety of the 1,543 cy of import material were hauled to the site on a single day, and based on a conservative PCE value of 3.0, haul truck trips would represent only 30% of the total 1,506 net one-way trips that would result from the future marine commercial land use. Impacts to traffic associated with Project -related operational trips are fully evaluated in the Project's IS/MND Section 5.4.16, which concludes that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Because the worst-case traffic associated with haul trucks during grading operations represents only a fraction of the Project's operational trips, and because less than significant impacts would occur under operating conditions, it can therefore be concluded that impacts associated with haul truck trips also would be less than significant. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-115 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 10 of 11 P LAN NIN Summary of Appeal Application Point 6 The appeal application suggests that the IS/MND has piecemealed its analysis of the Project's environmental effects by not adequately acknowledging the range of land uses allowed pursuant to the site's existing CM zoning designation, and by providing an inconsistent project description. Analysis of Appeal Application Point 6 Analysis of the Project has not been piecemealed. Under CEQA, the term "project" refers to the activity for which approval is sought, not to each separate governmental approval that may be required for the activity to occur. See CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c). The IS/MND properly evaluated the Project Applicant's Approval in Concept and the reasonably foreseeable future government actions and associated environmental effects that would likely occur to fully implement the Project. Under CEQA's definition of a project, the lead agency must describe the project to encompass the entirety of the activity at the earliest possible stage of approval, to ensure that all potential impacts of the proposed project will be examined, before it is approved. The Project proposes to implement the site's existing CM zoning designation, which allows for a variety of land uses. However, based on a review conducted by the City of the range of land uses permitted by right in the CM zone, it was determined that a restaurant represents the most intensive allowable use due to its associated noise, traffic, and other environmental effects. The IS/MND conservatively assumes that 16,274 s.f. (84%) of the proposed 19,400 s.f building would comprise restaurant uses, with remaining areas anticipated to comprise a replacement for the site's existing yacht brokerage, restrooms, and a small office. There would be no increased environmental effects associated with any of the other allowable uses under the City's CM zoning designation beyond what is already evaluated and disclosed in the Project's IS/MND. Thus, although this comment is technically correct that there would be "varying degrees of noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts" associated with other land uses allowed in the CM zone, any such impacts would be less than or similar to the impacts associated with a restaurant use on-site, as described fully in the IS/MND. A full analysis of all land uses permitted by right under the City's CM zoning designation is not necessary because there would be no increase to any impacts beyond what is already identified, disclosed, and, where necessary, mitigated to a level below significant. Although the Project currently under consideration comprises only an "Approval in Concept," the IS/MND includes an exhaustive analysis of the proposed Project, including impacts that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of future implementing discretionary and ministerial actions. The Approval in Concept is required because the Project is located within the City's coastal zone permit area, and the Approval in Concept must be approved by the Harbor Commission and the manager of Harbor Resources prior to the City's consideration of future implementing Site Development Review(s), Conditional Use Permit(s), or other discretionary approvals required by the Marine Commercial zoning designation. Additional review for compliance with CEQA would be required as part of the Project's future discretionary applications. Once the Approval in Concept and other discretionary actions have been approved by the City, the City and the Irvine Company would file a joint application to the CCC requesting issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). The IS/MND did not "piecemeal" its analysis of the proposed Project because there are no components of the Project's future discretionary or ministerial approvals that would result in impacts to the environment that are greater than what is disclosed in the IS/MND. The appeal application cites Bozung v. Los Agency Formation Commission, 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84 (1975), for the general rule that CEQA prohibits a lead agency from "chopping a large project into many little ones..." Bozung, however, supports a conclusion that no piecemealing has occurred here. In Bozung, the court concluded that the approval of a city annexation is a project within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21065, for which the lead agency was required to study the annexation's potential to result in physical change to the environment. (Id.) Here, in accordance with the court's holding in Bozung, the Balboa Marina West IS/MND appropriately analyzes the www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-116 IBALBOA MARINA WEST: ANALYSIS OF APPEAL APPLICATION November 13, 2014 l ' Page 11 of 11 P LAN NIN potential physical changes associated with the implementation of the site's existing CM zoning designation. Because the CM zoning designation allows for a variety of land uses, the IS/MND has conservatively analyzed the most intensive permitted uses (a restaurant and replacement of restrooms, yacht brokerage, and small office), such that no combination of permitted uses would result in impacts greater than those disclosed in the IS/MND. Similarly, the proposed Project is also distinguishable from the project at issue in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 394 (1988). In Laurel Heights, an EIR evaluated the impact of the first phase of a project but did not consider the project's second phase. The court held that the laterphase should have been included in the environmental review, even though it had not been formally approved. (Id. at 399.) The court held that future actions or expansions must be included in an environmental analysis if the future action is (1) a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project, and (2) the future expansion or action will significantly change the scope or nature of the project or its environmental effects. (Id. at 396.) However, the court was clear that, in analyzing the potential environmental impacts of future activities, an agency is not required to commit to a "particular use." (Id. at 398.) Here, the Balboa Marina West IS/MND has analyzed the environmental impacts of the reasonably foreseeable uses that would be permitted by approval of the Project. Thus, no piecemealing has occurred. Summary of Application Point 7 The appeal application suggests that the IS/MND must be revised and recirculated. Response to Appeal Application Point 7 CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5 describes the conditions under which a IS/MND that was circulated for public review is required to be re -circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5 states a lead agency is required to recirculate a IS/MND when the document is substantially revised. A "substantial revision" is defined as a circumstance under which: a. Anew, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or, b. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significant and new measure or revisions must be required. As summarized above and as more fully discussed in the City's responses to comments on the Draft IS/MND, dated September 23, 2014, there have been no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the Balboa Marina West IS/MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect requiring mitigation. In addition, based on comments received on the Balboa Marina West IS/MND, only minor, non -substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the 1S/MND were required (as described in the Errata Table of Corrections and Additions in the September 23, 2014 response letter (refer to Attachment A)). Therefore, the IS/MND circulated for public review was fundamentally adequate, and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND were supported by evidence provided within the IS/MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. The IS/MND does not need to be recirculated based on § 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: A. T&B Planning Memorandum: Balboa Marina West IS/MND Response to Comment Letters, September 23, 2014. B. Balboa Marina West Grading Exhibit www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-117 Attachment A T&B Planning Memorandum: Balboa Marina West IS/MND Response to Comment Letters, September 23, 2014. 21-118 .I� L� �. PLANNING Tustin, CA I San Diego, CA I Murrysville, PA 17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100 Tustin, CA 92780 p714.505.6360 (714.505.6361 MEMORANDUM To: Patrick Alford, City of Newport Beach From: Tracy Zinn, Principal Re: BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/M:ND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS Date: September 23, 2014 JN 923-003 As the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Consultant contracted to the City of Newport Beach for the Balboa Marina West project, you asked that I supply responses to the comment letters received by the City of Newport Beach related to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Responses to the substantive points of each letter are provided below. NOTE: There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which throws off the numbering sequence (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, the second page 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason, page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given below for all page number references. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (CCRPA) August 18, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter discusses concerns related to the potential discovery of significant archaeological resources and potential disturbance to humans remains. With respect to Mitigation Measure CR -1, the CCRPA suggests that ground disturbing activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. In addition, the CCRPA suggests that a mitigation measure be added to comply with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, pertaining to the discovery of human remains. The CCRPA also requests that if significant archaeological resources are discovered and archaeological data recovery excavations are implemented, the data recovery plan should include the preparation of a non-technical report and public exhibit. The comment references the goals and policies of the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 and Section 1 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, concerning historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance. Response In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure MM CR -1 has been revised to require that the construction contractor be trained to identify suspected archaeological resources; or, that a professional archaeological monitor be retained to monitor ground -disturbing activities in previously undisturbed, native soils. Either circumstance would provide the same assurance that suspected resources are identified for evaluation. The IS/MND acknowledges the remote potential for Native American human remains to be unearthed during construction activity (IS/MND electronic version pp. 5-63, 64 and printed version pp. 5-60, 61). Compliance with www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-119 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 2 of 14 P LA NNIN California Health and Safety Code, §7050.5 "Disturbance of Human Remains" is required by state law. The mandatory provisions of state law are not required to be repeated as mitigation measures. As specified by Mitigation Measure MM CR -1, a data recovery plan is required if a suspected archaeological resource is uncovered and a professional archaeologist determines that the resource is significant or potentially significant. The specifics of the data recovery plan will depend on the nature of the resource. Significant resources are required to be documented and placed in a public or private repository. Recovered resources are not required by state or federal law to be exhibited. The potential that any uncovered resource would rise to a level of national significance and be eligible for recognition under the National Park Service Historic Sites Act of 1935 or the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is highly unlikely and not reasonably foreseeable. The City has revised IS/MND Mitigation Measure MM CR -1. The revised mitigation measure is an amplification of the measure, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California August 28, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has no existing facilities or rights of way within the limits of the project site. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted City of Irvine Community Development August 28, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter states that the City of Irvine staff have received and reviewed the information provided and have no comments. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh September 9, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter requests a copy of the Project's grading plan cited in the IS/MND as "Stantec, 2014." Additionally, the letter requests reference material for a statement in the IS/MND that the Project is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-120 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 3 of 14 P LA NNIN Response The City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division, provided the grading plan and requested reference material (filed in the Project's administrative record with the City of Newport Beach) to the commenter by e-mail on September 11, 2014. IS/MND, Section 7, "References," has been revised to include a citation for the water demand reference material. The City has added a reference citation to the IS/MND. The reference material was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 12 September 12. 2014 Summary of Comments This letter identifies Caltrans as a commenting and responsible agency on the Project. Caltrans indicates that any work performed within the Caltrans right-of-way (East Coast Highway) will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans, and an encroachment permit and traffic control plan will be required. Response The Project proposes a small amount of physical disturbance in the Caltrans right-of-way at the Balboa Marina entrance driveway as shown on IS/MND Figure 3-11. In response to this comment, IS/MND Table 3-1 has been revised to list Caltrans as a responsible public agency, for issuance of an encroachment permit and approval of a traffic control plan. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify Caltrans. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. State Clearinghouse September 16, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environment documents pursuant to CEQA. This comment is noted. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) September 16. 2014 Summary of Comments This letter expresses disagreement with the City's determination that a MND adequately addresses the impacts of the Project due to proposed heights, visual impacts, parking impacts, ingress and egress from Pacific Coast Highway, and increased intensity of bay use. The letter requests that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-121 A ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 4 of 14 P LAN NIN Response The comment letter does not provide any detail or evidence to support the commentor's claim that the MND does not adequately address the Project's environmental effects. The IS/MND evaluates the Project and determines that all impacts would be less than significant or reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures applied. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the issue of proposed heights and visual impacts under the topic of "Aesthetics" (1S/MND Section 5.4.1; pp. 5-14 to 5-36). As concluded by 1S/MND Section 5.4.1, although the Project would introduce a new marine commercial building up to 40 feet in height that could be perceived as a substantial change to the existing views of the site from off-site locations, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1 would ensure that the future marine commercial building is designed in a manner that provides architecturally enhanced components while demonstrating compatibility with existing developed elements in the surrounding viewshed. Changes due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that occur in Newport Harbor. Additionally, improvements to the parking lot and associated landscaping would not be prominently visible from off-site locations and would not represent a substantial change as compared to the existing condition. Six (6) visual simulations are included in the IS/MND as Figures 5-6 to 5-11 to support this conclusion. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AE -1, Project -related impacts associated with building height and visual quality would be reduced to below a level of significance. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of parking and ingress and egress from East Coast Highway under the topic of"Transportation/Traffic" (IS/MND Section 5.4.16; electronic version pp. 5-112 to 5-124 and printed version pp. 5-108 to 5-120). The Project would generate approximately 1,506 daily vehicle trips. These trips would increase traffic by less than 1% at intersections that experience congestion (defined as operating at a Level of Service D (LOS D) or worse during the morning/evening peak hours). The Project site's ingress and egress point is a driveway connecting to East Coast Highway and is not congested or projected to become congested. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Regarding parking, the Project is required to supply an adequate number of parking spaces on the property consistent with the City's Municipal Code parking requirements. Also, the overall layout of the existing parking lot would be reconfigured to improve circulatory access through the site. Parking and ingress and egress impacts will be less than significant and mitigation is not required. The IS/MND thoroughly evaluates the topic of increased bay use intensity under the topic of"Land Use and Planning" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5-95 and printed version 5-86 to 5-91). The City of Newport Beach land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed Project include the City's General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and Zoning Code/Municipal Code. Based on the information presented in the IS/MND and in its Technical Appendix Ml, "General Plan Consistency Analysis" and Technical Appendix M2, "Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis," the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. The Project site is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR) by the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM -A 0.00-0.30 FAR) by the Coastal Land Use Plan. The Project is consistent with those designations. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure LU -1 ensures that City review of future applications for a Site Development Review and a Conditional Use Permit will require mandatory compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The IS/MND also evaluates the topic of bay use under the topics of "Aesthetics" (IS/MND Section 5.4-1; pp. 5-14 to 5-36), "Biological Resources (IS/MND Section 5.4.4; electronic version pp. 5-49 to 5-60 and printed version pp. 5-45 www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-122 BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 5 of 14 P LANNIN to 5-56) "Hydrology and Water Quality" (IS/MND Section 5.4-9;.electronic version pp. 5-82 to 5-90 and printed version pp. 5-78 to 5-86), and "Land Use and Planning" (IS/MND Section 5.4-10; electronic version pp. 5-90 to 5-95 and printed version 5-86 to 5-91). Aesthetic changes in the bay due to the introduction of new boat slips would be less than significant because the new boat slips would appear as an extension of the existing boat slips that already occur in Newport Harbor and the new slips would not obstruct a scenic view or substantially degrade the existing visual quality or character of the area. Six (6) visual simulations are included in the IS/MND to support that conclusion. In regards to biological resource impacts, all impacts in the bay would be temporary and occur during the Project's construction period. This conclusion is supported by Technical Appendix B, "Marine Biological Assessment, Technical Appendix C, "Jurisdictional Delineation Report," Technical Appendix D, "Coastal Engineering Study, Technical Appendix E, "Impact Assessment for Proposed Project Alternatives," and Technical Appendix F, "Dredged Material Evaluation Sampling and Analysis Report." Based on the conclusions of these extensive technical analyses, the Project's biological impacts would be limited to temporary impacts during its construction period and impacts to a small area of eelgrass. Mitigation Measures MM BR -1 to MM BR -6 are required to ensure that all biological resource impacts are reduced to below a level of significance. Similarly, temporary water quality impacts identified in the IS/MND associated with turbidity during water -side construction would be reduced to below a level of significance by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-2. Potential operational -related water quality impacts are identified and addressed in Technical Appendix I, "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan," and potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level by the preparation and implementation of a Marina Management Plan required by Mitigation Measure MM HWQ-1. In conclusion, based on the IS/MND and all of the information contained in the IS/MND Technical Appendices and Project's administrative record, the City finds no substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. As such, an EIR is not required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh September 17, 2014 Summary of Comment I The letter claims that the IS/MND violates CEQA by failing to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Project together with the approved Back Bay Landing and pending harbor water bus/taxi projects. Response The ISIMND contains an analysis of cumulative effects and considers the Back Bay Landing project. The IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128) listed the cumulative projects that were considered in the analyses, but inadvertently only listed the approved projects and not the projects that are under consideration and not yet approved. Table 7 of the Project's traffic study (IS/MND Technical Appendix K, p. 44) listed those projects as follows: Project Name Koll- Back Bay Banning Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Newport Coast - TAZ 1 www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-123 A I BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 6 of 14 P LAN NIN Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Although the list of these projects was inadvertently omitted from the IS/MND (electronic version pp. 5-131, 132 and printed version pp. 5-127, 128), they were considered and evaluated in the IS/MND analyses and in the analyses provided in Technical Appendices A (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas), J (Noise), and K (Traffic). The IS/MND (electronic version p. 5-132 and printed version p. 128) has been revised accordingly to list the above projects. The "Water Bus/Taxi" project noted in this comment is speculative. Although the City has discussed the possibility of a water bus/taxi, an application has not been filed, its feasibility is uncertain, and a feasibility study is not yet complete. As such, it is not a "project" as defined by CEQA and is certainly not a reasonably foreseeable project that warrants consideration in a cumulative effects analysis. In addition, because of its speculative nature, there are no details to study at this time. The Back Bay Landing project and the proposed Balboa Marina West project are two distinct projects and are not the same project. The Back Bay Landing project proponent is Bayside Village Marina, LLC, whereas the Balboa Marina West project proponents are Irvine Company and the City of Newport Beach. The Back Bay Landing Draft EIR was completed and circulated for public review in October 2013, whereas the Balboa Marina West project application was not on file with the City of Newport Beach until December 2013. Regarding the cumulative evaluation of aesthetics, the Back Bay Landing project is located on the north side of East Coast Highway whereas the Balboa Marina West project is proposed on the south side of East Coast Highway. The highway provides a clear visual separation. In addition, the Back Bay Landing EIR (SCH No. 2012101003) concluded that the Back Bay Landing project's aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. The one building proposed on the Balboa Marina West property would have a less than significant potential to result in a significant, cumulatively considerable aesthetic impact, especially considering that the two projects are physically separated by a highway. The City has added the full list of evaluated cumulative projects to the IS/MND. The full list of projects was included in the City's administrative record during public review of the draft IS/MND, is not new information, is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Comment 2 The comment letter suggests that the 1S/MND should be revised to include additional information to analyze and mitigate the Project's temporary and permanent noise and vibration effects on residences on Linda Isle. Linda Isle is a private, gate -guarded community. As stated in the MND and noise study (Technical Appendix J), data gathered during the 2008/9 noise and vibration monitoring conducted by Anchor QEA at Linda Isle during the construction of the original Balboa Marina dock replacement project was used to analyze and access potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed Project. The 2008/9 Balboa Marina dock replacement project involved demolition, seawall repair, pile installation, dredging, and new marina construction and the same contractor, equipment, and construction techniques will be employed by the currently proposed Project. Therefore, additional measurements taken from Linda Isle were unnecessary. Based on the professional opinion of David Wieland, Principal Consultant of Wieland Acoustics having more than 30 years of experience in acoustical and vibration analyses, the acoustical study prepared by Wieland for the operation of the proposed marine commercial building, including apotential restaurant tenant, presents an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for protecting the residents of Linda Isle from significant noise level increases associated with the www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-124 ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 7 of 14 P LAN NIN building's operation. As stated in the MND and the noise study (Technical Appendix J), a potentially significant impact is only anticipated if the proposed building has noise -generating activities on an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process, it is not known whether the future building will have such noise -generating uses. In addition, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known, including the location and design of any outdoor dining areas. The need for such measures will be addressed in a subsequent acoustical study that will be prepared once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the building tenants are known as required by Mitigation Measure MM N-1. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 specifies the requirement for the subsequent acoustical study and provides aperformance measure (compliance with the requirements identified in Chapters 5.28, 10.26, 10.028.020, and 20.48.909(E) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, which address noise.) The issue of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed marine commercial building is not addressed directly in the Wieland Acoustics study (Technical Appendix J); however, pedestrian activity was included in the analysis. The SoundPLAN model that was used to analyze parking lot noise levels (refer to Section 9.2.3 of Technical Appendix J) included a+3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot. This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. In addition, the issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of the Technical Appendix J. As indicated in the Wieland Acoustics study, it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot (vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, patrons talking, etc.) will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards, as established by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Therefore, mitigation is not required or recommended. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the issue of vibration, Technical Appendix J indicates that there is always the potential risk for structural damage, even at relatively low vibration velocities. To address this, there was an extensive monitoring program conducted during the initial reconstruction of Balboa Marina in 2008/9. The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA (included as Enclosure 1 of Technical Appendix J) showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the Project's vicinity, including at Linda Isle. Because the waterside improvements associated with the proposed Balboa Marina West project will include fewer piles than with 2008/9 reconstruction, and because most of the piles will be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the 2008/9 reconstruction, it is the professional opinion of Wieland Acoustics, based on substantial evidence from the 2008/9 monitoring program, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements. The methodology that will be used to install the piles for the landside improvements will produce even less vibration than the methodology used to install the waterside improvements. Therefore, the MND appropriately concludes, with sufficient evidence from the extensive monitoring that occurred in 2008/9, that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of Balboa Marina West. AttachmentA to this Response to Comments document is an exhibit that was included in the final noise/vibration report prepared by Anchor QEA. The report documented the results of extensive noise and vibration monitoring during the 2008/9 reconstruction of Balboa Marina. The exhibit shows 16 locations for meter installations. The range of the monitoring activity is depicted by a blue line along the property seawalls extending along the entire frontage of properties facing Balboa Marina. Monitors and meters were re -positioned as required since equipment and construction activity changed location as work progressed. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-125 ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 8 of 14 P LAN NIN Summary of Comment 3 The comment letter requests revisions to the IS/MND to provide additional information and analysis of the Project's water and wastewater demands. Response IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 states that based on typical utility usage rates for restaurants and commercial establishments, the proposed marine commercial building is expected to generate a utility demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of water and 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity. In response to this comment, Stantec was asked to provide more detail, and supply water and wastewater treatment demand calculations for the entirety of the Project site, without taking any credit for water demand or wastewater generation by existing uses on the property. Stantec's full memorandum, dated September 23, 2014, is attached to this Response to Comments document. Stantec provided the following table, based on normal year water demand factors provided by Irvine Ranch Water District. The calculation of water demand for landscape areas is based the City's Landscape Ordinance and requirement for drought tolerant plant material pursuant to California Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.17). Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where water demand reduction measures are required to be implemented. A normal - year water demand for the Project is calculated by Stantec to be 4,479 gpd. A dry -year 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a usage of 3,583 gpd. Table I - Normal Year Annual Water Demand s C Landscape amo water denwnd ooacNoted Dosed m the Ciry of Newport aeooh Lam. onpe ordinarme for rsrrnotea Anrx water use rFAMNf. Carckmatiom die arracrtea. Stantec also provided the following table, which verifies that the figure of 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity demand cited in IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 is accurate. Table 2 -Wastewater Generation Bye Area Water Demand Demand use Area Factor (gpd) Restaurant & Patio 19.000 sf 175 gpd/1,000 st 3.325 Yacht Brokerage Office 260 :sP 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 Marina Restraams 200 r 175 gpol1,000 sf 35 Subtotal Domestic Water Demands 19,400 s` 3,395 Landscape Area Irrigation Demands 1 36.947 st - 1,084 Total Normal Year Water Demands 4,479 C Landscape amo water denwnd ooacNoted Dosed m the Ciry of Newport aeooh Lam. onpe ordinarme for rsrrnotea Anrx water use rFAMNf. Carckmatiom die arracrtea. Stantec also provided the following table, which verifies that the figure of 2,755 gpd of wastewater treatment capacity demand cited in IS/MND Section 3.1.2.13 is accurate. Table 2 -Wastewater Generation Bye Area Water Demand factor Demand (gpd) Restaurant & PatiD 19,DDD sr 200 sf 200 sf 36,947 sf 142 gpd/1,000 st 2698 Yacht Brokerage Office Marina Restroorns Landscape Area 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 142 gpoll,000 sf 28 - Total Wastewater Generation 2,755 www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-126 IBALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS lI September 23, 2014 Page 9 of 14 P LAN NIN The conclusion given in the IS/MND that there is a sufficient water supply and sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to service the proposed Project is accurate. As shown above, there is no change to the IS/MND's reported wastewater generation calculation of 2,755 gpd. IS/MND Section 5.4.17 (electronic version p. 5-127 and printed version p. 123), has been updated to indicate a total normal year water demand of 4,479 gpd, including water demand for landscaping taking no credit for water used by existing uses on the property (including landscaping). Even through the Project's total water demand will be greater than the building -only demand reported in the IS/MND distributed for public review, the total demand would still result in a less than significant impact to the environment. The City's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assumes build -out of the City in accordance with its General Plan, which designates the Project site as Marine Commercial (CM 0.3 FAR). The proposed Project is consistent with the CM 0.3 FAR designation, and thus its water demand is planned for by the U WMP, and the City has entitlements to sufficient water supplies to serve its existing and projected demand. Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where water use reduction measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed Project, like all development in the City, would be required to implement the necessary measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the Project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd. This would be achievable through conservation efforts by the marine commercial building tenant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations imposed by the City. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the need to expand water entitlements. A less -than -significant impact would occur and mitigation is not required. The City has revised IS/MND to identify the water demand for the entire Project site. The revision is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Summary of Comment 4 The comment letter requests additional information and analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts, particularly related to light, glare, and building height. Response The IS/MND contains an extensive evaluation of potential aesthetic impacts, including the effects of light, glare, and scenic view obstruction associated with building height. The existing Balboa Marina parking lot is tiered under existing conditions. Some portions of the parking lot are proposed to be raised in grade, and other portions are proposed to be lowered in grade. The parking spaces in the southern portion of the Project site would be lowered, not raised. Also, a portion of the raised area would be located immediately north of the proposed building and the building would block vehicle headlights from view of Linda Isle. In addition, a number of the proposed parking spaces will occur under the proposed marine commercial building, which also will effectively block light from vehicles parked in those spaces from view of Linda Isle. The portion of the parking lot that is proposed to be raised and within view of Linda Isle is designed to be positioned behind a landscape zone densely planted with trees. Refer to IS/MND Figure 3-9, Conceptual Landscape Plan. As shown, a double row of trees is proposed in this landscape island. This landscaped island is a Project design feature, not a mitigation measure. Therefore, there is no potential for vehicle headlights in the reconfigured parking lot to result in a new source of substantial light or glare. It should also be noted that there is a large parking lot on the property under existing conditions and the proposed, reconfigured parking lot and light from vehicle headlights would not be a new introduced activity. Regarding the conceptual design of the proposed building, the Project is still in its Approval in Concept stage and design characteristics of the building are not yet known. Regardless, the IS/MND presents an extensive evaluation of www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-127 A ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 10 of 14 P LAN NIN the maximum permitted bulk and scale of the building, to a maximum height of 40 feet. Six (6) visual simulations were prepared, presented in the IS/MND, and analyzed for the building's potential to substantially block public views or result in a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The IS/MND concluded that the maximum building height of 40 feet would not substantially block public views or degrade visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. However, because the specific architectural details of the building are not known at this time, Mitigation Measures MM AE -1 and AE -2 are imposed to ensure that when the future building design is reviewed by the City, it meets all of the applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Because impacts would be less than significant, there is no need to impose a height restriction on the structure beyond the height restriction already imposed by the City's Coastal Land Use Plan. No revisions to the 1S/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the IS/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant light, glare, or aesthetic impacts. Summary of Comment 5 The letter suggests that the MND should be revised to provide additional information and clarify the project's grading impacts. Response The earthwork quantities presented in the IS/MND are accurate. A preliminary calculation conducted by Stantec and attached to the Project's grading plan estimates 3,653 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 7,860 cy of fill. The difference of 2,843 cy (needed fill) would be accomplished by approximately 1,300 cy of upland soils removed as part of the waterside development (IS/MND Subsection 3.2, p. 3-6) and remainder by import. The import quantity using Stantec's calculations would be approximately 1,543 cy whereas the MND identifies 1,364 cy of import. The difference of 179 cy equates to approximately only nine dump truck trips, as one dump truck carries 20 cy. The Project proponent (Irvine Company) owns many properties within one -mile of the Project site, from which the earth material would be hauled. The haul distance of one mile is therefore established, and accurate for analysis. Based on the design characteristics of the Project disclosed in IS/MND Section 3.0, Project Description, the number of construction -related trips would be far less than the operational -related trips fully analyzed for the Project. Reference citations to the Stantec grading plans have been corrected in the IS/MND. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. The comments do not support a fair argument that the analysis as presented in the 1S/MND is insufficient or a fair argument that there will be significant impacts resulting from the hauling of earth material. Summary of Comment 6 The comment letter suggests that the MND must be revised and recirculated. Response CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 describes the conditions under which a MND that was circulated for public review is required to be re -circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states a lead agency is required to recirculate a MND when the document is substantially revised. A "substantial revision" is defined as a circumstance under which: a. Anew, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance; or, b. The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than significance and new measure or revisions must be required. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-128 A ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS lI September 23, 2014 ' Page 11 of 14 P LAN NIN As summarized above and listed below in the "Errata Table of Corrections and Revisions," there were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the Balboa Marina West IS/MND that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect requiring mitigation. In addition, based on comments received on the Balboa Marina West IS/MND, only minor, non -substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the IS/MND were required (as described below in the Errata Table of Corrections and Additions). Additionally, the IS/MND circulated for public review was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND were supported by evidence provided within the MND or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND does not need to be recirculated based on Section 15073.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) September 17, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter advises the City that OCSD will be studying realignment options for force mains and relocation options for sewer pump stations that may impact the Project site. The letter requests that the City of Newport Beach provide connection points and confirm that capacity is available in the local sewer collection system for the project. In addition, the letter notes that any construction dewatering operations must be permitted by OCSD before discharges begin. Response The OCSD's pending sewer force main and pump station study is acknowledged. The Project would not preclude OCSD from conducting its study or identifying the Project site as a potential location for relocated facilities. The City will work with OCSD as requested in a cooperative manner. The IS/MND discloses that the Project would generate approximately 2,755 gallons per day of wastewater (electronic version p. 5-125 and printed version p. 5-121). Connection points to OCSD collection lines would be installed on-site by the Project with adequate conveyance capacity. OCSD review and approval of the water quality of any discharges and related measures is acknowledged. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted. Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) September 19, 2014 Summary of Comments This letter acknowledges that the CDFW does not object to the Project's eelgrass mitigation proposal and identifies current eelgrass transplantation requirements, which requires two authorizations instead of one. Response This comment letter is acknowledged. IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the CDFW and cites the requirement for a Letter of Authorization. The additional authorization for a Scientific Collecting Permit to remove eelgrass has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised IS/MND Table 3-1 to identify CDFW's requirement for a Scientific Collecting Permit. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-129 A ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS lI September 23, 2014 ' Page 12 of 14 P LAN NIN Orange County Parks September 22, 2014 and September 17, 2014 Summary of Comments This correspondence requests that Table 3-1 be revised to reflect the approval/permit action of securing a lease from the County to cover the area within County Tidelands and, in the case of private boat slips, pay fair market rent. Response IS/MND Table 3-1 lists the County of Orange and cites the requirements for an encroachment permit and State Lands Commission coordination. The additional requirement for a lease for the portion of the Project in County Tidelands has been added to Table 3-1. The City has revised 1S/MND Table 3-1 to identify the County of Orange's requirement for a lease. The addition is not a substantial modification to the IS/MND, and does not require the IS/MND to be recirculated. Errata Table of IS/MND Corrections and Revisions NOTE: There is a pagination error in the printed version of the IS/MND. Pages 5-41 to 5-44 repeat, which throws off the numbering sequence (i.e., the second Page 5-41 should be Page 5-45, the second page 5-42 should be 5-46, etc.). This error does not occur in the electronic version of the IS/MND provided on CD and online. For this reason, page numbers for both the printed version and electronic version of the IS/MND are given in the table below for all page number references. Global References to "Project Applicant" has been changed to "Irvine Company" throughout the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Section 2.5 The IS/MND indicates that the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan designations Figure 2-5 for the property located north of the Project site, north of the East Coast Highway Figure 2-6 bridge, are Marine Commercial (CM). The City of Newport Beach acted on a General Plan Amendment and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (Back Bay Landing project) on February 11, 2014, to change the designations for that property to Mixed Use Horizontal (MU -H1 and MUH, respectively). The land use change will not become effective until such time as the California Coastal Commission approves the Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment. Table 3-1 Additional responsible public agencies and approvals have been added to Table 3-1: California Department of Transportation—Encroachment Permit and Traffic Control Plan County of Orange — Lease in County Tidelands California Department of Fish and Wildlife — Scientific Collecting Permit to remove eelgrass. Letter of Authorization to place eelgrass back into the environment. www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-130 ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS lI September 23, 2014 ' Page 13 of 14 P LAN NIN MM AE -1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE -1: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the proposed architectural design of the marine commercial building to ensure that the design complies with applicable policies of the City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan related to architectural character and aesthetics. MM AE -2 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM AE -E: Prior to approval of a Site Development Review by the Planning Commission, the City Planning Division shall review the architectural design of the proposed marine commercial building to ensure that non -reflective materials and colors that are complimentary to the surrounding area are used. MM CR- I The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM CR -1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of Newport Beach shall be provided evidence that the construction contractor is trained to identify suspected archaeological resources; or, a professional archaeological monitor shall be retained to monitor Around -disturbing construction activities in previously undisturbed native soils. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City shall verify that the following note is included on the grading plan(s): MM LU -1 The following revision has been made to Mitigation Measure MM LU -1: The City of Newport Beach Planning Division shall review the Project's applications for a Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit to ensure compliance with all applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan policies that relate to environmental resource protection. Section The following revision has been made: 5.4.17(d) The marine commercial building proposed for the land -side portion of the Project site is expected to generate a demand for 3,395 gallons per day (gpd) of domestic water, assuming a 19,000 s.f. restaurant, 200 s.f. yacht brokerage office, and 200 s.f. marina restrooms(Stantec 2014a). Landscape irrigation demands are calculated to be 1.084 gpd, for a total Project water demand of 4,479 gpd in a normal year. In a da year, water use reductions would be required pursuant to City Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% water use reduction in a dryyear would total 3,583 gpd. (Stantec 2014b Electronic Page 5-132 has been revised to be consistent with the complete list of cumulative projects Version that were evaluated for cumulative impacts in the IS/MND. These projects were Page 5-132 considered in the IS/MND and were presented in Table 7 of Technical Appendix K (the traffic study). Although these projects were inadvertently excluded from the list appearing Printed Version on IS/MND electronic version p. 132 and printed version p. 128, they were fully Page 5-128 considered as part of the Project's cumulative effects evaluation: www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-131 A ' BALBOA MARINA WEST IS/MND: RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTERS LI September 23, 2014 ' Page 14 of 14 P LAN NIN Attachments Stantec Memo: Balboa Marina West — Draft Initial Study/MND — Response to Comments — Project Water and Wastewater Demands 2. Wieland Associates Letter: Response to Comment Regarding Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach 3. Anchor QEA: Monitoring Locations www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-132 Project Name Koll- Back Ba Banning Old City Hall Complex Redevelopment/Lido House Newport Coast - TAZ 1 Newport Coast - TAZ 2 Newport ort Coast - TAZ 3 Newport Coast - TAZ 4 Section 7.0 Reference citations have been added. Stantec 2014a — Stantec, 2014a, Balboa Marina West — Water & Wastewater Generation Estimate. May 13,2014. Stantec 2014b — Stantec, 2014b, Balboa Marina West — Draft Initial Study/MND — Response to Comments—Project Water and Wastewater Demands. September 23, 2014. Attachments Stantec Memo: Balboa Marina West — Draft Initial Study/MND — Response to Comments — Project Water and Wastewater Demands 2. Wieland Associates Letter: Response to Comment Regarding Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach 3. Anchor QEA: Monitoring Locations www.tbplanning.com PLANNING I DESIGN I ENVIRONMENTAL I GRAPHICS 21-132 ® Stantec To: Pat Osborne From: Jeff Dunn Irvine CA Office Irvine, CA Office File: 2042 Date: September 23, 2014 Memo Reference: Balboa Marina West - Draft Initial Study/MND - Response to Comments - Project Water and Wastewater Demands The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to address the Draft Initial Study/MND review comments regarding the water and wastewater demands estimated for the proposed project. Normal Year Water Demands The Project water demands are estimated based on the specific land uses proposed for the project, and based on the water demand factors as previously used. The water demand factors provided by Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) are to be used to estimate normal year conditions for rainfall and water use conditions. (Table attached) These factors remain applicable in determining normal year water demands for the project. Table 1 below shows the water demands specific for each land use. The project is estimated to use 4,479 gpd based on normal year conditions. Table 1 - Normal Year Annual Water Demands a Landscape area water demand calculated based on the City of Newport Beach Landscape Ordinance for Estimated Annual Water Use (EAWU). Calculations are attached. The landscape areas are proposed to be drought tolerant in compliance with Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code: Chapter 14.17). Demands for the landscape areas in Table 1 are determined based on the City of Newport Beach's Landscape Ordinance. (see attached) Dry Year Water Demands Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where demand mitigation measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Design with community In mind jd c'.\users\jdunn\desktop\mem_balboa_marina tech_ memo_ 20140923. docx 21-133 Water Demand Demand Use Area Factor (gpd) Restaurant & Patio 19,000 sf 175 gpd/1,000 sf 3,325 -------------------------- Yacht Brokerage Office 200 sf 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 ------------------- Marina Restrooms 200 sf — ---- 175 gpd/1,000 sf 35 Subtotal Domestic Water Demands 19,400 sf 3,395 Landscape Area Irrigation Demands 36,947 sf 1,084a Total Normal Year Water Demands 4,479 a Landscape area water demand calculated based on the City of Newport Beach Landscape Ordinance for Estimated Annual Water Use (EAWU). Calculations are attached. The landscape areas are proposed to be drought tolerant in compliance with Coastal Commission guidelines and the City of Newport Beach's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Municipal Code: Chapter 14.17). Demands for the landscape areas in Table 1 are determined based on the City of Newport Beach's Landscape Ordinance. (see attached) Dry Year Water Demands Dry year water demands are based on emergency drought conditions, where demand mitigation measures are required to be implemented. This year, the Governor of California issued Design with community In mind jd c'.\users\jdunn\desktop\mem_balboa_marina tech_ memo_ 20140923. docx 21-133 ® Stantec September 23, 2014 Pat Osborne Page 2 of 2 Reference: Balboa Marina West - Draft Initial Study/MND - Response to Comments - Project Water and Wastewater Demands Proclamation No. 1-17-2014, to campaign the requirement to reduce water demands by 20%. The proposed project to reduce its water usage would be required to implement the necessary mitigation measures as would be required by the City of Newport Beach, Ordinance No. 2009-24. A 20% reduction in water usage for the project would result in a daily usage of 3,583 gpd for the project. This would primarily be achieved through conservation efforts by the restaurant, with the most savings due to restrictions on landscape watering days and durations by the City. Wastewater Generation Wastewater generation is based on the land uses proposed and local interior water use factors provided by IRWD. Table 2 is provided to show the uses proposed and estimated wastewater generated by each use. The total wastewater generated by the project is proposed to be 2,755 gpd. Table 2 - Wastewater Generation Use Area Water Demand Factor Demand (gpd) Restaurant & Patio 19,000 sf 200 sf 200 sf 36,947 sf 142 gpd/1,000 sf 2,698 Yacht Brokerage Office 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 Marina Restrooms 142 gpd/1,000 sf 28 Landscape Area - Total Wastewater Generation 2,755 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Jeff Dunn Senior Project Manager, Environment Phone: (949) 923-6974 Fax: (949) 923-6121 jeff.dunnC@stantec.com Attachment: Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors (September 2012) Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations Design with community in mind id c\users\dunn\desktop\mem_balboa-marina_tech-memo _20140923. docx 21-134 "i ia/uri ai,riv,. 09IW13] amanO factors... sa3]FrwmMeTiod' eAI 27-735 Table 3-1 Land Use and Water Use Factors (September 2012) Land Use Local Demands Irrigation Demands Code Lantl Use Description Average Density Density Units Local - Interior Local - Exterior role l Local %Irrigated Area Irrigation Factor 1100 Residential GaVOU/Day GoVACraIDis 1111 Rural Density - Orange 0.3 dulacre 270 185 455 0% 1,000 1112 Rural Density - Irvine 0.3 dulacre 250 750 1,000 5% 2,800 1115 Rural Density - County 0.26 dulacre 265A. 8400 1,105 5% 2,800 1121 Estate Density 1.2 dulacre 2650 3400 605 5% 2,800 1122 Fstate Density 0.5 dulacre 225 160 405 5% 2,800 1126 Estate Density 0.5 dulacre 265.0 4600 725 7% 3,000 1131 Low Density 4 dulacre 265.0 340.0 505 8% 2,500 1132 Low Density 3 dulacre 250 200 450 16% 2,800 1133 Low Density 1 dulacre 290 220 510 17% 2,800 1134 Low Density PC 4.5 dulacre 450 600 1,250 17% 2,800 1135 Suburban Density 9.25 dulacre 150 90 240 15% 2,500 1136 Low Density 3 dulacre 225 140 365 20% 2,800 1141 Low -Medium Density 105 dulacre 235.0 1450 380 15% 2;500 1146 Low -Medium Density 11 dulacre 205 150 355 10% 3,000 1153 MediumLow Density 275 dulacre 300.0 240.0 540 10% 2800 1161 Medium Density 195 dulacre 230 170 400 15% 2,800 1162 Medium Density 7.5 dulacre 200 100 300 15% 2;800 1163 Medium Density 5 dulacre 250 220 470 20% 2,800 1164 Medium Density PC 118 dulacre 170 ta5 275 15% 2,800 1166 Medium Density 7.5 dulacre 150 70 220 15% 2,800 1172 Medium -High Density 17.5 dulacre 135 40 175 11 2,800 1175 Urban Density 29 dulacre 130 40 170 20% 2,800 1176 Medium -111,h Density 17.5 dulacre 145 70 215 17% 21500 1182 High Density 32.5 dulacre 140 20 160 20% 2,800 1183 High Density 12.25 dulacre 115 10 125 20% 3200 1184 High Density PC 174 dulacre 115 10 125 15% 2,800 1186 High Density 32.5 dulacre 115 10 125 20% 2,800 1191 High Rise Density Cargo 35 dulacre 135 35 170 20% 2,800 1192 High Rise Density - Irvine 40 dulacre 65 18 83 20% 2,800 1200 commercial Ga4KSFDaV GaVAcredis 1210 General Office 20 ksflacre 62 9 71 20% 2,500 1221 Community Commercial 9 ksflacre 142 33 175 20% 3,500 1222 Regional Commercial 10 ksflacre 130 10 140 20% 3;500 1223 Community Commercial - High Density 21 ksflacre 0.0 0.0 0 100% a 1230 Commercial Recreation 8 ksflacre 41 20 61 30% 3,000 1235 Hotel 45 roomy. re 110 50 160 30% 2,800 1240 Institutional 8 ksflacre 30 15 45 30% 2,750 1244 Hospital 9 ksflacre 165 65 230 30% 2850 1260 School 10 kagaore 20 fic 280 51 2,500 1261 UCI 10 ksflacre 215 t5 230 40% 3,800 1273 Military Air Field 0 ksflacre 0 0 a 0% 0 1290 Hotel 45 momslacre 110 50 160 30% 2,800 1300 IrMuaslal 9091 600 25 625 20% 2,800 1310 Industrial - Light 16 ksflacre 60 10 70 20% 2,800 1320 Industrial - Heavy 25 ksflacre 2,0000 16 2.018 20% 2,800 Onan Soace and Other GaVAcre/Dav 1411 Alrpods 0 acrelacre 0 0 a 0% 0 1413 Freeways B Major Road a acrelacre 0 0 a 0% a 1820 Community Park 1 acrelacre 0 0 a 88% 2200 1830 Regional Park t acrelacre 0 0 a 75% 2,200 1840 Fuel Mad?radon Zone 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 100% 1,000 1850 W,Idlifa Preserve 0 acrelacre 0 0 a 0% 0 1880 Open Space (R.) 0 errefacre 0 0 0 D% 0 1900 vacant 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 0% 0 41x0 Water 0 0 0 0 0% 0 9100 Mixed Use a 0 0 a 100% 0 9101 Central Park Land Use 0 acrelacre s 0 0 100% 0 WOO AAgriculture aorshecare GaVilcrarDav 2100 Low -Irrigated AG Potable 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% 1,600 2110 Low -Irrigated AG Untreated 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% 1,800 2120 Low -Irrigated AG Reg,dad 1 acrelacre 0 0 0 80% 1,800 2200 High -Irrigated AG Potable t acrelacre 0 0 a 80% 3,100 2210 High-IMgaled AG Unsealed i atte1 0 0 0 Bi 3,100 2220 High-IMgation AG Recycled 1 crelacre 0 0 0 80% 3,100 "i ia/uri ai,riv,. 09IW13] amanO factors... sa3]FrwmMeTiod' eAI 27-735 Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations Estimated Annual Water Use (EAWU) is based on the calculation: EAWU = (Et, x KL x LA * 0.62) / IE, where: Eto= 43.2 inches, Assumed as Laguna Beach Evapotranspiration KL= 0.3 Landscape Coefficient for low water use planting LA = 36947 Land Area, sf IE= 0.75 Irrigation Efficiency EAWU 395,835 gallons per year 1,084 gallons per day 21-136 WIELAND ACOUSTICS noise it vibration cansoltants www.wielandacoustics.com September 19, 2014 Ms. Shawna Schaffner CAA Planning, Inc. 65 Enterprise, Suite 130 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. 3100 Airway Avenue, Suite 102 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 949.474.1222 Project File 13.032.00 Subject: Response to Comment Regarding the Acoustical Study for the Balboa Marina West Expansion in Newport Beach References: 1. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Balboa Marina West in the City of Newport Beach, CA. Wieland Acoustics, Inc. July 17, 2014. 2. Letter re. Balboa Marina West Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Declaration. Jackson I DeMarco ITidus I Peckenpaugh. September 17, 2014. Dear Ms. Schaffner: The following are provided in response to some of the comments under Item 2 in the referenced letter from Jackson I DeMarco ITidus I Peckenpaugh regarding the environmental noise study for the Balboa Marina West project. 1. It is our opinion that the recommended acoustical study for the operation of the restaurant is an adequate and appropriate mitigation measure for protecting the residents of Linda Isle. As indicated in the environmental noise study, a potentially significant impact is only anticipated if the restaurant has an outdoor patio and/or live entertainment. At this early stage of the planning process it is not known whether the future restaurant will have either an outdoor patio or live entertainment. Therefore, it is not appropriate to burden the project with specific mitigation measures such as sound attenuating windows and restrictions on activities that may or may not occur. The need for such measures is properly addressed in an acoustical study that will be prepared once the design of the building and the operational parameters for the restaurant are known. The issue of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed restaurant is not addressed directly in the environmental noise study; however, it was included in the analysis. The Sound PLAN model that was used to analyze parking lot noise levels (refer to Section 9.2.3 of the environmental noise study) included a +3 dB correction to account for the noise of patrons in the parking lot. This model anticipated pedestrians walking throughout the entire parking area, including along the marina frontage. 21-137 WIELAND ACOUSTICS a CAA PLANNING, INC. Balboa Marina West Response to Comments Project File 13.032.00 - FINAL 3. The issue of noise from activities in the parking lot was addressed in Section 9.2.3 of the referenced environmental noise study. As indicated in the study, it is anticipated that activities in the parking lot (vehicle movements, car doors opening and closing, patrons talking, etc.) will generate a noise level that is well below the City's daytime and nighttime noise standards. Therefore, mitigation is not required or recommended. 4. As indicated in the referenced environmental noise study, in general there is always the potential risk for structural damage, even at relatively low vibration velocities. To address this, there was an extensive monitoring program conducted during the construction of the original Balboa Marina project. The monitoring report prepared by Anchor QEA (included as Enclosure 1 of the referenced environmental study) showed that there was no structural damage at any location in the project's vicinity, including at Linda Isle. Because the waterside improvements associated with the Balboa Marina West project include fewer piles than with the original project, and because most of them will be installed farther away from Linda Isle than with the original project, it is reasonable to conclude that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West waterside improvements. The methodology that will be used to install the piles for the landside improvements will produce even less vibration than the methodology used to install the waterside improvements. Therefore, it is also reasonable to conclude that no structural damage will result at Linda Isle from construction of the Balboa Marina West landside improvements. Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with acoustical consulting services. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call us at 949.474.1222. Sincerely, WIELAND ACOUSTICS, INC. 5 CDavidL. Wieland Principal Consultant www.wielandacoustics.com 2 September 19, 2014 21-138 Attachment B Balboa Marina West Grading Exhibit 21-140 x c � s a a g 2 $ �n o a : m a o 4 d5az m � a 13 $ �: 9 , J6k �x fi J 8 a 1' F 1 1 &��� �� � al 9 3_ 8 .�✓ I _ _ _ 8_/. � C„ _ _ � %i £ = S 4\¢ ? a. s a a a x s z -w— � -- , $ 1 _: `� , r __, s Appeal Application City Clerk's Office 100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 T (949) 644-3005 Appeal the Decision of: ❑ Hearing Officer - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Operator License - NBMC §5.25.060 Attention: City Manager) ® Planning Commission - NBMC §20.64 ❑ Zoning Administrator (Development Agreements) - NBMC 15.45.080 ❑ Other Appellant Information: Name(s): Linda Isle Homeowners Association Clerk's Date & Time Stamp Rr-( as `.- Applicable Appeal Fees Pursuant to Mastil Eee Schedule adopted t10-22 14: Hearing Officer - $4,289.00 Operator License - $692.00 Planning Commission - $4,289.00 Zoning Administrator $4,289.00 Other - $ Address: c/o Jackson DeMarco Tidus Peckenpaugh 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 (Attn: Michele A. Staples) City/State/Zip: Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949)_752-8585 Fax: (94 9) 752-0597 Email: mstaples@idtplaw.com Appealing Application Regarding: Name of Applicant(s): City of Newport Beach / The Irvine Co. Date of Decision: Project No.: PA 2012-103 Activity No.: Site Address: 151 and 201 E. Coast Highwa Description of application: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Balboa Marina West Project. 10/02/2014 Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): See attached correspondence. Signature of Appellant: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Date Appeal filed nd Administrative Fee received: ►►((JJ ��r �19 20 - _. A _0 P1 1. —drri— V\"u1UVU\,V\VI I"I II V�� City Clerk cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff File 0 C► FORS F; I UserslCierklSharedl FormsOppeal Application October 16, 2014 Jackson I DeMarcol Tidus Peckenpaugh A LAW CORPORATION 949.851.7409 mstaples@jdtplaw.com Irvine Office 6008-46360 VIA E-MAIL (lbrown(-,newportbeachca.stov) AND HAND DELIVERY City Council Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Bay East, Second Floor 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Appeal re: Planning Commission Approval of Balboa Marina West Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (October 2, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2) Dear Honorable Councilmembers: We represent the Linda Isle Homeowners Association ("Linda Isle") in connection with the Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2013-002 (SCH No. 2014081044), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Responses to Comments and Errata (collectively, "MND") for the Balboa Marina West project ("Project") proposed by the City of Newport Beach ("City") and The Irvine Company ("TIC"). Linda Isle is the nearest residential community, located directly across the harbor from the Project site. In accordance with City Municipal Code section 20.64, this letter serves as formal notice of Linda Isle's appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the MND on October 2, 2014. We request that this letter be included as part of the administrative record for this matter along with the prior correspondence and materials submitted by Linda Isle. As outlined below, the Planning Commission's approval of the MND should be rescinded for failure to comply with several requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. sec. 15000, et seq.), including, among other things: failing to adequately analyze and mitigate potential Project -specific environmental impacts associated with aesthetics, construction noise, operational noise, vibration from pile driving, light and glare, and water use impacts; failing to adequately analyze and mitigate cumulative impacts of the Project together with the adjacent Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project associated with air quality, Irvine Office Westlake Village Office 2030 Main Street, Suite 1200 2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 www.jdtplaw.com Irvine, California 92614 Westlake Village, California 91361 t 949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597 t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087 Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 2 construction noise, operational noise, aesthetics, light and glare, and traffic impacts; piecemealing its analysis of the Project; and failing to provide a stable Project description. The Planning Commission erred in approving the MND despite these serious defects which, both individually and collectively, support a fair argument that the analysis in the MND is inadequate and that the Project will result in significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b).) The City Council should, accordingly, vacate the Planning Commission's decision and direct Staff to revise and re -circulate the MND to incorporate the additional Project impact analyses, corrections, clarifications, and mitigation measures discussed below, or otherwise prepare an environmental impact report due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. 1. The MND Violates CEQA By Failing to Analyze and Mitigate the Potential Environmental Impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project Together With the Approved Back Bay Landing Project. CEQA requires a lead agency to evaluate a project's cumulative impacts when "viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects ofprobable future projects." (CEQA Guidelines § 15065(c) (emphasis added).) Projects currently under environmental review unequivocally qualify as reasonably probable future projects to be considered in a cumulative impacts analysis. (See San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County ofSan Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, 74, fn. 13.) In addition, projects anticipated beyond the near future should be analyzed for their cumulative effect if they are reasonably foreseeable. (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm'n (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 284.) The cumulative impacts concept recognizes that "[t]he full environmental impact of a proposed ... action cannot be gauged in a vacuum." (Whitman v. Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 408.) The requirement of a cumulative impacts analysis of a project's regional impacts is considered a "vital provision" of CEQA. (Bozung, 13 Ca1.3d at p. 283.) Moreover, an EIR must examine not only the anticipated cumulative impacts, but also reasonable options for mitigating or avoiding the project's contribution to significant cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b)(3).) Both the MND's Response to Comments submitted by Linda Isle on September 17, 2014 and the City's presentation to the Planning Commission on October 2, 2014 confirm that the MND mistakenly evaluated only the cumulative impacts of the Project together with the portion of the Back Bay Landing project located north of East Coast Highway. The MND failed to analyze any potential cumulative impacts of the Planning Area 2 portion of the Back Bay Landing project located south of East Coast Highway. (Response to Comments, p. 28, and October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [see Planning Commission hearing recording at 28:40].) The Back Bay Landing project, which is a proposed mixed-use bayfront village development, includes five proposed planning areas. Planning Areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 are located on the north side of East Coast Highway, while Planning Area 2 is located directly adjacent to the Project site on the south side of East Coast Highway. According to the City, the Attn: Leilani L Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 3 MND evaluated the cumulative impacts of Planning Areas 1 and 3-5, but did not disclose or evaluate any potential cumulative impacts of Planning Area 2. (See Attachment 1 to October 2, 2014, hearing submittal package [Aerial Map of Nearby Projects].) The City approved the future development of commercial and recreational marine land uses on Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. During the October 2nd Planning Commission hearing, City staff explained that it considers the MND's failure to evaluate any environmental impacts associated with the Planning Area 2 portion of the Back Bay Landing project to be a non -issue based on the City's assumption that there couldn't be any cumulative impacts attributable to Planning Area 2. (October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 1:09:50].) Contrary to the City's statements during the October 2nd hearing, the failure to account for any impacts from Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project is a significant error that affects all of the cumulative impact analyses. For example, the MND's aesthetics analysis is clearly inadequate as the visual simulations included as Appendix L do not reflect any development on Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. Similarly, the MND includes no analysis of the potential cumulative light and glare, noise, traffic and air quality impacts that may result from the proposed Project together with Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project during periods when both projects are being constructed or operated. In addition, although both projects obtain access from Bayside Drive, the cumulative traffic analysis does not address Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing project. The City cannot approve findings that there would be no significant cumulative environmental impacts based upon technical studies that never even evaluated the question. By evaluating only a portion of the adjacent Back Bay Landing project's environmental impacts, the MND violates the cumulative impact analysis requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The MND must be revised and recirculated to disclose, analyze and mitigate the potential cumulative impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project together with the entire Back Bay Landing project, including Planning Area 2. 2. The MND Must be Revised to Include Additional Information Necessary to Analyze and MitiLyate the Project's Temporary and Permanent Noise and Vibration Impacts to Linda Isle Residents. The Wieland Acoustics Report prepared in connection with the Project measured noise impacts at only two locations — neither of which were on Linda Isle. (See Technical Appendix J, Wieland Report, pp. 17-18, Figure 8-1.) Rather, the MND relied entirely on outdated monitoring data gathered in 2008-2009 by a different consultant (Anchor QEA) analyzing noise impacts to a Linda Isle residents for a different project (Balboa Marina Dock Replacement project) that fails to account for current conditions and ambient noise levels at Linda Isle. The MND and underlying Wieland Report cannot accurately analyze noise impacts to Linda Isle associated with construction and operation of the Project without current baseline noise measurements from this nearest sensitive receptor location. The MND must be revised and a supplemental noise analysis prepared that discloses and analyzes these impacts based on current, measurable data from Linda Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 4 Isle, the nearest sensitive receptor most likely to be affected by the Project's construction and operational noise impacts. The MND states that the restaurant proposed to be constructed as part of the Project, particularly music and events conducted on the restaurant's outdoor patio, has the potential to violate the City's Noise Ordinance and produce significant noise levels at residences on Linda Isle. (MND, p. 5-105.) However, based on noise measurements performed for other restaurants in the City and "taking into account the distances to the nearest residences on Linda Isle or Bayshore Drive (270' to 650')," the MND concludes that any such impacts would be less than significant and therefore mitigation is not required. In fact, the only mitigation measure included in the MND other than temporary construction mitigation, is a requirement that the applicant for the restaurant/bar/lounge/nightclub perform an acoustical study as part of any conditional use permit application to verify that the proposed business operations comply with the City's noise ordinance. (MND, p. 5-108 [MM N-1].) Additionally, the MND's analysis of construction noise impacts and mitigation is inadequate. Although the City required a noise barrier as mitigation for construction within the Back Bay Landing project's Planning Area 2, which is located farther away from Linda Isle, no such mitigation has been included for the Project. The MND is inadequate and insufficient to disclose, analyze and mitigate the Project's potential noise impacts to Linda Isle residents. Moreover, delaying the analysis and mitigation of noise impacts to Linda Isle until after the use permit application is submitted is also a violation of CEQA's prohibition on deferred mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b).) "A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. [Citations.]" (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) Numerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decision making; and consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment. (See, e.g., Gentry v. Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1396 [conditioning a permit on "recommendations of a report that had yet to be performed" constituted improper deferral of mitigation]; Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 1261, 1275 [deferral is impermissible when the agency "simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report"]; Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777, 794 ["mitigation measure [that] does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, ... without setting any standards" found improper deferral]; Sundstrom, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 306 [future study of hydrology and sewer disposal problems held impermissible]; Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1605, fn. 4 [city is prohibited from relying on "postapproval mitigation measures adopted during the subsequent design review process"].) Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 5 Assuming that a restaurant is included in the commercial building, the MND should, at minimum, be revised to incorporate additional mitigation measures to address noise impacts from the proposed restaurant and patio, including prohibiting any patio or other outdoor use of the restaurant's south side closest to Linda Isle, prohibiting amplification, and requiring installation of sound attenuating windows at the restaurant's south side. The City also should incorporate mitigation consistent with the measures approved for the nearby 333 restaurant to require outdoor dining to be attenuated to the same sound level as the main restaurant building when all exterior openings are closed. (City Council Resolution No. 2011-80, see Attachment 3 to October 2, 2014, hearing submittal package.) In addition to the impacts associated with the proposed restaurant and outdoor patio, the MND fails to provide any analysis of potential noise impacts from pedestrians walking to and from the parking areas and the proposed restaurant along the marina frontage. The Project does include a designated public pedestrian walkway that will direct pedestrians from the parking areas along East Coast Highway to the restaurant and public docks (see Figure 3-7); however, there is no impediment or restriction that would prevent these same pedestrians and restaurant customers from choosing to instead walk along the docks within much closer proximity to Linda Isle residences. Allowing public access along the south side of the commercial building by late night revelers and customers of the proposed restaurant and visitors to the public dock would generate additional noise impacts to Linda Isle residents above and beyond the impacts attributable to the restaurant and outdoor patio. The City must, accordingly, revise the MND to disclose these additional potential noise impacts and incorporate measures to restrict public pedestrian access along the private Balboa Marina portion of the Project site. According to the MND and information included in the Stantee grading report, the parking area is to be reconfigured and raised in some areas as much as 9 feet above existing grade. Additionally, restaurant parking use will be a significant expansion over existing parking usage at the Project site and will generate increased noise impacts to Linda Isle residents. There are currently no measures proposed to mitigate potential noise impacts from these changes. The MND must be revised to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design to address noise from increased vehicles entering and leaving the site, car alarms, and other potential sources of parking lot -related noise. Further, the MND mistakenly concludes that there is no risk of structural damage to residences on Linda Isle (or any other structures) due to low vibration impacts caused by pile driving and boring activities. This conclusion is groundless and contrary to the language in the Wieland Report acknowledging that "the risk of structural damage still exists even at relatively low vibration velocities (in particular due to dynamic settlements caused in loose soils)." (Technical Appendix J, Wieland Report, p. 15.) There is no dispute that the soils in the water bottom where the primary pile driving activities will be conducted consist of loose sand (MND, p. 5-66) thereby increasing the risk of dynamic settlement and associated structural damage. Additional information and mitigation is required regarding geology and construction methods for the proposed subterranean restaurant parking garage. The MND must be revised to incorporate additional analysis of these risks and mitigation measures designed to address the Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 6 potential structural impacts to Linda Isle residences associated with the boring and pile driving activities. Moreover, the City's analysis in the MND regarding potential construction vibration impacts is premised on the fact that there were no such impacts to Linda Isle during construction of the 2008 marina dock replacement project. However, the 2008 project included several vibration -related mitigation measures and a monitoring program that are not included in the MND and/or required for the current Balboa Marina West project. (Response to Comments, p. 29.) The fact that fewer pilings will be installed at a distance slightly further from Linda Isle than occurred in 2008 does not mean that there will be no impacts to Linda Isle and therefore no requirement for mitigation. (Id.; October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 1:08:00].) In order to ensure that there will be no construction vibration impacts to Linda Isle during construction of the current project, the City should, at minimum, impose the same measures and require the same monitoring program required on the 2008 project. The City cannot expect to have the same result — no impacts — without the same protective measures in place. CEQA declares that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of California with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (b).) The MND must evaluate the potential noise impacts to Linda Isle residences both during the construction period and following Project completion based on actual, measurable data. The City cannot defer its analysis of these impacts and the development of mitigation until after permit plans are submitted. (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.AppAth at p. 1605, fn. 4.) The City must analyze and incorporate feasible mitigation measures now to mitigate the Project's direct and indirect noise impacts. In the absence of such measures, the right of Linda Isle residents to quiet enjoyment of their properties will be significantly impaired. 3. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information and Analysis of the Project's Water and Wastewater Demands. The Project proposes a two-story commercial building with up to 19,400 square feet of commercial space and tuck -under parking that would accommodate a restaurant with outdoor patio, marina bathrooms and an office for the yacht brokerage business that will be displaced from the small onsite building that is proposed for demolition, and associated landscaping. (MND, p. 3-5.) According to the Water and Wastewater Generation Estimate prepared by the City's consultant, Stantec, the water and wastewater figures were calculated based upon Land Use and Water Use factors provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") for generic "Community Commercial" land uses, not for the Project's proposed restaurant, yacht brokerage business offices, public restrooms, associated landscaping, and other uses included in the Project description. Attn: Leilani L Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 7 Additionally, the water use analysis does not address the January 17, 2014, Governor Proclamation No. 1-17-2014 declaring a State of Emergency to exist in California due to severe drought conditions. The January Proclamation notes that the State is experiencing record dry conditions, with 2014 projected to become the driest year on record. Due to the State's dry conditions, lack of precipitation and the resulting effects on drinking water supplies, the January Proclamation calls on all Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent. The MND does not analyze the Project's water use compared with existing water use at the Project site, or otherwise address how the Project's restaurant and landscape irrigation and other water demands comply with the Proclamation. Also, although the landscaping water use estimates are based on low water use plants (City Response to Comments, p. 40 [Landscape Area Water Demand Calculations]), this is inconsistent with the City's assertion that a "landscape zone densely planted with trees" will block headlight impacts to residents of Linda Isle from the raised northern portion of the reconfigured parking lot, and that the Project's water conservation measures rely on cut-backs to irrigation water. (Response to Comments, p. 31 [Response to Linda Isle Comment No. 4].) Absent this information, the MND's water/wastewater analysis is inadequate and must be revised. 4. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information and Analysis of the Project's Aesthetic Impacts. The MND's analysis of the Project's aesthetic impacts fails to adequately address the potential light and glare impacts to Linda Isle residents from the commercial building windows, and reconfiguration and intensified use of the parking lot and internal circulation. As noted above, the MND and information included in the Stantec grading report show that the parking area will be raised as much as 9 feet above existing grade. This increase would create the potential for vehicle headlights and parking lot lights to shine across the water directly into Linda Isle residences. Although there is currently no screening in place for the southern portion of the parking lot adjacent to the marina docks directly across from Linda Isle under existing conditions, use of this area will be significantly intensified with the new commercial building and public dock. The dense foliage referenced in the City's response to Linda Isle's comments (Response to Comments, p. 31) is not required by the Project's landscaping plans or mitigation measures, and there is currently no Project standard or mitigation measure requiring shielding of headlights and parking lot lights. The maintenance of dense foliage in the northern parking lot is also inconsistent with the City's reliance on cut-backs of landscape irrigation to comply with drought -level water restrictions. The MND must be revised to disclose, analyze and incorporate changes to the Project design or enforceable measures to mitigate potential light and glare from vehicles entering and leaving the Project site, such as Plexiglas shields along the perimeter of the parking lot. In addition, the MND states that the proposed commercial building will be a maximum 40 feet high from existing grade. (MND, p. 3-5.) This is inconsistent with the City's recent approval of the development plan for Planning Area 2 of the Back Bay Landing Project, located Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 8 immediately adjacent to the Project site south of the Pacific Coast Highway bridge. The original development plan for Planning Area 2 would have allowed for 35 feet for flat roofs and 40 feet for sloped roofs; however, the City revised these standards to limit building heights in Planning Area 2 to a maximum 26 feet for flat roofs or 31 feet for sloped roofs. The City should impose the same height requirements on the Project's proposed commercial building in order to reduce visual impacts and ensure consistency between development approvals in the surrounding area. 5. The MND Must be Revised to Provide Additional Information of the Project's Grading Impacts. The MND "assumes a haul distance of one -mile as the source for imported material." (MND, p. 3-7.) There is no analysis of the potential traffic impacts associated with traveling back and forth from the source location to the Project site. In fact, neither the MND nor the April 14, 2014, Traffic Study prepared on behalf of the City by Kunzman Associates, Inc., includes any information about earthwork -related traffic impacts. These impacts could be potentially significant depending on the number of trips required to transport the material and other considerations for which there was no information or analysis provided in the MND. The City's response to Linda Isle's comments on this point states only that the Project proponent, TIC, owns several properties nearby from which the earth material would be hauled and therefore the assumption of a one -mile haul distance is "accurate." (Response to Comments, p. 32.) However, there is no specific information provided about the addresses of these properties, their distance from the Project site and/or their capacity to store earth material. Absent this information, the MND fails to provide a full and complete analysis of the Project's grading impacts and, accordingly, must be revised. 6. The City Has "Piecemealed" the Project's Environmental Analysis and Failed to Provide a Stable Proiect Description. Under CEQA, a "`Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ...." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) A "`project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c).) The lead agency must consider "[a]ll phases of project planning, implementation, and operation." (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(a)(1).) CEQA prohibits a lead agency from "segmenting" or "piecemealing" a project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. The California Supreme Court has explained that the requirements of CEQA cannot be avoided by piecemeal review which results from "chopping a large project into many little ones — each with a minimal potential impact on the environment — which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283-284.) Rather, the examination of a "project" requires an analysis of "all relevant parts of a project, including reasonably foreseeable future expansion or other activities that are part of the project." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of University of Cal (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 394.) Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 9 Likewise, "[A]n accurate, stable and finite project description is the Sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (Cnty. of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 193.) During the October 2nd Planning Commission hearing, Dan Miller of TIC, which is a co - applicant for the Project along with the City, told the Commission that the commercial building proposed as part of the Project may or may not be a restaurant. (October 2, 2014, presentation to Planning Commission [hearing recording at 103:30].) The proposed commercial building could be any one of numerous commercial uses permitted in the Commercial Recreational and Marine (CM) zoning designation under the City's Municipal Code, each of which would involve varying degrees of noise, traffic, and other environmental impacts. Additionally, the City has attempted to justify its failure to disclose, analyze and mitigate several of the Project -specific environmental impacts discussed above on grounds that its action is simply "approval in concept" of the Project and that the analyses will be undertaken at a later stage in the approval process. The City cannot find that the Project will not have any significant adverse environmental impacts when it has not disclosed or analyzed potential impacts of the Project's uses described in the MND. The City cannot piecemeal its CEQA analysis on the grounds that potential impacts will be evaluated and corresponding mitigation measures developed in the future when applications for the ultimate development projects for the Balboa Marina West commercial building are submitted (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b)). The MND's analysis of the Project's impacts and proposed mitigation measures is inadequate, and the Project description itself is not stable or finite, in violation of CEQA. The MND must be revised and recirculated to disclose, analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of the Balboa Marina West Project as described in the MND. 7. The MND Must be Revised and Recirculated. Under CEQA section 21068, a significant environmental impact is defined as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 requires a lead agency to re -circulate a negative declaration when the MND must be revised to address any new, avoidable significant effect that is identified and to add mitigation measures or project revisions in order to reduce the effect to insignificance. Revision and recirculation of the MND for public comment would be required because the proposed MND has not analyzed or mitigated several "potentially substantial adverse environmental effects" discussed above. (Vineyard, 40 CalAth at pp. 447-448.) In order for the City to approve the MND, measures must be added to fully mitigate the potential impacts discussed above. Otherwise, because there is substantial evidence in the record to support a "fair argument" that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, CEQA would require preparation of an EIR instead of a MND. (Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, supra, 160 Cal.AppAth at p. 1331; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1399-1400.) Attn: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk October 16, 2014 Page 10 8. Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above and in the prior correspondence and exhibits submitted by Linda Isle, Linda Isle respectfully requests that the City Council: (i) vacate the Planning Commission's October 2, 2014, decision to approve the MND and the Project; and (ii) and direct Staff to revise and re -circulate the MND to incorporate the additional Project corrections, clarifications, and mitigation measures discussed above, or, alternatively, prepare an environmental impact report due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts. Sincerely, TAti� ile A. Staples cc: City Council Members Planning Commission Members Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director David Kiff, City Manager Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney Dan Miller, The Irvine Company 2 Linda Isle Community Association VENDOR: CIT149 City of Newport Beach Date:10/15/14 002198 INVOICE NO. INVOICE DATE REFERENCE GL ACCT # AMOUNT 101514 10/15/14 Marina MND Appeal 8365 TOTAL 4,289.00 $ 4,289.00 CHECK NO, CHECK DATE VENDOR NO. 002198 10/15/14 CIT149 Linda Isle Community Association C/O Keystone Pacific Property Mgmt 16775 Von Karman, Ste 100 Irvine CA 92606-4920 **FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE DOLLARS and 00 CENTS PAY PATHE ***City of Newport Beach************ ORDER OF 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach CA 92658 111002L98111 i:L220160661: 0L3,11 5 60 6 9 2111 002198 CITY NATIONAL BANK Specialty Deposits Los Angeles CA 90071 16-1606/1220 CHECK AMOUNT ****4,289.00 \ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-3267 (949)644-3141 Page 1 Received By: TRACY Today's Date: 10/16/14 Receipt lumber: 02000165474 Payor: LINDA ISLE COM ASSO Register Date: 10/16/14 Time: 14: 4 0 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVIS ON FEES PLANNING COMM APPEA $4,289.00 TOTAL DUE: $4,289.00 CHECK $4,289.00 REF NUM: 002198 TENDERED CHANGE $4,289.00 $.00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Balboa Marina West MND Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Balboa Marina West Project. The Balboa Marina West Project is a proposal to construct a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and 12 public boat slips including 8 new slips and 4 slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips and a new gangway are proposed. In the land -side area of the marina, the Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway. In their place, a reconfigured parking lot and 19,400 SF marine commercial building is proposed to house a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject project. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager, at (949) 644-3235, PAlford@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2012-103 Zone: CM (Recreation and Marine Commercial) Location: 151 and 201 Coast Hwy E Activity No.: ND2013-002 General Plan: CM (Recreation and Marine Commercial) Applicant: City of Newport Beach/Irvine Company khk r Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Sold To: City Of Newport Beach -City Clerk's Office (Key) - CU00064829 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Bill To: City Of Newport Beach -City Clerk's Office (Key) - CU00064829 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 OTIEE PF PUKIC HEARING NOTI,CE t5 HgRSSY dIVEN that eo Tuesday, November 25.2014,4t 7*W p nt:, a ptk hoarq W1 be mldetw in tate cit=y cor4m ownhes at ) ceaft OrK tent gead,The (q Caw$ ot tf Ceti of Nit Bud wA mmian ttt fa awwm Saloom Marine mast MUD Appeal — Aar aWal of PAweng C.tr�51&ys apieevat H a mittgataai %egative Daftauz PARD! fat tate Ramos MWAA Wm Piet: Tho Raftahtwift Woe ftofe&t iz a MPW to WMICUO a Mw fuKx beat oat at Lvxa bap acrd qvrove arca eapaad Me dem SAW kta:ma. The mw poblk do& scald =We a p%way apd 12 pbk bw zit tr,Otej 8 jim eitps aad A fts ftt mWo be mWW to pubk dock gotta the oistiq pwate uboa ,MWO. £n di. private, Ubw MuM 21 ptieale ksat fps and a nev gamy ate in the bmkwe atea of the remits. ttaa pier popm to the em6a saibasmatlna(aktagRota dal T3 tt Ec�att�3at2dl Ei: T(em "hway, #at tf orfSaCer a &etoafEg aed parlooqktand 19,43 Sp riaataae wffmwoO bwWioq 4 propaad w hme aya. t tookuage aM Vmbk tegmeraa, and a €est vrant NOTM! 15 HSRERY FURTHER GIVEN that the "atee I gatvra perlarta7tat stelae M4 tf* %bott development sit ratteaA mti a 1 " drw ant the em iseztmc t it is t print int lion of the Coy to accept te, A'Neted negate DKoo0on drd ata fitting �srtznts Tfattisattfiamta�a&aletskaza atzfd�y��e of the %bjc t p ajecL If* asap eaxawa" mmbm of the general 'itkG to MWV bad owemm to tele daSutnetstaten E*% of the NAOWd &WfiveDedmfion and mppertmq ds atn is au saaika t fstpt c a fa ctr iattleP#annr niattEaCaryof f eet ewmat2!W_!atwh aft . Aft htteros€a of pattleittaayapprara € pse era testta€tein regard to thh ,V on. Ifyou dm&V this t artcca . MmaY be r atedgst *aSfnq ono t gov mated at the Pak b to to eoa c to a me ?ktesed to The City, a� of er ta, the Pttk hear". P na traakeprocedemfor appegsarepmkfedlnThe Newport 0wh A �dpk Cade OkVet ASk The ndgatim may be ggone10 gi ftatuc tae l dais: ar d iC s Asa n ou addluaraal Pisano tlaaPublic heat t agenda. sta#f:eptot,and te tme Clay Cwklkl Wo, 1+21(,1 .. Cenw Vme. mat Beack Calftm, 4260 m at the City of Rwgm sesth at cast the Plant access s se6i to a€r tSe d €ea3�u'�acrr etY pct qoestims rforoOg detaft caf the pmjio please tonna Pa€nd L Mot P4mw4 !ems, at iii$ -3233. PAkfcntde tacas_o Project Flt* No_- Pale12-101 Zane: Cd jP.etreat t and fdataM tommetcaati Loc xtions i5t aed 261 Ccau e E 3Sc&Aty No.: 1402013 02 Geraeraai Pian: (bl fReaemnasd afaitt C ximaac at} Applicant: City oftler nAwWiryirtaearmy ast`te0mia,V,aix Cty£te* mat RECEIVED 2014 NOW 24 101H f?. n y CIS' 2833345 - Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Eos Aundes Times 2014 NOY 2 4_ 0 OF f t i1 r - PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of The Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases - A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Nov 15, 2014 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinois ' on this � day of IV V 20 1 I i . [signature] 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2833345 - Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot easy P' &'ice Labels Use Avery® Template 51600/816OTM #6286 9/16/2014 300' OWNERSHIP LISTING (Excluding Abutting Right -Of -Ways) PREPARED FOR: 050-451-01, 02, 03,10, 55, 59, 60 440-132-39, 51 IRVINE COMPANY 201 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 049-181-33 049-190-01 BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSN PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 049-183-15 DANIEL T GOOD 2841 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-183-18 LAURA A RUSSELL 2871 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-25 ON ROCK 2832 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-30, 32, 33 PALMO INVESTMENTS GP PO BOX 7099 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 049-192-03 R CLARK 2801 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-30 GARY A FUDGE 2802 CIRCLE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 050-411-02 050-451-56, 59 RUSSELL E FLUTER 2025 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 ® Rend along line to�i�® 6240�"� Feed Paper expose Pop-up €dgegM ' �- ,I cM> a �V 049-183-13 049-183-14 MARSHALL BECK DONALD J MAREINA 2671 WAVERLY DR 2762 CIRCLE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-183-16 049-183-17 DENISE NEWCOMER THOMAS L HANKS 2851 BAYSHORE DR 2861 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-23 049-191-24 THERESA MORRISON ZACHARY & ASHLEY FISCHER PO BOX 15878 2812 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-27 049-191-28 2782 BAYSHORE LLC PIERCE KAREN A V RESIDENCE 2782 BAYSHORE DR 2772 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-01 049-192-02 HENRY A & MARGARET PELLEGRINI JOHN TEAL 2603 E 22ND PL 2811 BAYSHORE DR TULSA OK 74114 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-04 ANDY M LEE 22 BOULDER VW IRVINE CA 92603 049-192-31 HIRAD EMADI 4011 W CHANDLER AVE SANTA ANA CA 92704 050-411-03 NEWPORT BEACH CARS 445 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 049-192-05 ELIZABETH OH 17981 SKY PARK CIR P IRVINE CA 92614 050-411-01 NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENTLLC 301 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-01, 02, 03, 10, 55 440-132-39 IRVINE CO 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Etiquettes faciles ii peter i Sens de Replies a la hachure afin de ; www.avery corn lltilisea le slabarit A!/ERl(® X160®/8160"" Sens rhnmamant reveler le rebord PoD-wmc i 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 'Easy PeU10 Labels i A ® Rend along line t® i� elf®6240T"� Use Averyy@ Template 51600/816OTM j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgelm J � 050-451-07 333 BAYSIDE LLC 1041 W 18TH ST A101 COSTA MESA CA 92627 050-451-12 DAVID MOORE 88 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-15 STERLING FAMILY TRUST 9441 WILSHIRE BLVD BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 050-451-18 JEFFREY S DEWEESE 94 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-22 MELANIE FITCH 3723 BIRCH ST 11 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-26 PAUL & CHRISTY ROZO 102 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-30 HANSEL BENVENUTI 106 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-33 J H SIROONIAN INC 2750 N PARKWAY DR FRESNO CA 93722 050-451-36 NOEVIR CO LTD 1095 MAIN ST IRVINE CA 92614 050-451-39 JOSE LIBERMAN 12547 HUSTON ST VALLEY VILLAGE CA 91607 050-451-08 IRVINE CO LLC 550 NEWPORT`-�NTER DR NEWPORACH CA 92660 050-451-13 JOHN E SCHWARTZ 89 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-16 ANDREW & LINDA CREAN 2211 MESA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-19 JOSEPH H LIU 1085 SUMMIT DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 050-451-24 ROBERT J FRANCESCON 20 CHERRY HILLS PARK DR ENGLEWOOD CO 80113 050-451-27 LARRY VAN TUYL PO BOX 16460 PHOENIX AZ 85011 050-451-31 IRVINE COMPANY 107 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-34 JAMES A SMITH 75 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-37 JIANGXIA TAN 221 E VALLEY BLVD SAN GABRIEL CA 91776 050-451-40 STEVEN THOMAS 1640 MONROE ST RIVERSIDE CA 92504 050-451-11 CITY OF NEWPORT EACH 3300 NEW PQ LVD NEWPO A " EACH CA 92663 050-451-14 WILLIAM J & MARGO OCONNOR 90 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-17 DOUGLAS C & JEAN LIECHTY 93 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-21 DOUBLE POWER HOLDINGS LTD 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 201 ARCADIA CA 91007 050-451-25 JULIUS E VIANA 101 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-28 RANDOLPH S & SANDRA DAVIS 9400 ALMOND ST ALTA LOMA CA 91737 050-451-32, 41 LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSN 17601 17TH ST 218 TUSTIN CA 92780 050-451-35 STEVE HORTON 76 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-38 RUDOLPH C BALDONI 79 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-42 BAYSIDE HOLDINGS GROUP LLC 82 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter i A Repliez a la hachure afin de vwww.avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERY@ 51600/8160""c 'k Sens de rAW-fpr IP rphard Pon-unmcI 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel® Labels 11 ® Send along line to ����® 6�40T"' Use Avery® Template 51600/616OTM I Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm 1 � 050=451-43 RONALD ARAKELIAN PO BOX 60009 CITY OF INDUSTRY CA 91716 050-451-46 86 LINDA ISLE LLC 86 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-50 SHARK ISLAND LLC 99 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-461-01 050-471-01 LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSN 1234 E NORMANDY PL SANTA ANA CA 92705 050-471-04 JOHN KING 415 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-27 STEVEN A & TONI BERLINGER 4 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-58 PETER B ROTHSCHILD 70 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-61 ROBERT J WALLER 1225 N GROVE ST ANAHEIM CA 92806 050-471-71 BRUCE & DENISE MOLNAR 1926 ALTURA DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 117-801-09 440-132-33 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2501 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 050-451-44 SCOTT SEAMANS 1750 30TH ST BOULDER CO 80301 050-451-47 MING HSIEH 1738 CAMINO LINDO SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030 050-451-54 DONALD D & SANDRA MCCALLA 105 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-02 MARJORIE AUSTIN 401 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-24 SCOTT A BAILEY 7200 BRANDON CT RIVERSIDE CA 92506 050-471-28 LEO E EISEL 5 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-59 WILLIAM R PIERCEY 13600 BEACH BLVD WESTMINSTER CA 92683 050-471-68 KEVIN J & MARY DEMLER 15106 HUNTINGTON GATE DR POWAY CA 92064 117-801-06 COUNTY OF ORANGE GSA & REAL ESTA PO BOX 4106 SANTA ANA CA 92702 440-132-51 IRVINE CO & BACK BAY PARK 300 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-45 JAMES C JORDAN 85 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-48 YUN HU 96 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-57, 60 IRVINE CO GRACE RESTAURANT CO 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-03 IRVINE COMPANY 409 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-26 RAND W BEARDSLEE PO BOX 2813 BIG BEAR LAKE CA 92315 050-471-57 LEW E COPPERSMITH 69 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-60 DONALD CHRISTY PO BOX 7800 COSTA MESA CA 92628 050-471-69, 82 CITY OF NEEVORT BEACH 3300 NE RT BLVD NEWT BEACH CA 92663 117-801-08,101— C TY 17-801-08,10CITY OF ORT BEACH 3300 PORT BLVD NE ORT BEACH CA 92663 440-132-60, 61, 62 BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC 6310 SAN VICENTE BLVD 560 LOS ANGELES CA 90048 tiquettes faciles h paler iRepliez a la hachure afin dei vwvww.avery c®m Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600/61601 ' Sens de mei 1 -600 -GO -AVERY rharapmPn# reveler le reb®rd Pop-up i Easy FMw Labels e Use Avery® Template 51605 J Promontory Bay Community Association C/O Villageway Management Co. 2 Venture 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Balboa Village HOA Terra Vista Mgmt/Bayside Village Attn: Nicole Conner 300 E. Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92660 ® Rend along line to 0 Feed paper expose Pop-up Edge"" a J Beacon Bay Community Association C/O Boyd Management 27758 Santa Margarita Pkwy#410 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Linda Isle Community Association Keystone Pacific 16845 Von Karman #200 Irvine, CA 92606 •�t Harbor Island Community Associatior C/O Total Property Management 2301 Dupont Drive #100 Irvine, CA 92612 Bayshores Community Assn. BHE Management Group Attn: Gina Pauley P.O. Box 7736 Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 PA2012-103 HOA Mailing List Created by sy 08/26/14 ftiquettes fadles a peter ® a §e®de ltepliea h la hachure afin d� ,a .avery eom Utillsez le gabariit AVERY6511600 1 ehargernent reviler le reb®rd Pop-up J 1 -800 -GO -AVERS I AU1AV-U9-UUH-L 9 3WW'9-uvd WU4Vs "'.JA1SPA"J P � sue ' @UNW' AUJA® *!At; uLp 01 Js�MR11 UJOYA.1One° ; ap Ul}e M4194 el V ZOOM ® i ® salad a sall'e; saanbl;� Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4116 Southern California Edison 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 CA Dept. Transportation — Dist. 12 Attn: Mr. Bob Joseph 3337 Michelson Drive, Ste. 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors P. O. Box 1391 Temecula, CA 92593 Southern California Gas Company 1919 South State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 County or Orange Planning and Development 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 California State Parks Department Chief's Office 700 North Alameda Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main St., Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Mesa Unified School District 2985-A Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council Gabrielino Tongva Nation 501 Santa Monica Boulevard, #500 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2415 Ms. Rebecca De Leon Environmental Planning Team Metropolitan Water District of SC 700 N. Alameda Street, US3-230 Los Angeles, CA 90012 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance Patricia Martz, Ph.D. 1 Songsparrow Irvine, CA 92604 Community Development Department City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90017 University of California Irvine Campus and Environmental Planning 750 University Tower Irvine, CA 92697-2325 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 California Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92626 Edison International 1851 West Valencia Drive Fullerton, CA 92633 City of Irvine Attn: Tim Gehrich, AICP, Manager Planning & Development Services P. O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 City of Laguna Beach Community Development 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 US Coast Guard 1911 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Cal. Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 92518-2815 T M.a5pdn-dOd asodxa jaded pool @09LS ajeldwe ®ISJ86►V esn 009LS OAURA q slagvl *100dt / UAV -09-009-6 i 3n®re-U0d pa®gaJ 01 Ja1aNa'®ap sues9- ' ®®965 @Aug 1V jplogeD all zusum 03°AJeNe° a sp uge ean4384 01 g za'ldeN P J9fed a saft9e; soe1t6i3 State of California Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94269 California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95815-3888 Orange County Fire Authority Chief's Office P.O. Box 57115 Irvine, CA 92619-7115 Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Daily Pilot 1375 Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rick Dayton Chairman, PAC Development Review 2900 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, District 1 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200 Cypress, CA 90630-4731 Mesa Consolidated Water District P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 California Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236 Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12a' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 94269 MWDOC 10500 Ellis Avenue P.O. Box 20895 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Santa Ana Unified School District 1601 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 State Board of Forestry & Fire Protection P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Division 1901 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626-5429 Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 National Marine Fisheries Service 501 W. Ocean Blvd Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 California Air Resources Board 1001 "I" Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 California Dept of Conservation Division of Mines Geology 801 K Street — MS 12-30 Sacramento, CA 95814 Laguna Beach School District 550 Blumont Street Laguna Beach, CA 92651 ®0�6� ® waga6p3 do-d®d as®dxe a �® e� �� L✓' o96s 9bo'dtr�e L SkeAV asfj I e ®; Bull bugle pugs ® ' �/ s1a1� Aseil 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On N©,) IqA , 2014, 1 posted 2 Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Balboa Marina West MND Appeal (PA2012-103) Location(s) Posted: Date of City Council Public Hearing: November 25, 2014 Za Print Name,'Title NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, November 25, 2014, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Balboa Marina West MND Appeal — An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Balboa Marina West Project. The Balboa Marina West Project is a proposal to construct a new public boat dock in Lower Newport Bay and improve and expand the existing Balboa Marina. The new public dock would include a gangway and 12 public boat slips including 8 new slips and 4 slips that would be relocated to the public dock from the existing private Balboa Marina. In the private Balboa Marina, 24 private boat slips and a new gangway are proposed. In the land -side area of the marina, the Project proposes to demolish the existing Balboa Marina parking lot and a 1,200 SF building located at 201 East Coast Highway. In their place, a reconfigured parking lot and 19,400 SF marine commercial building is proposed to house a yacht brokerage office, public restrooms, and a restaurant. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject project. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Division or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Administrative procedures for appeals are provided in the Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.64. The application may be continued to a specific future meeting date, and if such an action occurs additional public notice of the continuance will not be provided. Prior to the public hearing the agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, 92660 or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newportbeachca.gov. Individuals not able to attend the meeting may contact the Planning Division or access the City's website after the meeting to review the action on this application. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Patrick J. Alford, Planning Manager, at (949) 644-3235, PAlford@newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2012-103 Zone: CM (Recreation and Marine Commercial) Location: 151 and 201 Coast Hwy E Activity No.: ND2013-002 General Plan: CM (Recreation and Marine Commercial) Applicant: City of Newport Beach/Irvine Company khk r Leilani I. Brown, MMC, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Sold To: City Of Newport Beach -City Clerk's Office (Key) - CU00064829 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Bill To: City Of Newport Beach -City Clerk's Office (Key) - CU00064829 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 OTIEE PF PUKIC HEARING NOTI,CE t5 HgRSSY dIVEN that eo Tuesday, November 25.2014,4t 7*W p nt:, a ptk hoarq W1 be mldetw in tate cit=y cor4m ownhes at ) ceaft OrK tent gead,The (q Caw$ ot tf Ceti of Nit Bud wA mmian ttt fa awwm Saloom Marine mast MUD Appeal — Aar aWal of PAweng C.tr�51&ys apieevat H a mittgataai %egative Daftauz PARD! fat tate Ramos MWAA Wm Piet: Tho Raftahtwift Woe ftofe&t iz a MPW to WMICUO a Mw fuKx beat oat at Lvxa bap acrd qvrove arca eapaad Me dem SAW kta:ma. The mw poblk do& scald =We a p%way apd 12 pbk bw zit tr,Otej 8 jim eitps aad A fts ftt mWo be mWW to pubk dock gotta the oistiq pwate uboa ,MWO. £n di. private, Ubw MuM 21 ptieale ksat fps and a nev gamy ate in the bmkwe atea of the remits. ttaa pier popm to the em6a saibasmatlna(aktagRota dal T3 tt Ec�att�3at2dl Ei: T(em "hway, #at tf orfSaCer a &etoafEg aed parlooqktand 19,43 Sp riaataae wffmwoO bwWioq 4 propaad w hme aya. t tookuage aM Vmbk tegmeraa, and a €est vrant NOTM! 15 HSRERY FURTHER GIVEN that the "atee I gatvra perlarta7tat stelae M4 tf* %bott development sit ratteaA mti a 1 " drw ant the em iseztmc t it is t print int lion of the Coy to accept te, A'Neted negate DKoo0on drd ata fitting �srtznts Tfattisattfiamta�a&aletskaza atzfd�y��e of the %bjc t p ajecL If* asap eaxawa" mmbm of the general 'itkG to MWV bad owemm to tele daSutnetstaten E*% of the NAOWd &WfiveDedmfion and mppertmq ds atn is au saaika t fstpt c a fa ctr iattleP#annr niattEaCaryof f eet ewmat2!W_!atwh aft . Aft htteros€a of pattleittaayapprara € pse era testta€tein regard to thh ,V on. Ifyou dm&V this t artcca . MmaY be r atedgst *aSfnq ono t gov mated at the Pak b to to eoa c to a me ?ktesed to The City, a� of er ta, the Pttk hear". P na traakeprocedemfor appegsarepmkfedlnThe Newport 0wh A �dpk Cade OkVet ASk The ndgatim may be ggone10 gi ftatuc tae l dais: ar d iC s Asa n ou addluaraal Pisano tlaaPublic heat t agenda. sta#f:eptot,and te tme Clay Cwklkl Wo, 1+21(,1 .. Cenw Vme. mat Beack Calftm, 4260 m at the City of Rwgm sesth at cast the Plant access s se6i to a€r tSe d €ea3�u'�acrr etY pct qoestims rforoOg detaft caf the pmjio please tonna Pa€nd L Mot P4mw4 !ems, at iii$ -3233. PAkfcntde tacas_o Project Flt* No_- Pale12-101 Zane: Cd jP.etreat t and fdataM tommetcaati Loc xtions i5t aed 261 Ccau e E 3Sc&Aty No.: 1402013 02 Geraeraai Pian: (bl fReaemnasd afaitt C ximaac at} Applicant: City oftler nAwWiryirtaearmy ast`te0mia,V,aix Cty£te* mat RECEIVED 2014 NOW 24 101H f?. n y CIS' 2833345 - Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot Eos Aundes Times 2014 NOY 2 4_ 0 OF f t i1 r - PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF ILLINOIS County of Cook I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published. I am a principal clerk of The Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases - A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s): Nov 15, 2014 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Chicago, Illinois ' on this � day of IV V 20 1 I i . [signature] 435 N. Michigan Ave. Chicago, IL 60611 2833345 - Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot easy P' &'ice Labels Use Avery® Template 51600/816OTM #6286 9/16/2014 300' OWNERSHIP LISTING (Excluding Abutting Right -Of -Ways) PREPARED FOR: 050-451-01, 02, 03,10, 55, 59, 60 440-132-39, 51 IRVINE COMPANY 201 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 049-181-33 049-190-01 BAYSHORES COMMUNITY ASSN PO BOX 4708 IRVINE CA 92616 049-183-15 DANIEL T GOOD 2841 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-183-18 LAURA A RUSSELL 2871 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-25 ON ROCK 2832 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-30, 32, 33 PALMO INVESTMENTS GP PO BOX 7099 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 049-192-03 R CLARK 2801 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-30 GARY A FUDGE 2802 CIRCLE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 050-411-02 050-451-56, 59 RUSSELL E FLUTER 2025 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 ® Rend along line to�i�® 6240�"� Feed Paper expose Pop-up €dgegM ' �- ,I cM> a �V 049-183-13 049-183-14 MARSHALL BECK DONALD J MAREINA 2671 WAVERLY DR 2762 CIRCLE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-183-16 049-183-17 DENISE NEWCOMER THOMAS L HANKS 2851 BAYSHORE DR 2861 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-23 049-191-24 THERESA MORRISON ZACHARY & ASHLEY FISCHER PO BOX 15878 2812 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-191-27 049-191-28 2782 BAYSHORE LLC PIERCE KAREN A V RESIDENCE 2782 BAYSHORE DR 2772 BAYSHORE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-01 049-192-02 HENRY A & MARGARET PELLEGRINI JOHN TEAL 2603 E 22ND PL 2811 BAYSHORE DR TULSA OK 74114 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049-192-04 ANDY M LEE 22 BOULDER VW IRVINE CA 92603 049-192-31 HIRAD EMADI 4011 W CHANDLER AVE SANTA ANA CA 92704 050-411-03 NEWPORT BEACH CARS 445 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 049-192-05 ELIZABETH OH 17981 SKY PARK CIR P IRVINE CA 92614 050-411-01 NEWPORT COAST DEVELOPMENTLLC 301 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-01, 02, 03, 10, 55 440-132-39 IRVINE CO 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 Etiquettes faciles ii peter i Sens de Replies a la hachure afin de ; www.avery corn lltilisea le slabarit A!/ERl(® X160®/8160"" Sens rhnmamant reveler le rebord PoD-wmc i 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 'Easy PeU10 Labels i A ® Rend along line t® i� elf®6240T"� Use Averyy@ Template 51600/816OTM j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgelm J � 050-451-07 333 BAYSIDE LLC 1041 W 18TH ST A101 COSTA MESA CA 92627 050-451-12 DAVID MOORE 88 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-15 STERLING FAMILY TRUST 9441 WILSHIRE BLVD BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 050-451-18 JEFFREY S DEWEESE 94 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-22 MELANIE FITCH 3723 BIRCH ST 11 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-26 PAUL & CHRISTY ROZO 102 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-30 HANSEL BENVENUTI 106 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-33 J H SIROONIAN INC 2750 N PARKWAY DR FRESNO CA 93722 050-451-36 NOEVIR CO LTD 1095 MAIN ST IRVINE CA 92614 050-451-39 JOSE LIBERMAN 12547 HUSTON ST VALLEY VILLAGE CA 91607 050-451-08 IRVINE CO LLC 550 NEWPORT`-�NTER DR NEWPORACH CA 92660 050-451-13 JOHN E SCHWARTZ 89 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-16 ANDREW & LINDA CREAN 2211 MESA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-19 JOSEPH H LIU 1085 SUMMIT DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 050-451-24 ROBERT J FRANCESCON 20 CHERRY HILLS PARK DR ENGLEWOOD CO 80113 050-451-27 LARRY VAN TUYL PO BOX 16460 PHOENIX AZ 85011 050-451-31 IRVINE COMPANY 107 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-34 JAMES A SMITH 75 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-37 JIANGXIA TAN 221 E VALLEY BLVD SAN GABRIEL CA 91776 050-451-40 STEVEN THOMAS 1640 MONROE ST RIVERSIDE CA 92504 050-451-11 CITY OF NEWPORT EACH 3300 NEW PQ LVD NEWPO A " EACH CA 92663 050-451-14 WILLIAM J & MARGO OCONNOR 90 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-17 DOUGLAS C & JEAN LIECHTY 93 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-21 DOUBLE POWER HOLDINGS LTD 650 W HUNTINGTON DR 201 ARCADIA CA 91007 050-451-25 JULIUS E VIANA 101 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-28 RANDOLPH S & SANDRA DAVIS 9400 ALMOND ST ALTA LOMA CA 91737 050-451-32, 41 LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSN 17601 17TH ST 218 TUSTIN CA 92780 050-451-35 STEVE HORTON 76 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-38 RUDOLPH C BALDONI 79 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-42 BAYSIDE HOLDINGS GROUP LLC 82 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ttiquettes faciles a peter i A Repliez a la hachure afin de vwww.avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERY@ 51600/8160""c 'k Sens de rAW-fpr IP rphard Pon-unmcI 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel® Labels 11 ® Send along line to ����® 6�40T"' Use Avery® Template 51600/616OTM I Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm 1 � 050=451-43 RONALD ARAKELIAN PO BOX 60009 CITY OF INDUSTRY CA 91716 050-451-46 86 LINDA ISLE LLC 86 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-50 SHARK ISLAND LLC 99 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-461-01 050-471-01 LINDA ISLE COMMUNITY ASSN 1234 E NORMANDY PL SANTA ANA CA 92705 050-471-04 JOHN KING 415 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-27 STEVEN A & TONI BERLINGER 4 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-58 PETER B ROTHSCHILD 70 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-61 ROBERT J WALLER 1225 N GROVE ST ANAHEIM CA 92806 050-471-71 BRUCE & DENISE MOLNAR 1926 ALTURA DR CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 117-801-09 440-132-33 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2501 PULLMAN ST SANTA ANA CA 92705 050-451-44 SCOTT SEAMANS 1750 30TH ST BOULDER CO 80301 050-451-47 MING HSIEH 1738 CAMINO LINDO SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030 050-451-54 DONALD D & SANDRA MCCALLA 105 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-02 MARJORIE AUSTIN 401 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-24 SCOTT A BAILEY 7200 BRANDON CT RIVERSIDE CA 92506 050-471-28 LEO E EISEL 5 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-59 WILLIAM R PIERCEY 13600 BEACH BLVD WESTMINSTER CA 92683 050-471-68 KEVIN J & MARY DEMLER 15106 HUNTINGTON GATE DR POWAY CA 92064 117-801-06 COUNTY OF ORANGE GSA & REAL ESTA PO BOX 4106 SANTA ANA CA 92702 440-132-51 IRVINE CO & BACK BAY PARK 300 E COAST HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-45 JAMES C JORDAN 85 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-48 YUN HU 96 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-451-57, 60 IRVINE CO GRACE RESTAURANT CO 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-03 IRVINE COMPANY 409 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-26 RAND W BEARDSLEE PO BOX 2813 BIG BEAR LAKE CA 92315 050-471-57 LEW E COPPERSMITH 69 LINDA ISLE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 050-471-60 DONALD CHRISTY PO BOX 7800 COSTA MESA CA 92628 050-471-69, 82 CITY OF NEEVORT BEACH 3300 NE RT BLVD NEWT BEACH CA 92663 117-801-08,101— C TY 17-801-08,10CITY OF ORT BEACH 3300 PORT BLVD NE ORT BEACH CA 92663 440-132-60, 61, 62 BAYSIDE VILLAGE MARINA LLC 6310 SAN VICENTE BLVD 560 LOS ANGELES CA 90048 tiquettes faciles h paler iRepliez a la hachure afin dei vwvww.avery c®m Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600/61601 ' Sens de mei 1 -600 -GO -AVERY rharapmPn# reveler le reb®rd Pop-up i Easy FMw Labels e Use Avery® Template 51605 J Promontory Bay Community Association C/O Villageway Management Co. 2 Venture 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Balboa Village HOA Terra Vista Mgmt/Bayside Village Attn: Nicole Conner 300 E. Coast Hwy Newport Beach, CA 92660 ® Rend along line to 0 Feed paper expose Pop-up Edge"" a J Beacon Bay Community Association C/O Boyd Management 27758 Santa Margarita Pkwy#410 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Linda Isle Community Association Keystone Pacific 16845 Von Karman #200 Irvine, CA 92606 •�t Harbor Island Community Associatior C/O Total Property Management 2301 Dupont Drive #100 Irvine, CA 92612 Bayshores Community Assn. BHE Management Group Attn: Gina Pauley P.O. Box 7736 Laguna Niguel, CA 92607 PA2012-103 HOA Mailing List Created by sy 08/26/14 ftiquettes fadles a peter ® a §e®de ltepliea h la hachure afin d� ,a .avery eom Utillsez le gabariit AVERY6511600 1 ehargernent reviler le reb®rd Pop-up J 1 -800 -GO -AVERS I AU1AV-U9-UUH-L 9 3WW'9-uvd WU4Vs "'.JA1SPA"J P � sue ' @UNW' AUJA® *!At; uLp 01 Js�MR11 UJOYA.1One° ; ap Ul}e M4194 el V ZOOM ® i ® salad a sall'e; saanbl;� Airport Land Use Commission 3160 Airway Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4116 Southern California Edison 7333 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 CA Dept. Transportation — Dist. 12 Attn: Mr. Bob Joseph 3337 Michelson Drive, Ste. 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors P. O. Box 1391 Temecula, CA 92593 Southern California Gas Company 1919 South State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Costa Mesa P. O. Box 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 County or Orange Planning and Development 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 California State Parks Department Chief's Office 700 North Alameda Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 3737 Main St., Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Mesa Unified School District 2985-A Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council Gabrielino Tongva Nation 501 Santa Monica Boulevard, #500 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2415 Ms. Rebecca De Leon Environmental Planning Team Metropolitan Water District of SC 700 N. Alameda Street, US3-230 Los Angeles, CA 90012 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance Patricia Martz, Ph.D. 1 Songsparrow Irvine, CA 92604 Community Development Department City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90017 University of California Irvine Campus and Environmental Planning 750 University Tower Irvine, CA 92697-2325 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92009 California Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92626 Edison International 1851 West Valencia Drive Fullerton, CA 92633 City of Irvine Attn: Tim Gehrich, AICP, Manager Planning & Development Services P. O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 City of Costa Mesa Development Services Department 77 Fair Drive, 2nd Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92628 City of Laguna Beach Community Development 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651 US Coast Guard 1911 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Cal. Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 92518-2815 T M.a5pdn-dOd asodxa jaded pool @09LS ajeldwe ®ISJ86►V esn 009LS OAURA q slagvl *100dt / UAV -09-009-6 i 3n®re-U0d pa®gaJ 01 Ja1aNa'®ap sues9- ' ®®965 @Aug 1V jplogeD all zusum 03°AJeNe° a sp uge ean4384 01 g za'ldeN P J9fed a saft9e; soe1t6i3 State of California Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94269 California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95815-3888 Orange County Fire Authority Chief's Office P.O. Box 57115 Irvine, CA 92619-7115 Irvine Ranch Water District P.O. Box 57000 Irvine, CA 92619-7000 Daily Pilot 1375 Sunflower Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Rick Dayton Chairman, PAC Development Review 2900 Silver Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 California Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, District 1 5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200 Cypress, CA 90630-4731 Mesa Consolidated Water District P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 California Department of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236 Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 12a' Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Orange County Transportation Authority 550 S. Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Mesa Consolidated Water District 1965 Placentia Avenue P.O. Box 5008 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Orange County Register 625 N. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 94269 MWDOC 10500 Ellis Avenue P.O. Box 20895 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Santa Ana Unified School District 1601 East Chestnut Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 State Board of Forestry & Fire Protection P.O. Box 944246 Sacramento, CA 94244-2460 Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol Division 1901 Bayside Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Coast Community College District 1370 Adams Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626-5429 Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-8127 National Marine Fisheries Service 501 W. Ocean Blvd Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 California Air Resources Board 1001 "I" Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 California Dept of Conservation Division of Mines Geology 801 K Street — MS 12-30 Sacramento, CA 95814 Laguna Beach School District 550 Blumont Street Laguna Beach, CA 92651 ®0�6� ® waga6p3 do-d®d as®dxe a �® e� �� L✓' o96s 9bo'dtr�e L SkeAV asfj I e ®; Bull bugle pugs ® ' �/ s1a1� Aseil 1 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On N©,) IqA , 2014, 1 posted 2 Site Notices of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Balboa Marina West MND Appeal (PA2012-103) Location(s) Posted: Date of City Council Public Hearing: November 25, 2014 Za Print Name,'Title