Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 5EXHIBIT NO. 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program `p 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92668 -8915 "Fpp s (949) 644 -3200 Notice of intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration To: 0 Office of and Resea P.O. BOX Sacramentioo,, CA 95812 -3D44rch County Clerk, County of Orange LLJ Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Dale received for filing at OPMounty Clerk: Santa Ana, CA 92702 Public review period: May 19, 2008 through June 17, 2008 From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beads, CA 926588915 (Orange County) Name of Project: AERIE (PA2005 -196) Name of Project Proponent: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., 23792 Rockfieid Blvd Suite 100, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Project Location: 201 -207 Carnation Avenue & 101 Bayside Place, Newport Beach, County Orange Project Description: Demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single- family residence to construct a 6- level, 8-unit condominium complex, including grading and all appurtant facilities. Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of Newport Beach has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is ❑ attached 0 on foe at the Planning Department. The Initial Study includes mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental impacts. This document will be considered by the decision - makers) prior to final action on the proposed project The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider this project on at 6:30 PM on June 19, 2008 in the Council Chambers in City Hall located at 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, Ca 92e63. Additional plans, studies and/or exhibits relating to the proposed project are available fur public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you are invited to contact file undersigned. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing prior to the dose of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. If you have any questions or would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3200, /7 J 1) u d _ �T Date May 16, 2008 James Campbell, genior Plann litJ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Planning Department (949) 644 -3210 4. Project Location: 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (West side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) & 101 Bayside Place Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. 23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 General Plan Designation: RT (Two -Unit Residential) & RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) — 20 du /acre Zoning: R -2 (Two Family Residential) & MFR (2178) (Multiple Family Residential, 2178 sq. ft. land per unit') 8. Introduction: Prior environmental documents were prepared in 2007 and 2008 for the Aerie residential project (PA 2005 -163) and were the subject of public review and hearing. These documents evaluated the redevelopment of the subject property with a 9 -unit residential condominium development, which was subsequently revised to address, among other things, aesthetic impacts and respond to the Predominant Line of Existing Development (PLOED) established in 2007 for the proposed project. The prior applications did not include the replacement of the existing landing and dock facilities that are located in Carnation Cove? Because these facilities currently exist in a deteriorated condition and pose a potential safety hazard to future residents, new docks were designed and incorporated into the proposed project. As a result, the Aerie residential project that is the subject of this environmental analysis has been expanded to include the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing and dock facilities existing within Carnation Cove, in addition to the proposed 8 -unit residential condominium development proposed by the applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. ' Pursuant to Section 20.60.045 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the maximum density is calculated using the total lot area minus slopes in excess of 50% and submerged lands. 2 The beach area and cove located on the project site and studied in the technical reports prepared for this MND are sometimes referred to within this MND as "Carnation Cove." Although local usage of the term "Camation Cove° generally refers to a larger area of shoreline extending north of the project site, for purposes of the analysis contained in this MND and the technical reports prepared in connection with this MND, the evaluation is based upon site- speclfic analysis of the cove located on the project site. Therefore, references to °Camation cove" within this MND include, and in some instances are limited to, the beach area and cove on the project site. �6 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 2 of 87 The environmental analysis presented in this document, which contains an assessment of the proposed project, supercedes all prior environmental documents prepared for the project. This proposed Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) is intended to serve as a "stand alone" document that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To that end, none of the prior environmental documents are incorporated by reference, even though the prior IS/MNDs, public comments and testimony remain part of the administrative record compiled for the proposed project. The IS /MND prescribes several mitigation measures to ensure that potentially significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Prior to the circulation of the ISIMND, the project applicant accepted and agreed to implement all prescribed mitigation measures. The location and description of the proposed project is presented below. 9. Project Description: Project Location The subject property currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet), encompassing a total area of 1.4 acres, which is currently occupied by an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence. The properties are located at 201 — 207 Carnation Avenue (west side of Carnation Avenue at the intersection of Ocean Boulevard) and 101 Bayside Place in the City of Newport Beach. Project implementation includes the demolition of the residential structures that currently occupy the site. The existing apartment structure has a total of four levels, including three split levels that are visible above existing grade from the street; all four levels are visible from Newport Bay. Project Description The project applicant, Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc., is proposing to develop the 1.4 -acre site with an 8 -unit condominium development. The total development area will encompass 62,231 square feet and includes living floor area, storage areas, parking, and circulation and mechanical areas as reflected in Table 1. 1C(,o AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 3 of 87 Table 1 Development Area Breakdown Aerie (PA 2005 -163) Use Area (Square Feet Living 32,655 Storage Areas 6,384 Parking 13,028 Circulation and Mechanical 10,164 Total 62,231 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture In accordance with the Newport Beach City Council's establishment of the predominant line of existing development ( PLOED), the project applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate one level of the project and to preserve the bluff face below elevation 50.7 feet (NAVD 88)3 except where removal of the existing staircase above elevation 40.5 NAVD 88 is required to accommodate the emergency exit. As indicated above, the proposed project is composed of eight condominium units within a single building that will have a total of six levels. Three levels of the proposed residential structure will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of four levels will be visible when viewed from the southwest and northwest from Newport Bay. The lowest visible portion of the proposed building will be at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88 (which is consistent with the City's PLOED standard). The bottom two levels are proposed to be located below grade (i.e., subterranean) and will not be visible. The proposed structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project will encroach into the front and side setbacks; however, the majority of the encroachments are subterranean. The project has also been designed to include a new deck that will encroach into the side yard. Approximately 25,240 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The eight units within the proposed condominium building will consist of the areas identified in Table 2. 6 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) is the protocol used by the City of Newport Beach to order to establish a fixed reference point for purposes of measuring elevation, This protocol is more accurate than average mean sea level (amsl), which has been superceded as the City's recognized elevation protocol � AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 4 of 87 Table 2 Project Statistical Analysis Unit No. No. of Levels Living Area S , Ft Garage S . Ft. Storage (S q. Ft Total 1 1 3,778 411 471 4,660 2 1 3,204 429 826 4,459 3 1 2,689 361 j 3,491 4 1 3,031 417 _441 709 4,157 5 2 4,990 462 1,277 6,729 6 2 4,130 440 889 5,459 7 1 3,756 399 750 4,905 8 1 4,005 528 1,021 5,554 Lounge/Fitness 1 3,072 - -- 3,072 Totals 32,666 3,447 6,384 42,486 SOURCE: Brion Jeannette Architecture As indicated in Table 2, each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest sub - basement level. Additional common amenities include a fitness facility, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on the basement level that will be partially open to the sky allowing light and air to circulate to the pool area. A minimum of two parking spaces is provided for each unit, with a total of eight (8) guest, one (1) service, and two (2) golf cart parking spaces provided on the sub - basement through Level 2. Level 2 is approximately four (4) feet below the grade of Carnation Avenue and it will house residential units, one (1) two -car garage and five (5) guest spaces, as well as bicycle and motorcycle parking accommodations. All below street grade parking is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. The existing upper portion of the stairs that currently provide private access from the apartment building to the water and existing docks will be removed. The existing stairs, which are seaward of the proposed residential structure, will be connected to the building by a on -grade stair at the Basement Level. In addition to the residential structure identified and described above, the project applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing /dock facility associated with the subject property. The structural elements of the existing landing and floating docks (timber frame, concrete pontoons, and timber deck) are in very poor condition. The City has required the landowner to take action to rebuild the docks due to their deteriorated and unsafe conditions. The existing docks are small and can moor four (4) small boats in the approximately 25 -foot class. Eight (8) replacement slips are proposed for the eight (8) new residential units proposed. The new dock layout is located between the existing pierhead line and natural rock outcroppings, property line to the north and south, and an existing eelgrass bed to the south. New docks will be composed of a concrete wave attenuator as well as timber docks supported by rotationally molded plastic pontoons, which require less draft (bottom clearance) than concrete floats, allowing the dock system to be located as close to the `b AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATivE DECLARATION Page 5 of 87 rock outcropping as possible. Six (6) steel dock guidepiles support the existing docks and will be replaced with 19 new guide piles supporting the new dock system. Of these 19 piles, nine (9) will be large diameter piles (approximately two -foot diameter) to support the wave attenuator. Ouidepiles may be either driven steel pipe or pre - stressed concrete piles set in pre - drilled angered holes. The existing 20 -foot long gangway will be replaced by a 60 -foot gangway. As illustrated in the exhibit illustrated below, the pile- supported pier walkway between the existing gangway platform and the existing terrace will be repaired /replaced with a structure in -like -kind (timber - framing system, a 2x timber deck, and timber railings all around). The existing piers supporting the walkway will require repair in the form of concrete repairs. The gangway platform repair will include the four (4) steel piles, timber framing with metal connectors, and a 2x timber deck with railings all around. Dock Replacement Plan AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE 0ECLARATIQt4 Page 6 of 87 This revised AND includes the revisions to the architectural puns, conceptual grading plans, tract map, landscape plan, and dock layout in response to the August 14, 2007, decision of the Newport Beach City Council to establish the predominant line of existing development at elevation 50.7 .feet NAVE] 68. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required by the City in order to implement the project, General Plan Amendment (GP2005 -006) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment (LC2005 -002) Zone Change (CA2045 -009) Tract Map (NT2005- 0041TT16882) Modification Permit (MD2005 -087) Coastal. Residential Development Permit (CR2005 -002) 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment building (201.205 Carnation) and a single farnily residence (207 Carnation). The single - family home and two of the dwelling units within existing apartment building are occupied. The site is a steeply sloping coastal bluff and cliff, the west - facing portion of which is subject to marine erosion. The following aerial photograph shows the project's current setting. Aerial Photograph 1�� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 7 of 87 The westerly portion of the site is partly submerged and rocky, and there is a small sandy cove at the base of the landform. The buildings presently on the project site are constructed on the top of the bluff and extend down the bluff face. The westerly extent of the foundation is located on the face of the coastal bluff. A staircase presently exists on the bluff face that connects the apartment building with an existing, irregularly shaped, concrete pad (approximately 720 square feet) and private floating dock bayward of the rocks. Vegetation and exposed rock formations cover portions of the landform below the existing building. West of the project site is the main entrance to Newport Bay from the Pacific Ocean and the eastern end of Balboa Peninsula. North of the site are single family and multi- family residences on Carnation Avenue and Bayside Place. The northern side of Carnation Avenue is a developed coastal bluff which is not subject to marine erosion. The homes on Carnation Avenue overlook Bayside Place and the homes located on Bayside Place. The homes below the project site along Bayside Place were primarily constructed on previously filled submerged lands; however, the lower portion of the bluff was altered for the construction of Bayside Place and several homes along Bayside Place including 101 Bayside Place (the 'Sprague Residence "), as set forth in the GeoSoils report dated June 11, 2007. South and east of the site are single family and multi - family residential buildings and the Kerkchoff Marine Laboratory, all developed on the coastal bluff face between Ocean Boulevard and Newport Bay. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Coastal Land Use Amendment — California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission )0 AERIE (PA2005.1g6) J NITIAL STUDY AND NEGATWE D DIAFL4TI DN Page 8 of-87 Vicinity Reap 1G"1 1 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 9 of 87 Location Map l,1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL S7UDY AND REGATPlE DECLARATION Page 10 of 87 Existing Generaf Plan Land Use Designations Existing Zoning Designations M AERIE (PA2005 -996) INITIAL STUDY AN NEGATIVE OECLARATEON Page 11 of 87 Proposed Zoning CII-Y" OF NI, WIDOR1' BEACH F'ropo�ed Lot Line Adjustment Legend Area subject to {and use dQeSicgnadoEn cinanp* /,I/ MFR - Multi-Family Re=- i&ntial R -2 - Two-Family Residential {T AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 12 of 87 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology & Soils DETERMINATION ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Land Use & Planning ❑ Hydrology & Water Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population & Housing On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ TransportationffrafBc ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ❑ Mgy 16 2008 Submitted by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date Planning Department 1a3 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 13 of 87 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Potentially Less Than Less man No Significant Significant Significant impact Impact With Mitigation impact Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ H ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within ❑ ❑ I1 ❑ a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ EI ❑ adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ to nonagricultural use? 111. AIR QUALITY. Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ 171 ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people? lad IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse affaafe includinn tho rick of Inee ini.. r nr r4nnfh invnh,inn- AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 14 of 87 LABS Tnan LOW Marl No Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E3 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Ei ❑ ❑ ❑ CI ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ef p5 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? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -6 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 16 of 87 Less inan Less man No Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ Q H ❑ ❑ ❑ H Q ❑ ❑ Q H ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ H pa AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 16 of 87 �a1 Potentially Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ d ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are ❑ ❑ ❑ adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed With wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ B ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing ❑ ❑ ❑ C� nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream ❑ ❑ or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ❑ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ following construction? �a1 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 17 of 87 Less Than Less than No Significant Significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated 1) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, ❑ d ❑ ❑ hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ❑ docks or other outdoor work areas? ❑ H M) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the ❑ ❑ ❑ XI. beneficial uses of the receiving waters? n) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity ❑ ❑ y❑ ❑ or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harrn? of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ o) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or ❑ ❑ ❑ surrounding areas? b) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ E( b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ 0 of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not project vicinity above levels existing without the project? limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ H specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground ❑ ❑ ❑ borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XIV. 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? AERIE(PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 18 of 87 Potentiany LOSS Than Less man No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 19 of 87 Less Than Less than No Significant significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? XV. TRANSPORTATIOWTRAFFiC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ I) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 alternative transportation (e.g_, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 axnanriad antiflPmantq naar M7 3� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 20 of 87 significant significant Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate ❑ ❑ ❑ B capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 11 1771 ❑ accommodate the projecrs solid waste disposal needs? RI g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ❑ [� XVIi. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 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 projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ XVtI. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section of the Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and provides explanations of the responses to the Environmental Checklist. The environmental analysis in this section is pattemed after the questions in the Environmental Checklist. Under each issue area, a general discussion of the existing conditions is provided according to the environmental analysis of the proposed Projects impacts. To each question, there are four possible responses: No Impact. The proposed project will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that may be considered significant. • Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will have potentially significant adverse impacts which may exceed established thresholds; however, mitigation measures or changes to the proposed projects physical or operational characteristics will reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant Those mitigation measures are specified in the following sections. Each recommended mitigation measure has been agreed to by the applicant. J�l AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 21 of 87 + Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to insignificant levels. When an impact is determined to be potentially significant in the preliminary analysis, the environmental issue will be subject to detailed analysis in an environmental impact report (EIR). The references and sources used for the analysis are also identified with each response. J 3� AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 22 of 87 AESTHETICS The proposed project is located in a developed urban area that includes single - family residential uses to the north, east and south, and multi- family uses to the immediate south and northeast. Many residential structures in the area are built into the coastal bluff and have ancillary boat docks similar to that proposed by the Aerie project Development existing along Ocean Boulevard and Camation Avenue extends down the bluff face. The north - racing portion of the property overlooks Bayside Place and the homes on Bayside Drive. The west - facing portion of the property overlooks a small cove off of Newport Bay, as well as several residential structures that are built into the bluff above the cove. The project site is currently developed with a multi-story, 14 -unit apartment building and a single -story, single - family residence. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures and the development of a new 8 -unit condominium structure that will have a total of six levels, including two levels and a portion of a third level that will be visible above the existing grade adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. A total of four levels of the structure will be visible when viewed from Newport Bay. The lowest two levels will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The potential effect of the project will be a change in the type and design of the structure as viewed from the street and from Newport Bay. The overall building height will be increased by approximately nine feet over the existing multiple - family structure and approximately 17 feet over a portion of the existing single -family structure as measured from the front street grade level. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Ulan Significant Impact. The certified Coastal Land Use Plan ( "CLUP") and the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan (Figure NR3) designate the intersection of Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue as a "public view point" Additionally, Ocean Boulevard east of the project site is designated as a "coastal view road." Views from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard presently exist between the existing apartment building and a fence and garage structure located on the abutting property to the south and east Existing development of the site blocks the view to the north from these public roads. Project implementation will result in the construction of a residential structure that is approximately nine feet higher than the existing structures located on the same site. The proposed condominium building has been designed to conform to the existing 28 foot height limit imposed by the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The proposed structure, which is consistent with the existing structures, will not obstruct public views of the bay and coastline due to the location of the proposed structure. The existing view to the west measures 25 degrees while standing in the optimal position within the public right -of -way closest to the structure. The view will not only be maintained but it will also be expanded by 76 percent, from 25 degrees to 44 degrees (refer to the exhibit presented in Section IX.b). This increased viewing angle is the result of the design of the southwest wall of the proposed structure, which is located approximately 11 feet to the north of the existing building wall. The proposed design results in an increase in the distance between the proposed structure and the existing single - family residence to the south. Views to the west from Ocean Boulevard will also be enhanced as a result of the increased distance between buildings. The proposed changes in the views from Ocean Boulevard are illustrated later in this section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project site is also visible from Begonia Park, which is approximately 1,000 feet to the northeast As shown in the following exhibits depicting the view from the park toward the project site, the proposed building envelope would not obstruct public views of the Bay but would encroach insignificantly into the left edge of a public view of and over the end of the Balboa Peninsula. Although the proposed building would be visible in this view from Begonia Park, it would not be a predominant feature and would not obstruct a significant amount of the water and horizon view because of the significant distance and intervening landscape and development when viewed from that location. Therefore, project implementation would not result in a significant impact on this scenic vista from the Begonia Park location. Although the existing boat dock will be replaced with new facilities to accommodate future residents of the proposed project, the improvements will be consistent with other similar facilities existing within Newport Harbor. As a result, the character of the cove will not change significantly and views of the waterside development will reflect virtually the same aesthetic character as the surrounding development within Newport Harbor. Therefore, no significant visual impacts will occur as a result of the replacement landing and dock facilities and no mitigation measures are required. I�) �. ' I "�kF.a ;� "•!:':.:fir. p�y }�' _ �-I .x ;,,:�.,¢ ,'x!! ;. ��� ��o iP � � O g N O � � Q ❑ N a w j x Q w Z x❑ Q r r F a z � f37 O v n c� m Q c Q7 .r .r 6} N C�.7 U7 6 L •Y lH A. ^� W i`�� �o� �, o °?� �� w aoa w a r w Q L w a z a r c w N h 2 L a .� a m m a L Lti v a. l `l'�. '14 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 29 of 87 b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings with a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact. The west - facing portion of the site includes a coastal bluff with a rocky intertidal area at the base of the bluff. The intertidal area encompasses a small cove that is characterized by a sandy beach surrounded by the bluff and rocks. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. These amenities are visible from several public locations on the most easterly end of the Balboa Peninsula and from Newport Bay. The proposed residential structure is located above the exposed rocks of the bluff and intertidal areas, which will remain undisturbed. Although the existing landing and boat dock will be replaced and the boat dock expanded to accommodate eight vessels compared to the four that currently exist, these amenities will be similar in character to those that exist in the harbor area and will not adversely affect any scenic resources. The site is not visible from a designated scenic highway because no scenic highway is located in the vicinity of the project site. No historic buildings are located within the project site and none will be affected by the project. Furthermore, the proposed residential structure will not encroach below the predominant line of development as established by the Newport Beach City Council, which has been established at elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88, or 8.4 feet above the lowest elevation of the existing development. In addition, the project includes an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff. In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. No additional alteration of the coastal bluff below that elevation will occur. Although the proposed residential structure and replacement landing /dock facility would be visible from the west and south, no significant portion of the bluff visible from those vantages would occur. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to scenic resources that include trees, rock outcroppings, and/or historic structures. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. Existing buildings, including hardscape, presently cover approximately 22 percent of the entire site, consisting of the highest and flattest portions of the site and extending to elevation 42.3 feet NAVD 88. Coverage is approximately 27 percent of the area of the site above mean low tide line. The proposed building, including hardscape, will cover approximately 26 percent of the entire site and approximately 32 percent of the site above mean low tide line. The existing apartment building was constructed in 1949 and the adjacent home on the site was built in 1955. These structures are not aesthetically pleasing, especially with open carports and parked vehicles dominating the ground level of the apartment building facing Carnation Avenue. Their architectural character is below the quality of nearby homes, which have been remodeled and /or rebuilt and exhibit a variety of architectural themes that provide visual interest and variety, especially compared to the older and more mundane features of the existing buildings on site. The project will introduce a new style of architecture in the area that will be visible from surrounding properties. The structure is designed to conform to the steeply sloping landform, with curved roofs and walls, creating a unique theme. As shown in the following illustrations, the proposed building characteristics will provide a more pleasing architectural aesthetic than the existing buildings, when viewed from sidewalks, streets, and neighboring homes along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. The visual character of the area as viewed from Newport Bay and Balboa Peninsula is presently affected not only by the existing development on the bluff face, but also the existing development on Bayside Place which obscures the lower portion of the northerly- facing Carnation Avenue segment of the bluff. Although the base elevation of the proposed project will be 10.53 feet higher than the base elevation of the existing buildings occupying the site, the view will change because the proposed building will cover more of the bluff face. The upper portion of the steeply sloping bluff is vegetated and the lower portion has exposed rocks. This quality will be reduced where the proposed building covers what is now open space. The '41 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 30 of 87 extension of the proposed building down the bluff face will vary as shown in the exhibit below, which reflects the modified project proposal. Roughly 41.4 feet of the bluff above Bayside Place will remain undisturbed, although much of that area is now obscured from public view by those homes. The western portion of the proposed building will extend downward at elevation 52.83 feet NAVD 88, which is 10.53 feet above the base elevation of the existing apartment building. The project also includes an emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed into the bluff. In order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan establishes criteria for the protection of public coastal views of the coastal bluffs along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -8 expressly allows .private development on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar determined to be consistent with the predominant line of existing development." While such development is expressly permitted, however, the extent of that development is limited to the 'predominant line of existing development" (the "Predominant Line ") for the stated purpose of protecting public coastal views. This provision, found in CLUP Policy 4.4.3 -9, establishes a reasonable threshold for a finding that the impact to public coastal views of the bluff face along Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue is less than significant if development of the bluff face does not extend beyond the Predominant Line. The applicable portion of CLOP Policy 4.4.3 -9 reads as follows: "Where principal structures exist on coastal bluff faces along Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive in Corona del Mar, require all new development to be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development in order to protect pubic coastal views. Establish a predominant line of development for both principle structures and accessory improvements...." The method by which the Predominant Line is to be established is not, however, set forth in the CLUP. Rather, as previously indicated, the Newport Beach City Council determined that the predominant line of development is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 68, which is the threshold that is the basis for determining potentially significant impacts. The location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was influenced by several factors, including the following land and development characteristics: (1) a north- facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west - facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west - facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD 88. As previously indicated, the proposed landing and dock facilities will replace the existing structures that have deteriorated and are no longer safe to use. These facilities have been designed to be consistent and compatible with other facilities existing in Newport Harbor. Views from the Newport Channel and residential areas to the west will be similar to view of properties to the north and south that also have boat docks. No significant visual impacts will occur as a result of these facilities. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Proposed exterior materials would consist of non - reflective materials, including a titanium roof and photo - voltaic array with a matte finish, stucco - covered walls, and stone accents with rough, rather than polished textures. Glazing is to be tinted and most windows will have overhangs that will cast shadows over the glazing. No glare impacts from building finish materials, therefore, are expected. jj� � a, a zr oe S) 70 LIN PK ..... .. ..... oe S) 2 151 70 2 151 W aoy 4 C7 a aft —4 L 153 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGAmvE DECLARATION Page 34 of 87 Lighting of interior rooms would be designed to provide illumination for interior activities and would not produce any significant light or glare effects outside of the structures that could adversely affect adjacent properties. Outdoor lighting from exterior patios and possibly along the walkway and lower level landing would be visible from the bay as minor point light sources, but would not occur as a glaring effect. Living areas in the homes to the north, west, and south are oriented toward the bay and ocean, away from the project site, and are separated a considerable distance from the project site. There are also substantial elevation differences between adjacent living spaces and the proposed outdoor living levels within the project site. Outdoor lighting within the project site would be designed to illuminate the affected activity area on site, and would not cast arry illumination or incidental glare beyond the property limits. All of these circumstances minimize and possibly eliminate any opportunity for lighting on the subject property to have an adverse effect at neighboring homes. Indoor and outdoor lighting in the developed project would not result in adverse day or nighttime light or glare effects. Lighting associated with the landing and boat dock would be similar to that which currently exists in this area; therefore, no additional lighting and/or glare impacts associated with the waterside development would occur. Potential impacts will be less than significant. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the site. The site and adjacent areas are designated as 'Urban and Built -up Land° and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no impact on significant farmlands would occur with the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the site as "Single Family Attached" and the zone designation for the site is "Multiple Family Residential° and Single Family Residential." Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? No Impact. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The subject property and the area surrounding the site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the site or within the site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. AIR QUALITY a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. Replacement of the existing single - family home and 14 multiple- family residential dwelling units with eight luxury condominiums and ancillary facilities (i.e., replacement dock and landing) would have no effect upon the key strategies of the regional Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which focus 55 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 35 of 87 on emissions reductions through controls on business, industry and paints, and through stricter federal and state regulatory controls to improve fuel efficiency, reduce transportation - related exhaust emissions, and reduce emissions from a variety of consumer products. The subject site is developed with one single- family home and 14 multiple dwelling units, of which only three units are currently occupied. Replacement of the 15 dwelling units that exist with eight condominiums represents an insignificant increase in potential mobile- and stationary source pollutant emissions when compared to the existing occupied units and an insignificant potential decrease if all of the existing dwelling units were occupied. Therefore, based on the existing occupied dwelling units, the proposed project would result in a small incremental increase in pollutant emissions projections related to land use planning and growth forecasts. As discussed in the responses to Ill.b through IlLe, no significant air quality impacts are anticipated as a result of this project; therefore, it would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. This conclusion is further supported by the goals articulated in the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan that is intended to reduce mobile source emissions as well as those from stationary sources. Consistent with those policies, project implementation will result in a reduction of vehicle trips associated with the reduction in the number of dwelling units both existing and forecast for the subject property. The project will afso incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize pollution and reduce source emissions. Finally, the project sponsor will also be required to operate construction equipment and use building materials and paints that minimize air pollutant emissions and to control dust created during construction. b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no air pollution sources on site or in the immediate vicinity and the proposed project would not introduce any sources of air pollution or hazardous air emissions that could contribute to or worsen an existing air quality violation. Project implementation would result in temporary construction emissions that may affect local and regional air quality. Temporary construction activity emissions will occur during the construction stage of the proposed residential dwelling units and docks, including the on -site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off -site emissions from construction workers commuting to the site and trucks hauling excavated earth materials from the site and delivering building materials to the subject property. Heavy -duty trucks, earth movers, air compressors, and power generators would be used during the demolition and construction phases. Operation of these vehicles, equipment, and machines would temporarily increase air pollutant levels in the vicinity of the proposed project In addition, emissions from delivery and haul trucks, construction crew vehicles, concrete mixers, and other off -site vehicle trips would add to local pollutant levels. Gaseous and particulate emissions associated with the demolition and construction phases were calculated, using the latest computer model inputs for the URBEMIS program and are presented as an Attachment to this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Results of these calculations determined that the short term construction emission levels would be well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for each type of pollutant, with or without best available control measures. Construction -phase emissions would not, therefore, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Given the relatively limited size of the project, construction emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PMio) would generally be low from equipment use and truck trips. However, the use of diesel fuel in most of the equipment and trucks would lead to increased oxides of nitrogen (NOx) levels. In addition, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from paints and coatings would create ROG emissions during construction. Dust emissions on site would be generated by demolition of the existing structures, excavation and initial construction activities. Long -term emissions were also calculated. The project - related emissions assume that all of the emissions represent new Impacts. However, It must be noted that although the project - related emissions represent an increase in pollutant emissions associated with the existing residential that exists on the subject property because it is largely vacant, with only three units presently occupied; however, when compared to the potential for redevelopment of the site based on the maximum density permitted by the land use designation adopted by the City of Newport Beach for the site, the project - related emissions are less than the 28 units that could be constructed on the subject property. Emission sources associated with the proposed project include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic, energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily I5� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATivE DECLARATION Page 38 of 87 thresholds for all categories of pollutants. As indicated above, this analysis overstates the actual net impact of the project, since long -term air emissions could be generated by reoccupancy of the existing apartments. The project's long -term emissions would not violate any air quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snow pack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an Increase In the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health- related problems. The State Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population on the project site, the proposed project includes fewer dwelling units than currently exist on the site and the project is less intense than the density permitted by the General Plan. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed project would not be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts. c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant with Mltlgation Incorporated. As discussed above, neither short-tens (i.e., construction) or long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a projects individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the projects impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Since the South Coast Air Basin is in non - attainment with respect to ozone and PM,Q, and the construction emissions would add to the regional burden of these pollutants, a vigorous set of air pollution control measures is recommended during the construction phases —(refer to MMs III -1 through 111$, at the end of this section). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. The area in which the subject property is located is dominated by single- family residential development; however, there are no senior housing facilities, hospitals, schools or other sensitive receptors located near the proposed project site. A blufftop passive park, Lookout Point, is kcated on Ocean Boulevard approximately 1,200 feet from the project site. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding assessment of potential air quality impacts, the proposed project would not generate substantial pollutant emissions, either during the temporary construction phases or over the long -term operating life of the proposed homes when occupied. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. A variety of odors would be associated with construction equipment exhaust emissions and application of paints and other architectural coatings. The odors would be minor and temporary in nature and would not significantly affect people residing or occupying areas beyond the immediate construction zones. Subsequent to the completion of construction activities, replacement of the existing apartments and single family home with eight luxury residential condominiums would not result in any significant change in the kinds of odors that could be generated on site. Occasional, less than significant odors may occur in conjunction with trash pick up and outdoor food preparation (e.g., barbeques), and possibly with outdoor maintenance activities. Trash containers would be equipped with lids and would be stored inside �1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 37 of 87 the dwelling units and garages. The proposed project will result in the development of an 8 -unit residential condominium building with accompanying boat dock facilities, which will not generate unusual or large quantities of solid waste materials, or utilize chemicals, food products, or other materials that emit strong odors that would adversely affect the ambient air quality in the project environs. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to create objectionable odors; and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures highlight specific aspects of SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 that are considered effective construction control measures to minimize this projects construction phase air quality impacts: All applicable measures set forth in those rules shall be implemented by the Contractor(s). MM III -1 During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. MM I11-2 Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily. MM I11-3 All diesel- powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. MM III-4 The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. MM III -5 The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers. MM III-6 To the extent feasible, pre - coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species Identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Biological Constraints Analysis was prepared by P & D Consultants in June, 2005. In addition, a Marine Biological Field Survey conducted by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., was completed in April 2005 and updated March 2007. Prior to the site visit by P & D Consultants, a literature review was conducted to identify special status plant, wildlife, and vegetation communities known to occur within the vicinity of the project site. The literature review identified two endangered plant species: salt marsh bird's -beak (Cord)danthus mariNmus ssp. marifimus) and San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. iemandr) as potentially occurring within the J5U AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 38 of 87 Newport Beach Quadrangle. Three threatened animal species: western snowy plover (Charaddus alexandrinus nivosus), California black rail (Lateralus ismaicensis cotumiculus), and California coastal gnatcatcher (Poliop &la califomica calffomics) and four endangered animal species: San Diego fairy shrimp (Brachinecta sandiagonensis), light- footed capper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), California least tem (Stems antfilarum browns), and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) were identified in the literature review as potentially occurring in the Newport Beach Quadrangle, within which the site is located. Native plant species identified on the project site by P & D Consultants included four- winged saltbush (Ariplex canescens), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), prickly pear (Opuntia littoraAs), sagebrush (Artemesia californica), California encelia (Encella californica), lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), and godenbush (JSOCOma sp.).` Other non - native plant species were also identified on the site. The 2005 field survey conducted by P & D Consultants concluded that the site does not contain suitable habitat to support any of the threatened or endangered terrestrial plant or animal species listed in the literature review, including slat marsh bird's beak and San Fernando Valley spineflower. However, It is possible that nesting birds, which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META), could occupy trees that exist on the project site. As a result, disturbance associated with grading and construction may adversely impact nesting species if construction occurs during the nesting season (i.e., March 15 through July 31), necessitating a pre-construction survey. Because Newport Harbor and the Upper Newport Bay shorelines and waters are defined as wetland habitats under both the California Coastal Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, this water body is considered sensitive habitat and is afforded protection to conserve and protect the resource. The project occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species. In addition, other sensitive species of plants, reptiles, birds, and mammals are known to inhabit eelgrass habitat These species, and their potential to occupy the project site and environs, are identified in Table 3. Table 3 Special Status Species Aerie PA 2005 -1196 Scientific Name/ Potential to Common Name USFwS'1NMFS Status= CDFG Status' Occur Plants NMFS — HAPC PhyNospaciix toneyi FMP Species under the Surigrass Magnuson-Stevens Fishery — Low Potential Conservation and Manage ent Act NMFS — HAPC Zostera marina FMP Species under the High Potential; Observed on- Ealgras Eelgr�s MagnusonSlevens Fishery — site Conservation and Management Act Fishes Eucychgobius newbenyi FE _ No Potential; ExUrpated from Tidewater o Oran a County Low Potential; May spawn on Leurashres tanuis Big Corona Beach and the California Grunion` — open coastal beaches of Newport Beach ' A Notice of Violation of the California Coastal Act (March 27, 2008) was issued to the property owner by the California Coastal Commission. The Notice Indicated that native bluff vegetation. Including lemonade berry (Rhus integr foka), California buckwheat (Erfogonum faac/culatum), and bush sunflower (CalPomia encelia} had been removed from the site. Although pruning and trimming necessary to maintain the lemonade berry (Rhus integrBWia) on the site occurred, none of these species have been removed as indicated in the Exsting Vegetation Map prepared by Robed Mitchell & Associates. eased on the Existing Vegetation Map, the lemonade berry is making a comeback and appear to be in good health. l 5� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 39 of 87 Scientific Name/ Potential to common Name USFWS'INMFS Status' CDFG Status" Occur Two individuals observed associated with rocky reef habitat in front of cove in Gafrfomia State vicinity of proposed dock Naps Protected under commercial Marine Fish —ABT7 structure. Most common California grubicundus rnia garibaldi and sport fish regulations (1995) within entrance channel north to Coast Guard facility on Bayside Drive compared to other areas of the harbor Re (Elea Chalons mpdas FE — Rare Visitor Green turtle Emilmochelys imbdcata FE — Rare Visitor Hawksbill sea turtle Birds Pelecanus occlder"Iis FE CE Forages and rests in project Brown pelican area Nesting habitat occurs in Upper Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River mouth; will Sterna antillamm browni FE CE forage on juvenile balt9sh In California least tam the nearshore waters, Newport Harbor and Upper Bay channels, usually within 5 miles of nestino sites Charadnus alexandnnus No nesting habitat present on Western snowy plover FT 99c site; no potential for Individuals to occur on -site Mammals Zalophus califomianus MMA — Not abundant, but individuals California we Eon are present in Newport Harbor Tursrops awrcatus Bottlenose dolphin MMA — Rare visitor to Newport Harbor Eschrichf/us robustus pant _ Rare visitor to Newport Harbor California orav whale 'FE — Federal Endangered; FT— Federal Threatener!; MMA Protected under the Marine Mammal Act 2HPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EEH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human- induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed any. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; however, federally- permitted projects with potential adverse Impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. 3CE — California Endangered; SSC — Species of Special Concem °Although the California halibut does not have a foonal special species status, it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region-wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. SOURCE: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (May 9, 2008 Impacts to Plants Refer to (c), below. Impacts to Invertebrates There are no federally or state - listed sensitive species of marine invertebrates located in the project area. However, sand dollar populations in the cove are considered to be unique intertidal populations. Low to moderate densities of sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus) were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 to 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail (Nassarius fossatus) and the eb AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NECATrvE DECLARATION Page 40 of 87 purple olive snail (Clivella bipficata), typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. Disturbances to the sandy cover intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat, eelgrass, and sad dollar bed within the cove would be considered a significant adverse impact to on -site marine resources. Therefore, in order to avoid potential impacts to these species, the sand flats within the cove should be avoided by construction personnel and equipment. Residents should be made aware of the sensitivity of the cove to ensure its long -term protection. Impacts to Fishes The proposed project will not have any significant impacts on marine fishes, including Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) species. California garibakli that are present in the rock habitats inshore of the proposed dock will be subjected to short-term effects of drilling into the bedrock that is required for pile emplacement related to increased noise and turbidity impacts; however, the project will not result in any mortality. Schooling fishes such as topsmelt will avoid the construction zone during construction and will return to the area following the completion of construction activities. Therefore, no significant impacts to fishes will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Reptiles Sea turtles are not expected to occur within the local project area. Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. Therefore, no impacts to sea turtles will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Marine Mammals The occurrence of gray whales and bottlenose dolphins in the area around the docks would be expected to be an extremely rare event Drilling and pile emplacement activity will not adversely affect California sea lions, which have adapted to harbor conditions, including vessels, ambient noise, and other disturbance. As a result, no significant impacts to marine mammals are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts to Marine Birds Implementation of the proposed project will result in modifications to both terrestrial and marine environments. The upland construction would not result in any significant impacts to marine birds. The State and federally -listed California least tern is a spring and summer resident in southern California during the breeding and nesting season. This species 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. 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. The California brown pelican is found in Newport Bay year-around but does not breed locally. This species utilizes Newport Harbor waters for foraging on baitfish, and the shoreline as resting habitat The presence of temporary, stationary vessels and drilling required for pile emplacement will not adversely affect seabirds that forage in the open waters of Newport Harbor. These binds will forage in the presence of boating activity and will avoid activity that is potentially harmful. As a result, project implementation will not result in any potentially significant impacts to these sensitive bird species and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plaits, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed building is located well above the marine environment. The bluff face vegetation is not a riparian resource and is not identified as a sensitive natural vegetation community in any plans, policies or regulations administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Game. Storm drainage currently empties from the site into the Bay, and the proposed project will reduce stormwater runoff from 3.04 cubic l0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 41 of 87 feet per second to 2.92 cubic feet per second based upon the hydrological study prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. The conceptual water quality management plan includes best management practices and stormwater filtration devices that will improve the quality of runoff from the site, compared to existing conditions. In addition to the biological field survey and marine biological field survey, a marine biological impact assessment, focusing on eelgrass (Zostera marina) and sensitive species for the proposed dock replacement component of the proposed project was also conducted in January 2008 and updated in May 2008. In addition to eelgrass, the study determined that Camation Cove supports an extremely diverse assemblage of plant and animal life due to its locality near the Harbor Entrance Channel, and the combination of rocky outcrops and fine sands -to -silt substrates. This region of the harbor shares many characteristics common to nearshore subtidal reef and sand bottom marine habitats and communities located off Corona del Mar. Carnation Cove is an important marine relic habitat that no longer exists in other areas of Newport Bay. Eelgrass habitat in the project area was mapped in 2005 and 2007. In 2005, a total of 15,155.4 square feet (0233 acre) of eelgrass was mapped in the project vicinity. Of that total, 0.231 acre (99 percent) was mapped south of the existing boat dock. One small patch occurred outside the project boundary, 42 feet north of the project area dock. The remaining eelgrass bed began 62 feet south of the dock, and extended past the project area boundaries to the docks located at the Channel Reef apartment complex. The epifaunal snail (Alfa carinata) was present in low -to- moderate densities on the eelgrass blades. The 2007 distribution of the eelgrass generally mimicked the 2005 distribution with some slight boundary differences. The total amount of eelgrass in 2007 was 10,062 square feet (0.231 acre), or about 95 square feet less than the total documented in 2005. A total of 9,888.12 square feet (0.227 acre) was mapped south of the project area dock with the remainder located north of the dock during the most recent survey. The decline in eelgrass cover noted in 2007, while small, was associated with bay -wide eelgrass habitat area reductions observed between the same period. Eelgrass turion density was not determined during the 2007 survey. However, based on a comparative analysis of turion density, eelgrass turion density in this region of Newport Harbor is relatively stable. Consequently, turion density estimates for July 2004 in Carnation Cove, which averaged 115 +132 shoots per square meter at depths between 0.0 and —14.9 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), and March 2005 are likely representative of conditions at the project site in March 2007. The eelgrass survey also addressed other marine life in the project area (i.e., Camstion Cove). Low to moderate densities of sand dollars were found on the sand flats within the protected cove in numbers that varied between approximately 10 and 100 per square meter in 2005, and between 115 and 325 per square meter in 2007. The channel nassa snail and purple olive snail, typical of shallow sand bottom communities, were also found within the cove's sandy sediments and immediately bottom habitat directly offshore of the cove. The marine biological community living on the low- intertidal rocky substrate surrounding the project site was characterized by a variety of life forms in the rock substrate, including scaly worm snail, mussels, green and brown algae and other invertebrates. The sand bottom marine life at depths seaward of the eelgrass beds (i.e., deeper than —10 feet MLLW) is colonized by sea pens, sheep crab, Kellet's whelk, and tube - dwelling polycheates. Nine species of fish were observed during the 2005 and 2007 surveys, including the Garibaldi, which is the State Fish and a protected species. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants, invertebrates, or fish were observed during the survey. Caulerpa ( Caulerpa taxifolia) 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 This species grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non - native habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. As required by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game, projects that have the potential to spread this species through dredging and bottom - disturbing activities must conduct pre - constriction surveys to determine if Caulerpa is present. Standard agency- approved protocols are employed by NMFS/CDFG- certified field surveyors. During the eelgrass survey 1p, AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY ANo NEGATIVE DECLARAT]ON Page 42 of 87 conducted for the proposed project, no Caulerpa taxifolia was observed in the general vicinity of the project site during either 2205 or 2007. The total area of potential effect (APE) was 47,318 square feet (1.08 acres), of which 15,525 square feet (42.9 percent) in the main channel was covered and 11,193 square feet (0.26 acre), 100 percent was covered in Carnation Cove. Short-term Eelgrass Impacts No direct losses of eelgrass are anticipated as a result of the dock construction project. Nonetheless, post-construction surveys will be conducted to verify that no eelgrass losses have occurred. As indicated above, project implementation also includes the replacement of the existing four -slip dock facility with an eight -slip dock to accommodate future residents of the proposed dwelling units. Construction of the replacement dock would result in potential water quality and vessel -related impacts on eelgrass habitat, which may include both direct and indirect long -term effects. During the pile removal and subsequent drilling required for the emplacement process, water turbidity will increase. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. In order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, Best Management Practices (BMPs), which eliminate any disposal of trash and debris at the project site as well as the removal of construction debris, will be implemented during construction. Vessel - related impacts include those associated with barges and work vessels working over existing eelgrass beds by deploying anchors and anchor chain within eelgrass habitat, grounding over eelgrass habitat, and propeller scarring and prop wash of either the barge or support vessels for the barge. These vessels could create furrows and scars within the eelgrass vegetation and would result in adverse losses of eelgrass habitat that would require the implementation of an selgrass mitigation program (refer to MM IV -3), which would minimize disturbances related to vessel operations and vessel anchor positioning. It is anticipated that barge operations will have only minimal shading effects on eelgrass since the position of the barge will shift each day, preventing continuous shading of any one part of the eelgrass bed. Long -term Eelgrass Impacts Project implementation will result in the placement of 19 piles into the bay floor. Although the piles will have a cumulative surface area of approximately 39.1 square feet, none will be directly embedded within the eelgrass habitat However, two piles on the wave- aftenuating dock and two piles at the end of the wood dock are located within several feet of where eelgrass occurs. As a result, there is a slight potential for the placement of these piles to disturb eelgrass through burial or sediment disturbances around the perimeter of the piles as they are driven Into the rock. implementing turbidity and sediment control measures (e.g., sift curtains and sleeves around pilings) will mitigate potential eelgrass habitat losses due to pile emplacement activities. The proposed dock structures will encompass an area of approximately 3,450 square feet. A small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave - attenuating concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -term shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surreys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts (refer to Mitigation Measures). Eelorass Impacts Related to Sand Transport The project area lies within an area of active sand transport near the harbor entrance channel that is subjected to periodic sand movement through mechanisms related to wave exposure and tidal energy transport. Sediments are transported from the entrance channel to the Orange County Sheriff Harbor patrol Beach along Bayside Drive. Piles, revetment, jetties, and other structures have a potential to interrupt and/or disrupt sand transport that could result in either an increase in sand deposition or sand erosion. Biologically, changes in sediment patterns and changes in sediment grain size can alter biological communities, including the distribution and abundance of eelgrass. However, sand transport impacts are not anticipated as a result of the placement and configuration of piles in a single row that is in the parallel and not perpendicular to the direction of sand transport. Therefore, the placement of dock 1�3 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 43 of 87 piles will not result In the disruption or loss of eelgrass habitat, or other biological communities as a result of any alteration In local sand transport mechanisms. Impacts to Other Marine SpQcies Refer to (a) above. C) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed building would occur well above any federally protected wetlands. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are required as standard practice and they have been prepared and will ensure that runoff from the site is appropriately managed to avoid additional pollution and erosion. The plans include best management practices to ensure that short-tens construction and long -berm use of the site will not impact Newport Bay. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No impact See the discussion of potential impacts to sensitive species in the previous responses. The project site and surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the vicinity of the project site, and therefore, the project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project will result in the removal of introduced, non - native trees, shrubs and ground covers currently existing on the upper portion of the bluff where grading and construction activities are proposed. The existing vegetation is not protected by a preservation policy or ordinance. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Potential impacts to marine biological resources are identified and described in the preceding responses. Potential impacts to avoid impacts to eelgrass and other marine resources were identified; appropriate mitigation measures have been prescribed. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No impact There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a bluff within the coastal zone; therefore, the site is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. However, the project area occurs within the vicinity of estuarine and eelgrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species (i.e., northern anchovy) within the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and Pacific Groundfish FMP (i.e., rockfishes). HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of essential fish habitat (EFH), which are rare, particularly susceptible to human - induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Although designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997), federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. Potential impacts to the eelgrass and species inhabiting that habitat are evaluated in the preceding analysis. Where potential impacts have been identified, mitigation measures are identified and prescribed below. AEwe (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 44 of 87 Mitigation Measures Implementation of the mitigation measures identified below will reduce potential impacts to marine resources to a less than significant level. MM IV -1 An updated pre - construction eelgrass and invasive algae survey shall be completed within 30 days of the initiation of the proposed dock(gangway construction. The results of this survey will be used to update the results of the March 2007 eelgrass survey and to identify, if any, potential project - related eelgrass losses and the presence or absence of the invasive algae (Caulerpa faxifolia) in accordance with NMFS requirements. MM IV -2 A post - construction project eelgrass survey shall be completed within 30 days of the completion of project construction in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). The report will be presented to the resources agencies and the Executive Director of the California Coastal Commission within 30 days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted in excess of that determined in the pre - construction survey, any additional impacted eelgrass will be mitigated at a ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). MM IV -3 Eelgrass shall be mitigated based on two annual monitoring surveys that document the changes in bed (i.e., area extent and density) in the vicinity of the footprint of the boat dock, moored vessel(s), and /or related structures during the active-growth period for eelgrass (typically March through October). Mitigation shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended, Revision 11). A statement from the applicant indicating their understanding of the potential mitigation obligation that may follow the initial two year monitoring is required. If losses are identified, a final eelgrass mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Newport Beach and resources agencies for review and acceptance. MM IV-4 The project marine biologist shall mark the positions of eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the dock and gangway construction area with buoys prior to the initiation of any constriction activities. MM IV-5 The project marine biologist shall meet with the construction crew prior to initiation of construction to orient them to specific areas where eelgrass occurs. MM IV-6 Support vessels and barges shall maneuver and work over eelgrass beds only during tides of +2 feet mean lower low water (MLL41f) or higher to prevent grounding within eelgrass beds, damage to eelgrass from propellers, and to limit water turbidity. MM IV -7 Anchors and anchor chains shall not impinge upon eelgrass habitat. MM N-8 Construction activities associated with the elevated walkway leading to the gangway, and construction personnel shall avoid impacts to rocky intertldal habitat and to eelgrass beds and sand dollar habitat within the Camation Cove. MM IV-9 Residents shall be informed of the sensitivity of the cove as a unique marine biological habitat to assist in ensuring the long -term protection of the cove's marine biological resources. ��5 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 45 of 87 MM IV -10 If vegetation clearing is to take place between March 15 and July 31, a pre- construction nesting survey for migratory birds will be conducted as required by the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pre - construction surveys are to be conducted no more than 30 days prior to ground disturbance. Some restrictions on construction activities may be required in the vicinity of the nests until the site is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined §95604.5? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a multiple family structure containing 94 dwelling units. The existing building was constructed in 1949. In addition, a single family residence constructed in 1955 also exists on the subject property. Neither structure is listed on a Federal, State or local historical resource inventory. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing residential structures on the site; however, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §95604.5? No Impact. Because implementation of the proposed project requires the approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport General Plan, it is subject to the provisions of SB 18, which requires consultation with Native American representatives. The City has complied with the requirements of SB 18 by submitting a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the City also sent letters to the Native American representatives, informing each of the proposed project. However, no response was received by the City from any of the Native American representations requesting consultation within the 90-day statutory period. In addition, a cultural and paleontological resources records survey was completed by LSA Associates, Inc. in July of 2005. All recorded archaeological sites and cultural resource records on file were reviewed, including the California Points of Historical Interest, the California Historical Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory. LSA completed an archaeological survey of the site. No archaeological sites were identified during the survey, which concluded that it is highly unlikely that any archaeological resources would exist given the disturbed nature of the site and soil conditions. Although project implementation includes extensive excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed residential structure, including the subterranean parking facilities, it is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing structures and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site. It is unlikely that any archaeological sites have ever existed on the property or will be encountered during construction. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures, including archeological monitoring, are recommended. C) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site and surrounding areas, including the bluff, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses; the only potentially unique geologic feature on the site would be the rocky cove. Although project implementation includes the replacement of the existing 4 -slip dock located within the cove below the site, it will not result in physical changes or alterations that would either directly or indirectly destroy the characteristics of the cove. The project will not impact the cove as construction of the proposed condominiums will occur well above the feature and construction of the replacement dock will occur seaward of the cove. As a result, alteration of the rocks or the cove will not occur and no significant impacts are anticipated. J�W AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 46 of 87 The cultural and paleontological resources records survey conducted in 2005 for the proposed project indicates that no known paleontological resources are known to exist on the project site; however, the site contains the Monterey Formation, which is known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. The survey concluded that the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation measure in accordance with CLUP Policy 4.5.1 -1 has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during grading /excavation activities (refer to MM V -1 below). d) Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact. The project site and surrounding areas are highly disturbed due to past urban development and there is no evidence of human remains or sites of Native American burials. As indicated above, both the NAHC and Native American representatives have been contacted in accordance with the mandate prescribed in SS 18. Consultation has not been requested. Therefore, based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and, further, no request for consultation by the Native American community, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural resources to a less than significant level. MM V -1 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the project applicant to develop a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) consistent with the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). In the event that fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation casts to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Less than Significant Impact. The site is located in the Corona del Mar area of the City, which is near the intersection of the Southwestern Block and the Central Block of the Los Angeles Basin. The Southwestern Block is the westerly seaward portion of the Las Angeles Basin, which includes Palos Verdes Peninsula and Long Beach, and is bounded on the east by the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ). The landward part of the NIFZ is a northwesterly- trending zone that extends from Beverly Hills on the north to Newport Bay on the south, where it continues offshore to the south; however, it eventually returns ashore again near La Jolla, where it is expressed by the Rose Canyon Fault. The NIFZ within the project environs is not included on the State - published Alquist -Pdolo Special Studies zonation map. �1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 47 of 87 The subject property is located within a seismically active area. Based on a site-specific fault investigation conducted by Neblett & Associates, Inc., the fault activity levels have not displaced terrace deposits for at least 80,000 to 120,000 years before present. According to CDMG Special Publications 42, "active" faults are defined as those faults that have displaced during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene age). Therefore, the faults identified on the site are not considered 'active." Although a literature review conducted for the preliminary geologiclgeotechnical investigation indicated that a fault was mapped on the site, site mapping, aerial photo analysis, fault trenching, and age dating conducted for the proposed project concluded that no active faults are present on the subject property. There are no known local or regional active earthquake faults on or in close proximity to the site, and the site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Zone. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is located approximately 1.7 miles to the west of and off -shore from the site, the Whitler- Elsinore Fault is located approximately 25 miles to the northeast, and the San Andreas Fault is located more than 50 miles to the northeast. Although episodes on those faults could cause ground shaking at the project site, it is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface rupture. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. tt) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. See response to Vi.a (i) above. As indicated above, the subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Table 3 identifies the active regional faults that are capable of generating seismic ground shaking in the region. The maximum magnitude for each of the faults is also presented in Table 4. Table 4 Regional Active Fault Parameters Aerie PA 2005 -196 Fault Name Approx. Distance km Source Type AIBIC Max. Magnitude Mw ) Slip Rate (mmlyd Fault T e' Newport-Inglewood Offshore 2.8 B 6.9 1.50 SS Newport-Inglewood IA Basin 4.2 B 6.9 1.00 Ss Palos Verdes 22.3 B 7.1 3.00 SS Chino-Central Avenue 33.7 B 6.7 1.00 DS Elsinore- Whitler 34.8 B 6.8 2.50 SS Elsinore -Glen Ivy 36.1 B 5.8 5.00 SS Coronado Bank 37.0 B 7.4 3.00 SS San Jose 49.0 B 6.5 0.50 DS Elsinore - Temecula 49.3 B 6.8 5.00 SS Sierra Madre Central 59.6 B 7.0 3.00 DS Cucamonga 60.2 A 7.0 5.00 DS Raymond 62.9 B 6.5 0.50 DS Verdu o 64.5 B 6.7 0.50 DS Clamshell -Saw it 65.4 B 1 6.5 1.00 DS Hollywood 66.5 B 6.5 1.00 DS Rose Canyon 66.9 B 6.9 1.50 SS Santa Monica 72.8 B 6.6 1.00 DS San Jacinto -San Bernardino 74.2 B 6.7 12.00 SS San Jacinto -San Jacinto Valley 75.4 B 6.9 12.00 SS Malibu Coast 77.4 B 6.7 0.30 DS Elsinore - Julian 83.8 A 7.1 5.00 SS San Andreas Southern 84.6 A 7.4 24.00 SS Sierra Madre San Fernando 84.8 B 6.7 2.00 DS 0 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 48 of 87 Fault Name Approx. Distance km Source Type AfB /C Max. Magnitude Mw Slip Rate mm r San Andreas 1857 Rupture) 85.5 A 7,8 34.0 Anaca a -Dume 87.0 B 7.3 3.00 fDS Cle hom 88.0 B 6.5 3.00 San Gabriel 88.2 B 7.0 1.00 San Jacinto -Anza 90.4 A 7.2 12.00 North Frontal Fault Zone West 96.1 B 7.0 1.00 Santa Susana 1 98.9 B 6.6 5.00 1 DS 'SS — strike -slip; DS — dip -slip; BT — blind thrust. SOURCE: Neblett & Associates Inc. March 28 2003 As indicated above, the nearest Type A fault is the Cucamonga Fault, which is located approximately 60.2 miles from the site. This fault is capable of generating a 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The nearest Type B fault is the offshore Newport- Inglewood fault (2.8 km from the subject property), which is capable of generating a maximum magnitude of 6.9. In addition, peak ground acceleration values were also calculated for the proposed project. Those values should be utilized for the design and construction of the residential structures. These values represent ground motions that as a minimum, have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The estimated mean peak ground acceleration at the site is 0.3458. As indicated above, the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation report identifies the appropriate CBC seismic coefficients for structural design. Implementation of the recommendations prescribed in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical investigation and compliance with CBC structure design parameters will ensure that potential impacts associated with ground shaking associated with a seismic event on one of the causative faults are reduced to an acceptable level (i.e., minimize foss of life and /or property). in) Seilsmic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact The site encompasses a bluff above Newport Bay. The site and the surrounding area have been developed with residential structures for several years. The slopes descending from the project site expose very resistant sandstone of the Monterey formation. Extensive through - going, low -angle discontinuities within the dense massive sandstone bedrock are absent. The lack of landslide features indicates that the area has been relatively stable in the recent geologic past (i.e., Holocene) and has not been subject to earthquake - induced large -scale landsliding. The majority of liquefaction hazards are associated with uncompacted, saturated or nearly saturated, non-cohesive sandy and silty soils. Based on field mapping and the subsurface exploration conducted for the proposed project, the artificial fill and terrace material presently existing at the subject site are very shallow, unsaturated, fine -to- coarse- grained, silty sand with abundant gravels, cobbles, and boulders. Based on the proposed project design, the site will be excavated to a proposed elevation of approximately elevation 30 feet NAVD 88 for subterranean level construction, effectively removing the artificial fill and terrace materials. Although the proposed grading will expose bedrock throughout the entire site area, potential liquefaction within the bedrock material is not anticipated. Furthermore, subsurface water, which is an important factor in the liquefaction phenomenon, was not observed during the field investigation. Therefore, the project is not expected to be subject to seismic - related ground failure, such as landslides or liquefaction given the rock nature of existing soils. A review report for the conceptual grading plan was prepared by Neblett and Associates (August 5, 2005) and the report concludes that with standard shoring, engineering and grading techniques, the potential for seismic - related ground failure and liquefaction is considered low. The report also concludes that the exposed bluff material is sandstone and bluff erosion is not considered a significant hazard. 0 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDYAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 49 of 87 IV) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact. See response to Vl.a(iii) above. b) Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The exposed bluff material on the site is composed of resistant sandstone and is not prone to erosion. In view of this site characteristic, bluff erosion is not considered to be significant Given the rocky nature of the bluff, as indicated previously, there is a relatively thin layer of topsoil. Removal of topsoil during excavation would represent an insignificant loss of topsoil. Therefore, potential impacts associated with bluff erosion would be less than significant. Nonetheless, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates (June 3, 2005). Implementation of the best management practices (BMPs) included in the SWPPP during construction will ensure that potentially significant erosion and/or loss of topsoil will be avoided. Implementation of the SWPPP is a standard requirement of the Newport Beach Building Department and all BMPs are mandatory during grading and construction. With additional impervious surfaces (an increase of 11 percent compared to existing conditions), this project would reduce the amount of open land area exposed to potential erosional forces of wind and water. Efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion and sediment movement from the site. As a result, potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or minimized. Because the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing dock and landing facilities, an engineering study (Coastal Engineering Assessment for the "Aerie" Dock Project) was prepared by Noble Consultants, Inc. (May 9, 2008) to evaluate the potential effects of high winds and sand transport associated with these facilities. The findings and recommendations of this study are summarized below. Wave Conditions and Potential Impacts Wind stations derived from measurements at Long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island were analyzed to define typical and extreme wind conditions for the prediction of wind waves at the project site. Based on the data from the Long Beach Airport, approximately 25 percent of the time, the wind blows from the WNW -NNW sector at an average speed of approximately six knots. In addition, the one -hour average wind speed from this sector never exceeded 40 knots. Winds from the SSES sector have a relatively low probability of occurrence (i.e., less than 10 percent) and would typically blow at about six knots but would not exceed 27 knots. Wind data from San Clemente Island indicated that the WNW -NNW wind section would also blow at approximately the same speeds as shown for the Long Beach Airport. Winds from the SSES sector typically blow at about four knots; however, extreme winds from this sector could blow above 56 knots, significantly higher than this wind probability at Long Beach Airport Extreme wind speeds and fetches for the project site were calculated SSE -S sector (refer to Table 5) based on the data available at both Long Beach Airport and San Clemente Island. (lb AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGA'nvE DECLARATION Page 50 of 87 Table 5 Selected Wind Conditions for Wind Wave Predictions Aerie (PA 2005 -196) Condition Direction Seed Significant Fetch Typical WNW -NNW 6 Knots 3 misec Newport Bay, 4,300 Feet 1.3 km Frequency of SSE -S 5 Knots 3 m/sec Pacific Ocean, 60 miles 110 km Extreme WNW-NNW 36 knots 19 misec 4,300 Feet 1.3 km 25% off the time SSE -S 48 knots 24 misec ..NTnort,Bgy, Pacific Ocean, 60 miles 110 km SOURCE: Noble Consultants Inc. (May 9 2008 SSES Based on the wind conditions identified in Table 5, wind wave conditions at the project site have been estimated and are summarized in Table 6. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wind - induced wave conditions at the project site would be typically mild. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind4nduced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet, as indicated in Table 6. Table 5 Wind Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme WNW -NNW and SSE -S Winds Aerie (PA 2006496) Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSE -S sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions, WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. The particular orientation of the Newport Beach jetties and the presence of the Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands prevent the predominant swell conditions, which approach the Southern California Bight from the W -NW sector for approximately 86 percent of the time, from affecting the site. With a frequency of occurrence of less than two percent, typical SSE -SW, 12 to 16- second swell would reach the project III Significant Wave Height Wave Frequency of Condition Direction Feet Period sac Occurrence Typical WNW -NNW 0.13 <1,0 25% off the time SSES 0.5 1.7 10% of the time WNW -NNW 1.3 1.5 Less f uent Extreme SSES 2.5 9 to 10 Less fre uent 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study prepared for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants Inc. (May 9, 2008 Typical and extreme swell conditions for offshore Newport Beach were also calculated and presented in the Noble study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. Based on that information, it can be concluded that wave conditions at the project site would, in general, be mild for approximately 65 percent of the time with either no wind waves or waves of negligible relevance at the project site. For about 25 percent of the time, winds from the WNW -NNW would generate a short 0.13 -foot significant height, less than 1- second period wind wave; and for 10 percent of the time, the offshore SSE -S sea breeze would generate a 0.5 -foot significant height, 1.7 period wind wave. On less frequent occasions, WNW -NNW winds within Newport Bay could generate 1.3 foot significant height, 1.5- second period wind waves. Similarly less frequent local storms from the SSE -S could generate 2.5 -foot significant height, 9 — 10- second significant wind waves at the project site. The particular orientation of the Newport Beach jetties and the presence of the Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands prevent the predominant swell conditions, which approach the Southern California Bight from the W -NW sector for approximately 86 percent of the time, from affecting the site. With a frequency of occurrence of less than two percent, typical SSE -SW, 12 to 16- second swell would reach the project III AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 51 of 87 site with a significant height of 0.5 foot. On less frequent occasions, extreme SSE -SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.6 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Table 7 summarizes the wave conditions at the project site resulting from typical and extreme SSE -SSW swell conditions offshore. Based on the dock plan proposed for the project wave conditions from the WNW -NNW will approach moored vessels at the proposed facility approximately from the beam, whereas wave conditions from the SSE -SSW would be entering through the entrance channel and approach the moored vessels from the bow (head seas). Under typical WNW -NNW wave, and SSE -SSW wave and well conditions, wave heights would be below the recommended one -foot limit, regardless of the recurrence intervals recommended for wave conditions in small craft harbors. Table 7 Wave Conditions at the Project Site Resulting from Typical and Extreme SSESSW Swell Conditions Offshore Aerie (PA 2005 496) The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind -induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE-SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to stone waves generated associated with passage of winter pre- frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Sediment Processes and Flow Patterns In the coastal/harbor zone, sediment typically moves in accordance with the impinging wave direction. Thus, sediment movement in the Newport Harbor entrance area depends strongly on the two I1'�, Frequency of Condition Offshore Project Site Occurrence Hs = 5 Feet Hs = 0.5 Feet Typical T = 12 —16 Seconds T = 12 —16 Seconds Less than 2% From SSE -SSW Parallel to entrance channel H =15 Feet H = 1.5 Feet Extreme T = 12 —14 Seconds T = 12 —14 Seconds Less Frequent' From SSE -SSW Parallel to entrance channel His = significant wave height; T = period. 'A detailed wave hindcast, beyond the scope of the study conducted for the project, would be required to determine the frequency of occurrence (or return period) of this event. SOURCE: Noble Consultants Inc. (May 9, 2008 The project site is exposed to impinging waves from either wind - generated period waves in the bay or ocean swells that will propagate through the entrance channel. For about 65 percent of the time, there would be no wind waves. For the remainder of the time, significant wave heights would be 0.5 foot or less. On less frequent occasions, wind -induced significant wave heights would be higher than one foot and up to 2.5 feet. Extreme SSE-SSW swell generated by distant storms could reach the project site with significant heights of approximately 1.5 feet and periods in the 12 to 14- second range. Because of the orientation of the harbor entrance channel, the study concluded that the site will be more exposed to stone waves generated associated with passage of winter pre- frontal storm winds and southern hemisphere swell that typically occurs in the summary months. As a result, the design of the proposed dock should be based on the extreme wave conditions where the structures will be most susceptible to damage from wave - induced forces and motion. The Noble Consultants study concluded that from a wave climate perspective, the proposed docking facility is feasible in a wide range of conditions. However, extreme wind waves from the SSE -SSW are expected to exceed the recommended maximum wave heights and, therefore, damage to the moored vessels and /or docking facilities may occur. In these less frequent conditions, vessels should be moved and sheltered in a less exposed location. Sediment Processes and Flow Patterns In the coastal/harbor zone, sediment typically moves in accordance with the impinging wave direction. Thus, sediment movement in the Newport Harbor entrance area depends strongly on the two I1'�, AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 52 of 87 distinguished wave patterns, winter north or northwest swells and southerly swells, that are typically observed in the region. The north and northwest swells occurring in the winter months have a deep water approach direction of between 2754 and 285° toward Southern California. Sediment movement along the Newport Beach shoreline would, therefore, be toward the southeast (Le., toward Newport Harbor). At The Wedge, the beach adjacent to the harbor entrance area, sands are partially pushed through the riprap jetty as well as moved around the jetty. The transported sands deposit in the harbor entrance adjacent to the jetty area during the winter months. Based on information provided by the City of Newport Beach (Chris Miller, Harbor Resource Division), an annual total of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sands are transported by waves into cove beaches in the area, resulting in a need for dredging from some dock facilities in order to maintain an adequate depth for boat berthing. The vast majority of sand depositing in the cove areas is coastal littoral sediment transported through the entrance channel. Sediment discharged either from the Upper Newport Bay or storm drains in the adjacent area would be fine silt, which is not beach - quality material. The project site's waterfront area Is characterized by various rock outcrops that form a cove beach, which appears to be stable because little change has occurred over the years based on a review of aerial photographs between 2001 and 2006. The bottom gradient where the proposed replacement dock will be constructed is approximately 9:1 (horizontal to vertical). A patch of sand along the channel side of the site's rock outcrop that is parallel to the navigational channel was observed at the time the study was conducted by Noble Consultants, Inc. The patch of sand, which is located in the depth shallower than 5 feet at the MLLW line, appears to be stable. The attached exhibit illustrates the flow patterns that characterize the channel in the vicinity of the project during the flood /ebb tide cycle. The food tide water flows somewhat parallel to the depth contours at the site and splits either into Carnation Cove or along the main navigational channel. These two flow fields would eventually converge and continue toward the upper bay. During the ebb tide, the reverse flow patterns were observed, except for an eddy zone located a100 feet ooeanward from the existing pier. The occurrence of this eddy zone may be attributed to the abrupt deepening of water depth, which not only slows dawn the flow rate but also alters the flow direction. Based on the findings presented in the coastal engineering assessment prepared for the project sediment deposited along the east side of the entrance channel at Newport Harbor is due to the uniqueness of sequential sediment transport patters that are typically observed in the harbor entrance area. Coastal alongshore drifted sands are transported either through the east jetty or via the entrance channel during the winter months and moved further into the bay by southerly swells primarily occurring in the following summer season. Sand - quality sediment movement within the project region is typically in the along - channel direction from the harbor entrance to the inner bay. A stable bayshore condition is observed at the project site. Regular sedimentation observed at China Reef located in the updrift area is primarily due to the groin -like outcrop feature that entraps the along-channel transported sediment. With a small percentage (approximately six percent) of the along - channel blockage area resulting from the proposed new dock facility, the potential impact to this unique sediment movement process in the entrance channel is insignificant, although localized sand deposit resulting from the presence of the proposed guide piles within the sand - moving path may occur. In addition, the project is located in the downdrift direction of the neighboring China Reef, the projects potential impact on sedimentation at the updrift location such as China Reef is inconsequential. No significant impacts to sand transport resulting from project implement are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. `1� AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 63 of 87 Flood/Ebb Tide Flow Patterns Flood -Tide Flow Patterns Ebb -Tide Flow Patterns �-�A AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDYAND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 54 of 87 C) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are not known to be located within an unstable geologic area and, therefore, are not expected to be exposed to or create on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse hazards. A preliminary geologic/grading analysis report was prepared for the proposed project by Neblett and Associates in August 2005. This report concludes that on -site geologic conditions will not present a significant hazard to the project. A Coastal Hazard Study was prepared by GeoSoils Inc. dated October, 5, 2006, which concludes that the project will not be subject to coastal erosional processes or long tens bluff retreat that will likely endanger the proposed project during the 75 year economic life of the structure. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 184 -B of the Californla Building Code (2007)), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. A preliminary geologic/geotechnical report (March 28, 2003) and grading review report were prepared for the preliminary grading plan (Neblett 2005). A representative soil sample was tested for expansion potential in accordance with Table 18 -1-B, which concluded that existing site soils have a 'very low" potential for expansion and, therefore, are not a significant issue given on -site soil conditions. A final geotechnical analysis will be completed as part of the final building permit review process, and strict adherence to the design recommendations are mandatory with building permit issuance. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The project will be connected to existing sewer lines. No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are proposed. Therefore, no significant impacts related to the implementation of an alternative waste disposal system are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure that potentially significantwave impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. MM VIA During periods when boats would be exposed to excessive wave- induced motions, boats should be sheltered at locations inside Newport Harbor to avoid damage. MM VI -2 The dock design shall be based on the extreme wave conditions identified in the coastal engineering study (Noble Consultants, Inc., 2008). One percent height of impinging random waves shall be used, which translates to a minimum design wave height of about 1.7 times the significant wave height (i.e., four to 4.5 feet). VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials associated with the construction of a residential building such as oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous o AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 55 of 87 materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In addition, trash enclosures are required to be maintained with covered bins and other measures to prevent spillage and/or seepage of materials into the ground. Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size, it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project site by P &D Consultants in May, 2005. The Phase I Assessment concluded that although, given the age of the existing structures on site, there is a possibility for asbestos and /or lead -based paint to be present and there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions that exceed the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard E1527 -00. A Pre- Demolition Asbestos/Lead -Based Paint Survey was conducted by AEI Consultants in December 2007 to evaluate, categorize, and quantify suspect asbestos - containing materials (ACM) and lead -based paints (LBP) at the subject property prior to demolition. A total of 43 suspect asbestos bulk samples were collected during the site inspection. Based on the analytical results of that survey, the materials listed in Table 8 contain detectable amounts of asbestos and are considered to be ACM. These materials must be properly removed by a licensed and CaVOSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor prior to the demolition of the building in accordance with all applicable regulations. Table 8 ACM Summary Table Aerie PA 2005495 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed 114 Material Location of Quantity Friable Percent Building Descri ion Sus ct Materials YIN Asbestos Throughout all 4 % -12% Various 9 °x9" Vinyl floors under carpet Chry in Floor Tile and and flooring, 8,000 SF N tile o ile° 0% 2/° Associated Mastic excluding Chrysotile in 201 -207 bathrooms Carnation Avenue mastic Throughout <1% Window Putty storage window 200 LF N Chrysotile exteriors Roof Patch Throughout roof Not N 5% Penetration Mastic penetrations Quantified Ch otile 'Quantities listed are approximate values SF — Square Feet LF — Linear Feet SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a health and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. However, any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM must be performed by a licensed 114 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 56 of 87 asbestos contractor. Implementation of the requisite industry standards for ACM removal will ensure that potential health hazards are reduced to an acceptable level. No significant impacts will occur. As indicated above, the survey also included the identification of lead -based paint. Several buildiny components were identified to contain LBP with a lead concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 mg /cm , which is the current regulatory threshold for the identification of LBP. Table 9 summarizes the lead -based paint identified in the buildings that occupy the subject property. Table 9 LBP Summary Aerie PA 2005 -196 Structure Location Member Paint Condition Substrate Paint Color Lead Concentration (mg/cm) Doors Exterior Jambs F - I Wood White and Beige 1.0-2.2 Doors Interior Jambs I Wood White and Beige 1.0 -6.1 Windows Exterior Trim Casing and Sill I - P Wood White 1.0-3.9 Walls Kitchens Tiles I Ceramic Beige 7.3 -9.9 Porch 207 Exterior Tiles I Ceramic White 4.7 Wall 207 Bath Tiles I Ceramic Green 9.9 Column Cou and N/A I — F Metal White 5.1 — 67 Wail 207 Exterior NIA 1 Concrete Gray 1.8 Porch 207 Exterior Frame F Wood Gray 2.0 Roof Exterior Overhang F Wood White 3.4 I — intact (i.e., surface does not appear to be deteriorated) F — Fair (i.e., 10% or less of total surface has deteriorated paint) P — Poor (i.e., greater than 10% of total surface has deteriorated paint) SOURCE: AEI Consultants December 13, 2007 The general overall condition of the subject Interior and exterior paintedffinished surfaces was observed to be intact The LBP survey concluded that no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact However, a contractor performing paint removal work should follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the paint, as proper waste disposal requirements and work protection measures must be taken. Similar to ACM removal, implementation of industry standard removal practices will ensure that any potential health hazard would be eliminated. No significant unavoidable adverse impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. 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? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Section Vila, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP. However, the ACM were observed to be in good condition and do not pose a significant heath and safety concern to occupants of the subject property in their current state. Similarly, the general overall condition of the subject interior and exterior painted/finished surfaces was observed to be intact; no immediate response action is necessary with respect to the noted LBP that is intact. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures; however, the ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the City of Newport Beach and other regulatory agencies. As a result no significant hazard to either the public or environment would occur as a result of the proposed project See responses to Vll.a. III AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATrvE DECLARATION Page 57 of 87 C) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact. The closest school to the project site is Harbor View School, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site to the northeast. The school is physically separated from the project site by a residential community and Pacific Coast Highway and will not be directly impacted by construction activities on the site. Although the proposed luxury condominiums would not include any activities or mechanical or chemical processes that would emit hazardous emissions, the existing structures were found to contain ACM and LBP; however, as prescribed in the mitigation measures, the existing ACM and LBP will be handled in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD and other Orange County Health Care Agency. Therefore, release of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing structures would be prevented through adherence to routine control measures monitored by the City Building Department and other regulatory agencies, as noted in the response to the discussion presented in Section Vll.a. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact A search of various databases concerning hazardous wastes and substances sites was conducted as part of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; this search determined that the subject property is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, project implementation will not create a significant hazard either to the public or the environment No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are 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? No Impact. The project site is located approximately 4.8 miles south of John Wayne Airport (JWA) and is not located within or subject to the airport land use plan for JWA or any other aviation facility. Operations at JWA will not pose a safety hazard for future residents due to the proximity of the project to the airport. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are 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? No Impact. The subject property is not located within proximity to a private airstrip. Development of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically Interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach has prepared an Emergency Operations Plan that designates procedures to be followed in case of a major emergency. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as an evacuation route in the City. The project site is not designated for emergency use within the Emergency Operations Plan. The primary concern of the Public Safety Element and the City of Newport Beach is in terms of risks to persons and personal property. Although the site is subject to seismic shaking, development pursuant to building and fire code requirements will ensure that the potential impacts are minimized or reduced to an acceptable level. The site is not located within a flood hazard area or subject to such potential disasters. Development of the subject property as proposed will not adversely affect either the evacuation routes or the adopted emergency operations planning program(s) being implemented by the City of Newport Beach. Closure of Carnation Avenue or Ocean Boulevard during construction is not proposed, although vehicular circulation in the project environs may be hindered from time to time due to construction activities. Potential circulation impacts will be temporary 1J b AERIE (PA2405 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 58 of 87 in nature and will be addressed through the Construction Staging and Parking Management Plans that will be implemented (refer to Section XV.f. In addition, any construction vehicles within the public right of way are prohibited from completely blocking vehicular and emergency access by the Vehicle Code. As a result, potential short-term circulation impacts associated with construction would not be significant. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death Involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact The project site and surrounding areas are not located within a "Potential Fire Hazard Area' as identified by the Newport General Plan Public Safety Element The subject property is located within an urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. Although some natural vegetation and/or habitat exists on the site, neither the property nor the surrounding residential area is located within a designated high fire hazard area. There are no major urban or wildland fire hazards that pose a significant threat to the development. Therefore, the site is not subject to a potential risk of wildland fires. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to ensure that potential impacts associated with the existence of LBP and ACM are reduced to a less than significant level. MM VII -1 Any repairs, renovations, removal or demolition activities that will impact the ACM or inaccessible ACM shall be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor. Inaccessible suspect ACM shall be tested prior to demolition or renovation. Air emissions of asbestos fibers and leaded dust would be reduced to below a level of significance through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. Proper safety procedures for the handling of suspect ACM shall always be followed in order to protect the occupants of the building and the asbestos workers. MM VII -2 The property owner shall maintain all LBP in good condition at all times. Any LBP in poor condition must be stabilized by removal of all loose and flaking paint chips under controlled conditions and application of a .primeriencapsulant (seal oat) over the remaining intact paint. MM VII -3 A contractor performing paint removal work shall follow the OSHA lead standard for the construction industry. The lead content of the paint should be considered when choosing a method to remove the pain, as proper waste disposal requirements and worker protection measure shall be taken. Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant impact. Waste discharges associated with this project that could affect water quality would be limited to non -point source discharges, including potential storm water runoff of construction materials and wastes and storm water runoff from the developed site. This project would not generate any point sources of water pollution; all wastewater generated by the residential plumbing systems would discharge directly to the City's sanitary sewer system, which would not affect the present permit to operate the affected wastewater treatment plant Further, the proposed project would result in the reduction in the number of dwelling units that would occupy the site when compared to the 15 units that currently exist. Therefore, the raw sewage that would be generated by the proposed project would be less than the amount that would be generated by the homes that presently occupy the subject property. Potentially adverse water quality impacts during the construction phases would be avoided through compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa ti 1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 59 of 87 Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). A variety of Best Management Practices (BMPS) have been identified in a preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that there is no contact between storm water and construction site wastes and materials and to prevent any accidental spills, leaks or wastes from draining off -site and into Newport Bay or the nearby storm drain system. The BMP program incorporated in the SWPPP is structured to maintain compliance with the Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) standards and provide multiple safeguards against potential harm to the environment While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the BMPs have been tailored to provide effective options to those are responsible for overseeing workplace safety and environmental compliance. BMPs included in the SWPPP address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, BMPs have also been prescribed for pollutants other than sediment, Including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, contaminated soil management, etc. A final SWPPP will be subject to approval, prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City or issuance of a General Construction Permit by the RWQCB. The permits will include requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to ensure that all water pollution control measures are properly implemented. The project will not result in a substantial change in land use and the composition of stormwater runoff will be highly similar to the runoff under current conditions. A Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is hereby incorporated by reference into this IS/MND (see reference #4, in the list of documents prepared for this project, on the last page of this report). The WQMP is conceptual and identifies a number of structural and non - structural BMPs that will be incorporated within the final designs to comply with the applicable provisions of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the City of Newport Beach water quality regulations, and to address anticipated requirements by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as part of a General Construction Permit (as discussed earlier). The BMPs have been selected to address the main pollutants of concern for this type of project, and for the impacted water body, Le. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an 'impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. All 'first flush' and low flow runoff from the developed site would be captured by an underground storm drainage system that will be pumped up to Carnation Avenue and fihered by a storm filter and bacteria fitter before being discharged into the existing municipal storm drain system. Notwithstanding the 11 percent increase of impervious surfaces on the project site, the proposed drainage system is expected to reduce the pollutant level in site runoff, compared to existing conditions that consist of sheet flow runoff directly to the bay, and unfiltered runoff into a stone drain catch basin just south of the site, at Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Implementation of the approved WQMP and SWPPP will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are 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)? No Impact. This relatively small -wale project would not result in a significant increase in water demand and all of the project's potable and non - potable water needs will be met through a connection to the City's domestic water system. Compared to the existing development, which includes only three occupied units of the 15 dwelling units on the site, the proposed project's eight dwelling units represents an insignificant increase in the demand for domestic water. No water wells are proposed or required to meet the water demands of this project. There are no water wells located on or near the site, and since this project would not affect any existing or require any new water wells, the project will not result in the lowering of the water table. ff ) AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 60 of 87 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? Less Than Significant impact No stream or river exists on site. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a northerly and westerly direction before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. A hydrological analysis prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, March 27, 2007 revealed that the site is composed of three drainage areas, all of which drain toward Newport Bay where it is discharged. The northerly portion of the site (Area A) drains in a northwesterly direction toward existing residential properties and Bayside Place below the project site before discharging into the bay. The majority of the existing surface flows emanating on the site (Area B) drains to the southwest and then Into Newport Bay. The smallest drainage area on the site comprises an area along the top of the bluff along Carnation Avenue (Area C); this area drains to an existing municipal catch basin located within Carnation Avenue. Due to the extensive site grading and excavation requirements and expanded building coverage (11 percent increase in impervious surfaces throughout the site), the existing drainage pattern on site will be modified. However, implementation of the proposed project will not significantly after the existing off -site drainage patterns; the overall changes are not considered significant. The proposed storm drain system will capture more of the site runoff and reduce sheet flows that currently directly impact Newport Bay. The improved efficiency of the new storm drain system, together with the filtration and energy dissipater elements within the two outlet structures, will ensure that the redeveloped site does not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. It is anticipated that total runoff during a peak storm event will decrease when compared to existing runoff conditions. Table 10 summarizes the existing and post-development hydrologic conditions. Table 10 Storm Water Runoff Aerie PA 2005 -196 Drainage Area Existing Runoff Post- Develo meat Runoff Area acres Volume cfs Area acres Volume cfe Area "A" 0.132 0.82 0.268 1.35 Area "B" 0.293 1.71 0.114 0.58 Area "C" 0.081 0.51 — Total 0.508 3.04 0.382 1.93 SOURCE: Hunsaker & Associates December 20, 200 d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or, amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off - site? Less than Significant Impact. See the preceding discussion in Vlll.c. As indicated in Table 5, project implementation will after the existing drainage conditions on the site. The site will be divided into two drainage areas (versus three that currently exist) and the total post - development surface runoff volume will decrease from 3.04 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1.93 cis (approximately 30 percent). Furthermore, the proposed project will not result in the alteration of any drainage course. With the projected decrease in surface runoff, no significant impacts are anticipated. AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 61 of 87 e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As noted previously, post - development surface runoff emanating on the site will be captured and filtered before it is discharged into the storm drain system in Carnation Avenue. Project implementation will reduce the storm water flow during a 100 -year storm by 1.11 cubic feet per second. Although the existing 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipe in Carnation Avenue is presently adequate to accommodate the surface runoff generated on the site, the 10 -foot wide catch basin is undersized and must be upsized to accommodate surface runoff within the drainage area. This project will be responsible for replacing /upsizing the catch basin, including filtration elements as described previously. This minor alteration of the storm drain that can easily be completed during project construction without impacting the drainage system provided it is accomplished outside of the rainy season. Mitigation Measure VIII -1 will ensure that this project provides the required upgrading of the Carnation Avenue catch basin including appropriate filtration elements. tj Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As indicated previously, Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. In addition to the changes in surface runoff anticipated as a result of the redevelopment of the subject property with the 8 -unit condominium structure, replacement of the landing /dock facilities will result in construction activities in the nearshore/bay area that could result in potential impacts to water quality. During the pile removal and emplacement process, water turbidity will increase when the concrete pylons are drilled into the sediments/bedrock. Turbidity may also increase if vessel propellers impact the bay floor or prop wash stirs up bottom sediments. Therefore, mitigation measures shall be incorporated during the construction phase of the dock in order to prevent the spread of any turbidity plume out of the area, including the Installation of a silt curtain around the dock and pile sleeves, elimination of trash disposal and debris, and the removal of construction debris on the bay floor. With the implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No impact The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would occur. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. See response to Vlll.g. I) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As indicated above, the project site is not within a flood hazard area or within an area subject to flooding due to dam or levee failure. Therefore, project implementation will not result in a potentially significant impact; no mitigation measures are required. D Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The subject property is located at the coastal margin of the Pacific Ocean, at the southern end of Newport Beach, within the Newport Harbor area. While this area is protected by jetty emplacement at the harbor mouth, long water waves generated by offshore mechanisms such as tectonic displacement t�� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 62 of 87 present a potential for tsunamis, which could pose a danger to life and/or property. Wave heights in Newport Bay associated with tsunamis originating from the Aleutians and the Gulf of Alaska were 0.9 feet and 1.8 feet, respectively. Tsunami - generated waves accompanied by high tidal stage may increase the cumulative wave height. A six -foot high tidal stage occurs frequently along the southern California coast. If a 100 -year high run -up wave is coupled with a six -foot high tidal stage, the potential for a 10 -foot high run -up over the mean lower low water (MLLW) is possible. The mean sea level is approximately three feet above the MLLW level, the tidal datum. Therefore, elevations up to seven feet above mean sea level may be flooded. The proposed elevation of the site following grading is at elevation 52.8 feet NAVD 88, which is 50.07 feet above mean sea level. Based on the proposed pad elevation, the risk to the site in response to tsunami is considered remote; no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Seiche is defined as a standing wave oscillation effect generated in a closed or semi - closed body of water caused by wind, tidal current, and earthquake. Seiche potential is highest in large, deep, steep -sided reservoirs or water bodies. Newport Bay lacks significant potential for damaging seiche because it is very shallow. Considering the proposed finish pad elevation (i.e., elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88), the potential for seiche effects to the project site is considered remote; no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. k) Would the project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See responses to Vlll.a and Vlll.f. 1) Would the project result in potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Stormwater discharge from the site will be that typically associated with residential and ancillary marine uses (i.e., boat dock). Although some temporary impacts associated with construction of the proposed residential structure and landing /dock facilities may occur (refer to Vlll.a through f.), no long -term outdoor storage, maintenance, fueling or work areas are proposed. Vehicle parking areas are to be fully enclosed or subterranean. As noted above, a full menu of BMPs has been prescribed in the draft WQMP and SWPPP and in mitigation measures following this section of the analysis to address water quality issues. A final WQMP and SWPPP are required as standard practice by the City of Newport Beach to ensure that stormwater impacts during or after construction are minimized or eliminated to the maximum extent possible. For example, the City's standard practice is to require street sweeping as a construction control measure, rather than washing down the street surface, to avoid runoff of construction wastes, sediment and debris into the storm drain system or the bay. As previously indicated, mitigation measures have been identified to address turbidity and related water quality impacts associated with the construction of the landing/dock facilities. m) Would the project result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. See responses to Vlll.a and Vll.f. n) Would the project create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Less than Significant Impact. As reflected in Table 10, the proposed storm drain system would achieve a decrease in peak storm runoff. As a result, this project would not result in adverse impacts due to changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. 1�5 AERIE(PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 63 of 87 o) Would the project create significant Increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Less than Significant Impact. See responses to Vlll.a through Vlll.f. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following measures will reduce potential drainage and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. MM VIII -1 The developer shall be responsible for replacement/upsizing of the 10 -foot wide catch basin located in Camation Avenue storm drain, which is currently deficient. The new catch basin will be sized to provide sufficient capacity for the runoff generated by this project, as well as existing runoff from the rest of the tributary area to this facility. It shall satisfy the appropriate storm -year design criteria established by the City Engineer. This storm drain reconstruction shall include appropriate urban runoff filtration elements, to reduce potential water pollution impacts into Newport Harbor. Reconstruction of this storm drain shall occur outside of the rainy season. MM VIII -2 All debris and trash shall be disposed in suitable trash containers on land or on the work barge at the end of each construction day. MM VIII-3 Discharge of any hazardous materials into Newport Bay is prohibited. MM VIII -4 Silt curtains shall be deployed around work barges and around the pile sleeving or drilling operations where feasible to minimize the spread of turbid waters into adjacent eelgrass beds within and outside the project area. MM VIII -5 All construction debris shall be removed from the bay floor. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Would the project divide an established community. No Impact. The project proposes to replace an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single family residence with a 8-unit condominium structure. The site is bounded by Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is entirely developed with single- and multiple - family residential development. Development of the site as proposed would not directly affect adjacent properties. In particular, project implementation would not divide or otherwise adversely affect or change and established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency and jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Newport Beach General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Newport Beach Zoning Code contain land use plans, policies and regulations of concern with respect to avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Consistency of the proposed project with applicable provisions and /or policies of each the long -range plans adopted by the City of Newport Beach is presented below. Presently, the site has two separate land use designations assigned by the Land Use Element of the General Plan. First, a small portion of the site, approximately 584 square feet, is designated RT (Two -Unit Residential) and the remaining portion, of the site is (60,700 square feet) designated RM (Mufti -Unit F AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 64 of 87 Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). The applicant proposes an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and a matching amendment to the Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation so the entire site will have consistent designations. The designation of the 584 square -foot portion of the site will be changed to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential). Although the additional land area would otherwise numerically allow one additional unit, the density limitation as required by the Zoning Ordinance is more restrictive because it excludes submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50 percent from the density calculation. The density of the proposed project (eight dwelling units) is below the maximum density permitted by both land use plans, which would permit up to 28 dwelling units. Furthermore, it is consistent with the maximum density allowed by the existing MFR zone with the exclusion of submerged lands and slopes in excess of 50 percent The Land Use and Natural Resources Elements of the General Plan contain policies regarding the protection of public views, visual resources, coastal bluffs and other natural resources. Additionally, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLOP) contains more specific policies regarding these issues. A discussion of the relevant and applicable CLUP policies is presented below. Chapter 2 of the CLUP regulates land use and development. The site is designated for residential use and as discussed above, a minor adjustment of the CLUP designation is necessary to reflect the same land use designation across the subject property. The following additional policies within Chapter 2 apply to the proposed project. Policy 2.7 -1 requires the maintenance of appropriate setbacks, density, floor area, and height limits for residential development in order to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. The project complies with existing building height and floor area limits established in the MRF zoning district. Although setback encroachments occur, they are subterranean and do not impact the character of the area because the above ground encroachment on the north side of the building provides between five and 7.5 feet of separation at the street level. Policy 2.7 -2 prescribes the continued administration of provisions of State law relative to the demolition, conversion and construction of low- and moderate - income dwelling units within the coastal zone. Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act) regulates the demolition or conversion of low- and moderate - income units within the Coastal Zone. With the exception of the existing caretakers residing on the property, the existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years .There are no low- or moderate - income households residing on this property. Therefore, Government Code Section 65590 is not applicable to this project. Policy 2.8.1 -1 requires that all applications for new development be reviewed to determine potential threats from coastal and other hazards. A coastal hazards study has been prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October, 5, 2006. Given the location, topography and development proposed, seismic ground shaking, coastal bluff retreat due to erosional forces, and tsunamis comprise the most significant potential hazards to development As indicated in Section VI, potential seismic constraints are addressed through the implementation of measures recommended in the preliminary geologic/geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project and through building design that complies with the design parameters prescribed in the 2007 California Building Code and related City building code requirements. Coastal bluff retreat is not expected to impact the project during the 75 year economic life of the building. In addition, given the elevation of the proposed residential development above the MLLW, potential inundation caused by wave action or tsunami is considered very remote and potentially less than significant Policies 2.8.1 -2 and 2.8.1 -3 require that the new development and land divisions be designed and sited to avoid hazardous areas and minimize risks to life and property from coastal and other hazards. As indicated above, the proposed residential building is located above potential wave action and related coastal processes. Furthermore, the proposed project has been designed to avoid the most hazardous portion of the project site. Replacement of the existing landing and dock facility has also been designed to address the seismic and geologic constraints that characterize the area. \�5 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 65 of 87 Policy 2.8.14 requires that new development assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. The proposed project will replace residential development similar to that currently existing on the site and would not contribute further to the instability of the area or further after the existing landform. As previously indicated, although excavation proposed to accommodate the lower levels of the structure will extend below elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88, grading will occur behind the predominant line of development and not on the exposed bluff and, therefore, will be consistent with the established bluff development policy prescribed by the City Council because it would not alter the existing landform that characterizes the site. The location of the Predominant Line prescribed by the City Council for this project was influenced by several factors, including the following land and development characteristics: (1) a north - facing bluff face segment which is not subject to marine erosion, (2) a west- facing portion bluff segment which is subject to marine erosion, (3) a point at the apparent juncture of the north - facing and west - facing portions of the bluff which extends into the sandy cove at the base of the project site and is subject to marine erosion, and (4) existing development on these various bluff face segments, with development as low as elevation 10 feet NAVD 88. Policy 2.8.3 -1 requires that all development applications for new development on a coastal bluff property subject to wave action assess the potential for flooding or damage from waves, storm surge, or seiches, through a wave uprush study. The residential component of the proposed project is located above areas subject to wave and storm survey and the potential for seiches and /or tsunamis is considered remote. A study was completed for the dock replacement component of the proposed project That study concluded that neither the construction nor the long -term use of the facility would expose future residents to adverse impacts associated with those phenomena. Policy 2.8.6 -10 requires the siting and design of new structures, including the replacement dock, to avoid the need for shoreline protective devices during the economic fife of the structure (75 years) and Policy 2.8.7 -3 requires that new development be free of geologic hazards. Several technical studies have been prepared to assess the potential project to ensure that development of the site is consistent with each of these policies. Specifically, these studies include: (1) Grading Plan Review Report prepared by Neblett & Associates, August 2005; (2) Coastal Hazard Study prepared by GeoSoils Inc., dated October 2006; (3) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated June 2005 (revised January 17, 2008); and (4) Hydrology analysis prepared by Hunsaker and Associates dated March 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). Collectively, the findings of these studies and technical review documents indicate that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to erosion, geologic instability, geologic hazard nor require shoreline protective devices during the economic life of the structure (75 years). In addition, the proposed replacement landing and dock facility will be similar in nature to those existing In the area and, therefore, will not adversely affect or be affected by the coastal process that characterize the area. As indicated previously, the proposed project will be designed to comply with current CBC structural design parameters and other measures prescribed in the geologic/geotechnical report prepared for the project. Policy 2.8.6 -9 requires property owners to record a waiver of future shoreline protection for new development during the economic life of the structure (75 years) as a condition of approval. Shoreline protection is only permitted to protect existing principal structures that were legally constructed prior to the certification of the LCP, unless a waiver of future shoreline protection was required by a previous coastal development permit. A mitigation measure has been prescribed to implement this policy (refer to MM X -1). Policy 2.9.3 -1 requires new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce. The project would utilize below grade parking accessed by two vehicle elevators. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located at street level. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the elevator (on driver's side) on each floor, residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through a touch of a button. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10'x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and approximately one minute round trip back to the street. To facilitate the driver's egress from the elevators, the cars entering the elevator from the parking level would be pointed In a "front forward" position, making AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATrvE DECLARATION Page 66 of 87 egress from the building at street level a safer operation when compared to a "backing our procedure, which is the predominant operation from the majority of the garages fronting on Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safety. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Programming of the elevator and access control can be customized to operate efficiently and to provide a high level of security and ease of use for the residents. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The elevators will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that the elevator is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another key pad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The design and operation of the proposed elevators, which are intended to facilitate resident parking, will avoid potential conflicts with residential traffic in the neighborhood. As a result, the proposed on -site parking is consistent with this policy; no significant impacts are anticipated. Chapter 3 establishes policies regarding public access. The following policies within Chapter 3 apply to the proposed projecL Policy 3.1.1 -1 requires the protection and where feasible, the expansion or enhancement of public access to and along the shoreline. Policy 3.1.2 -1 specifically indicates that access to and along coastal bluffs is desired while Policy 3.1.2 -2 indicates that public access must minimize impacts to coastal resources and coastal bluffs. Policy 3.1.1 -11 notes that a project must minimize impacts to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -9 identifies the following goals regarding public access: • Maximizes public access to and along the shoreline; • Includes pedestrian, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails; • Provides connections to beaches, parks, and recreational facilities; Provides connections with trail systems of adjacent jurisdictions; • Provides access to coastal view corridors; • Facilitates alternative modes of trensportafion; • Minimizes alterations to natural landfbrms; • Protects environmentally sensitive habitat areas; • Does not violate private property rights. Policy 3.1.1 -24 encourages the creation of new public vertical access ways where feasible, including Corona del Mar and other areas of limited public accessibility. Policies 3.1.1 -13 and 3.1.1 -14 would suggest that new development provide the direct dedication or an Offer to Dedicate (OTD) an easement for lateral and vertical public access when it causes or contributes to an adverse impact to public access. Policy 3.1.1 -26 indicates that maximum public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the shoreline Is necessary with new development except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources or (2) adequate access exists nearby. Lastly. Policy 3.1.1 -27 states that the implementation of the public access policies must take into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following: • Topographic and geologic site characteristics; • Capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity, • Fragility of natural resource areas; • Proximity to residential uses; • Public safety services, including lifeguards, fire, and police access; • Support facilities, including parking and restrooms; AERIE (PA2005 -116) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 67 of 87 Management and maintenance of the access; The need to balance constitutional rights of individual property owners and the public's constitutional rights of access. Although an existing stairway will continue to provide access for the occupants of the proposed dwelling units to the beach area, this access is not suitable to accommodate the public due to physical constraints. The site is constrained in terms of lateral and vertical access by the steeply sloping topography of the site (refer to the exhibit illustrated below), existing development, and submerged lands. Specifically, the steeply sloping coastal bluff presents safety and maintenance concerns for any potential public access structure. Therefore, the project site has neither dedicated public access easements nor physical public access to bay. However, public access to the beach areas exists in proximity to the site, including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Place. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. With the availability of adequate public access in the immediate vicinity of the site, additional access through the subject property is not necessary, particularly given the physical constraints, safety, and maintenance concerns cited above. With the exception of the existing docks, which will be replaced by a large, more modern, dock facility that accommodates eight slips, the lower portion of the bluff, submerged lands, and tidelands will remain in their existing condition. The replacement landing and dock will be located in generally the same location as they presently exist; however, the dock would be expanded to accommodate more boats. Access to the designated (public) view point at the end of Carnation Avenue will remain unaffected; however, the public view from that point will be widened from 25 degrees to 44 degrees with project approval. The proposed design will afford three new parking spaces along Carnation Avenue with the elimination of the overly wide drive approach to the existing apartment building. These additional parking spaces created by the proposed project will be available to the public As previously indicated, the applicant is also proposing to replace the existing landing and private docks and will also provide an emergency communication device and wet standpipe to the docks for enhanced fire protection. With the reduction in residential density, combined with the fact that no existing or prescriptive access rights exist, the project will not impact or impede existing public access. Providing enhanced public access to the bluff or bay would necessitate a reduction in the overall scope of the project and the construction of a staircase down a steeply sloping coastal bluff, which could pose both safety and maintenance problems. Furthermore, maintenance of such an access point must be assured by either the future homeowners association or the City of Newport Beach. Another factor affecting the feasibility and /or appropriateness of extending public access through the site is the proximity of the access to existing and proposed residential uses. As previously indicated, adequate, convenient public access to the bay is currently available at several locations in the vicinity of the subject property, including China Cove, Lookout Point and at a street end located in the 2300 block of Bayside Drive. These access points are located approximately 450 feet to the east, 1,125 feet to the east and approximately 480 feet to the northwest respectively. Given the proximity of these nearby public access locations, the provision of additional public access through the subject property Is neither required nor appropriate based on the parameters prescribed in the CLUP policies noted above, including but not limited to the topographic constraints (i.e., steep slopes and narrow passage), proximity of residential uses and potential loss of privacy, managements and maintenance requirements associated with the access, public safety, and the balance of property rights. Based upon the availability and proximity of existing public access in the vicinity of the project site as well as potential adverse safety and privacy issues, the provision of public access easements or outright dedication of land for public access is not necessary. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the CLUP policies and the Coastal Act. Given the steepness of the topography, and the proximity of nearby access to the water, vertical and lateral access is unwarranted. Lt D AERIr (PA2005-196) I NFFIAI.$TUAY AN() NEGATIVE DECIARATIQN Page 68 of 87 LaterallVertical Coastal Access Exhibit �r v rr u�E aQ up n� J } a� uu �L gu g$ hF dad a V� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 69 of 87 Chapter 4 establishes policy regarding the protection of coastal resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project Policy 4.1.3 -1 identifies 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to natural habitats. Applicable measures require the control or limitation of encroachments into natural habitats and wetlands, regulate landscaping or revegetation of blufftop areas to control erosion and invasive plant species and provide a transition area between developed areas and natural habitats, require irrigation practices on blufftops to minimize erosion of bluffs and to prohibit invasive species and require their removal in new development. The residential component of the project does not encroach within sensitive habitat areas or wetlands and the landscaping plan indicates the bluff to be hydroseeded with a drought - tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Because the existing landing and docks are in a deteriorated state and pose a potential hazard to safety, the proposed project includes the replacement of the existing facilities as required by the City of Newport Beach. An eelgrass impact assessment was undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the construction of the dock facility. Based on that survey, it was determined that a small portion of the existing eelgrass bed (approximately 30 square feet) will potentially be affected by shading effects from vessels docked within the slips and the wave - attenuating concrete dock structure. The area of eelgrass habitat that is actually affected by long -tern shading will be determined during post - construction monitoring surveys conducted pursuant to National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (NMFS 1991 as amended). The location and amount of eelgrass to be transplanted shall be determined following the results of the two annual monitoring efforts. Additional mitigation measures that address biological and water quality impacts have also been prescribed (refer to Sections IV and VIII). Policies 4.3.15, 4.3.1 -6, 4.3.1 -7, 4.3.2 -22, 4.3.2 -23 require development to limit land disturbance activities and implement structural best management practices to prevent or minimize erosion that would impact coastal resources. A Water Quality Management Plan, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and a hydrological analysis were also prepared by qualified professionals and include best management practices and structural methods to ensure that erosion and sormwater discharge will not impact Newport Bay. ' These BMPs will address both short-term (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) effects and incorporate a variety of features to address erosion and sedimentation as well as non - sediment BMPs to address the use of fertilizers/pesticides, vehicle/equipment parking, solid waste management, etc., which incrementally contribute to the water quality impacts associated with urban development. Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 require that development be designed to minimize impacts to public coastal views and to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs and other scenic coastal areas. Policies 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9, however, expressly permit new development on the bluff face on Ocean Boulevard, Carnation Avenue and Pacific Drive when principal structures presently exist on the bluff face provided the new development is 'sited In accordance with" the Predominant Line. in those cases, Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, 4 must be applied in a manner which does not negate Polices 4.4.3 -8 and 4.4.3 -9. As noted previously, Policy 4.4.3 -9 establishes a threshold for the protection of coastal views to the Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue bluff faces by limiting development to the Predominant Line, Policy 4.4.3 -9, therefore, provides the standard by which Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2 can be implemented for this specific location. The proposed project has been redesigned to limit the proposed development to the Predominant Line as established by the City Council (i.e., elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88), these policies are met by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable CLUP policies related to views and aesthetics. Policy 4.4.1 -3 requires the design and siting of new development to minimize alterations to significant natural landforms, including bluffs, cliffs and canyons. Similarly, Policy 4.4.3 -12 promotes the use of site design and construction techniques to minimize alteration of coastal bluffs. As with Policies 4.4.1 -1 and 4.4.1 -2, Policy 4.4.1 -3 and 4.4.3 -12 must be interpreted in the context of the policies that expressly permit development on the bluff face to the Predominant Line at this location. As previously indicated, the applicant has redesigned the project to comply with the Predominant Line as determined by the City Council, which is elevation 50.7 feet NAVD 88. Excavation below the 50.7 NAVD 88 elevation is required to accommodate the lower levels of the proposed structure. However, the grading will occur behind the bluff face and will not be visible from any existing viewshed. In addition, the project includes an `\ AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 70 of 87 emergency exit at elevation 40.5 feet NAVD 88, which is located below the predominant line of existing development and will be recessed Into the bluff. in order to ensure compatibility with the natural landform and, therefore, avoid both damaging the scenic resource represented by the bluff and degrading the existing visual character and quality of the site, the emergency exit incorporates design features that blend the exit into the existing natural character of the bluff through the use of landscape and hardscape materials, including rocks. As a result, the emergency exit is consistent with the City's established policies regarding protection of the scenic and visual qualities of the bluff. Finally, the proposed condominium structure is situated on the flattest portion of the lot and the building design conforms to the natural contours of the site; therefore, grading of the bluff is the minimal amount needed to build the project to the Predominant Line and the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 4.4.1 -6 requires public views from Ocean Boulevard to be protected. A public view over the project site from Ocean Boulevard to the west presently exists over the southeastern portion of the site. As previously discussed (refer to Section I — Aesthetics), a 25 degree view currently exists between the existing apartment building on the site and the neighbors garage and fence to the south. Project implementation will result in an expansion /enhancement of that existing view, which would increase to 44 degrees as indicated in the illustration below. Policy 4.4.1 -4 promotes requiring, where appropriate, new development to provide view easements to protect public coastal views. Implementation of MM IX -2 requires a view easement (applicable only to the project site) to ensure that the enhancement of the view is achieved and preserved in the future. �� 1 AERIE (PA2005 -195) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 71 of 87 Policies 4.4.2 -2 and 4.4.2 -3 stipulate that the visual and physical mass of development should be regulated through enforcement of building envelope regulations (i.e. building height, setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) in effect on October 13, 2005, in order to preserve public views. With only minor exception (e-g., excavation required to accommodate the subterranean levels, side yard setback)the project complies with all of the development standards prescribed by the existing zoning and is, therefore, consistent with building height limits and other building envelope restrictions. The below grade encroachments will not impact public views and the above grade encroachment is located within a side yard setback between the proposed project and the home abutting the site to the north (215 Carnation Ave.) where no public view currently exists. Policy 4.4.3 -4 notes that on bluffs subject to marine erosion, such as the west- facing portion of the bluff in this case, new accessory structures such as decks, patios and walkways must be sited in accordance with the predominant line of existing development. However, no new accessory structures are proposed. The policy requires that accessory structures be removed or relocated landward when threatened by erosion, instability or other hazards. MM IX -3 mandates that the existing accessory structures (concrete pad, staircase and walkway) be removed if such circumstances arise in the future. Policy 4.4.3 -13 requires that new development on coastal bluffs must incorporate drainage improvements, irrigation systems, and /or native or drought - tolerant vegetation into the design to minimize coastal bluff recession. The project implements this policy through hydroseeding the bluff with a drought- tolerant mix native to coastal California natives with temporary irrigation to be used only to establish the vegetation. Implementation of MM IX-4 will ensure that the planting and irrigation be accomplished within this limitation. The proposed storm drainage system will more efficiently capture site runoff, reduce the amount of sheet flow across the bluff face, and discharge to Newport Bay with less intensity than under current conditions. Implementation of these measures will help reduce the potential for coastal bluff recession due to effects of site runoff. C) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not subject to a habitat conservation plan area or natural community conservation plan area. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with land use to a less than significant level: MM IX -1 The property owners) shall execute and record a waiver of future shoreline protection for the project prior to the issuance of a building permit. Said waiver shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney. MM IX -2 The applicant shall dedicate a view easement as depicted on the exhibit below; however, it will only affect the project site. Structures and landscaping within the easement area shall not be permitted to block public views. The easement shall be recorded prior to the Issuance of a building permit for new construction and shall be reflected on the final tract map. MM IX-3 Accessory structures shall be relocated or removed 0 threatened by coastal erosion. Accessory structures shall not be expanded and routine maintenance of accessory structures is permitted. MM IX-4 Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non -native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed. 6 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 72 of 87 X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact The project site is currently developed with a 14 -unit apartment structure and one single - family residential dwelling unit. Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the project site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts. b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally4mportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. Project implementation (i.e., demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of a new 8 -unit condominium structure) as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur. XI. NOISE a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established In the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. Noise sources in the study area include traffic on the local streets, aircraft operations at John Wayne Airport, activities on boats in the channel, and general residential activities in the area. Ambient average daytime (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) noise levels (Leq) in the vicinity of the project site range from 50.5 dB(A) to 59.9 dB(A); ambient average daytime noise levels in the residential area directly across the channel from the project site range from 48.5 dB(A) to 59.3 dB(A). The ranges of maximum noise levels (Lmax) range from 63.1 dB(A) to 80.9 dB(A) in the immediate vicinity of the subject property and from 63.6 dB(A) to 85.9 dB(A) directly across the channel. The average and maximum ambient noise levels in the project environs are summarized in Table 11. Table 11 Ambient Noise Levels Aerie PA2005 -195 Location Description Range of Average Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Range of Maximum Daytime Noise Levels (Leq) 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 .m. Rear Patio 101 Bayside Place 50.5 — 57.4 dB(A) 63.1 — 80.9 dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Boulevard 52.9 — 59.9 dB(A) 68.3 — 79.0 dB(A) Rear Patio 2282 Channel Road 48.5 — 55.0 dB(A) 63.6 — 77.0 dB(A) Rear Patio 2222 Channel Road 50.7 — 59.3 dB(A) 634 — 85.9 dB(A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2008 Based on the ambient noise levels identified above, noise levels in the nearby harbor area are considered to be compatible with residential uses in this area. Residents of the proposed luxury condominiums, therefore, would not be exposed to significant long -term noise sources. The proposed project replaces an existing residential use and, moreover, reduces the number of dwelling units on the site by nearly 50 percent. Although on -site noise levels associated with residential activities on the redeveloped site would `a A AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 73 of 87 increase compared to current conditions because the only the single - family residential dwelling unit and three units within the apartment building are occupied, it is anticipated that any increase in long -term noise associated with the residential uses would be those occurring as a result of outdoor activities. Passive recreational activities in and around the proposed outdoor pool, on the private decks and along the walkway and beach area at the bottom of the property are not expected to result in significant noise levels. If future residents and their guests should engage in activities that result in temporary, loud noise levels that exceed the limits set forth in Chapter 10.26 of the City's Municipal Code, the City is empowered to take actions to abate that activity. This project would not result in exposure of neighboring residents or future residents on site to noise levels that exceed City standards. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. Drilling of piles is proposed to secure building foundations. This is a less intensive method than pile driving and excessive ground borne vibration or noise is not expected. Ground borne noise and vibration during the hours when construction activities are normally permitted will occur and it will be characteristic of typical grading and construction work associated with on-site conditions. In addition to the pile emplacement activities necessary to construct the proposed residential structure, including the subterranean levels, potential vibratory activities during the construction of the proposed landing and dock facilities may also occur as a result of extracting the existing piles and drilling into the channel bed to provide a socket for the concrete piles, which will then be grouted into place. Based on published information, typical drilling produces the peak particle vibration (PPV) of 0.089 inches/second at a distance of 25 feet Table 12 provides a comparison of the estimated construction vibration levels to the maximum ambient vibration levels monitored at the nearby properties. Table 12 Comparison of Estimated Construction Vibration Levels to Ambient Levels Aerie PA2006 -196 Location Description Maximum Ambient Vibration Level Estimated Construction Vibration Level Rear Patio —101 Bayside Place 0.00128 in /sec 0.02 in /sec Pool Area — 2495 Ocean Blvd 0.00086 in /sec 0.01 in /sec Rear Patio — 2282 Channel Rd 0.00298 in /sec 0.002 in /sec Rear Patio — 2222 Channel Rd 0.00121 in /sec 0.002 in/sec SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2008 General vibration damage criteria for various building categories have been developed by both the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans. These criteria are summarized in Table 13. Table 13 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Aerie PA2005 -196 Building Category PPV infsec ' Federal Transit Administration Reinforced concrete steel or timber no plaster) 0.05 Engineered concrete and mason no 0.3 Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 t�� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 74 of 87 Building o PPV (in/sec), Caltrans Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins ancient monuments 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.25 Older residential structures 0.3 New residential structures 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 0.5 'Peak Particle Velocity SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1 2008 As indicated in Table 13, the anticipated vibration associated with the construction of the dock facilities would not exceed any of the damage criteria recognized by the Federal Transit Administration and California Department of Transportation. As a result, no significant vibration impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. C) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above In XI.a, redevelopment of this property with eight luxury condominiums and the replacement dock and related facilities would not result in any changes in land use that Include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by the proposed project would be minor and compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Although long -term noise levels would be expected to increase when compared to existing conditions, since the majority of the apartments have been vacant for an extended period of time, this potential increase would be less than the noise levels that would be generated by the existing apartment building at full occupancy and would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Less than Significant Impact. Short-term (construction) noise level increases will occur from the use of construction equipment associated with demolition of existing structures, grading and excavation, and building and construction activities. Such noise impacts vary markedly because the noise strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its activity level. The exposure of persons to the periodic increase in noise levels will be short-term (Le., on the order to several months). Short-term construction noise Impacts tend to occur in discrete phases dominated initially by earthmoving sources, then by foundation construction, and, finally, for finish construction. Heavy equipment noise can exceed 90 dB(A) and average about 85 dB(A) at 50 feet from the source when the equipment is operating at typical loads. Most heavy equipment operates with varying load cycles over any extended period of time. A variety of noise sources and noise levels would occur on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, over the estimated 2.5 year construction program associated with the proposed residential development. Noise levels would vary, depending upon the type and number of construction machinery and vehicles in use and their location within the project site. The types of machinery to be active will vary with the construction phases, which would include: Demolition of existing buildings and site Improvements Demolition and replacement of the existing landing and boat dock Drill shoring caissons Lag and excavate t� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 75 of 87 • Shotcrete shoring walls • Install foundations • Build concrete structure • Install plumbing, electrical, mechanical, finish exteriodinterior, etc. • Haddscape and landscape Noise levels associated with construction machinery typically range from 75 to 100 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. No unusual construction methods are proposed that could generate extremely high noise levels; for example, no blasting of rock materials is anticipated and pile driving will not be required, based on the results of the geotechnical investigations. The maximum noise levels would occur while the machinery is in active use and would be noticeable intermittently throughout the construction work day. There are no regulatory standards governing noise levels of construction machinery and operations, so most jurisdictions, including the City of Newport Beach, restrict the days and hours of construction activities to weekdays and Saturdays, when people are generally most active and the nuisance -level of construction noise is considered most tolerable. As noted in the previously, Chapter 1028 of the Municipal Code prohibits any construction activities between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m, on Saturdays, and at any time on Sundays or a federal holiday. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions to these standard restrictions; therefore, the temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant. The homes adjacent to the subject property will be exposed to construction noise levels during the construction phases, though such noise will be confined to daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity. In later phases of finish construction, equipment such as generators, compressors, saws, etc., are seen to be somewhat less noisy and the physical barrier created by partially completed on-site facilities will further break the "line of sight" propagation. Building assembly and finish construction during the later phases of development would also create less noise, particularly as portions of completed structures inhibit direct line - of- sight sound propagation. Noise associated with demolition and construction activities is exempt from restrictions, provided such work occurs during the days and hours specified in Chapter 10.28 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code establishes maximum noise levels for interior (45dBA) spaces and exterior residential spaces (50 dBA nighttime and 55 dBA daytime, unless ambient noise levels are higher). The site is not currently impacted by significant noise levels as it is located in a relatively quiet residential area distanced from major highways or other noise producing activities or uses. In addition to the demolition of the existing residential structures and redevelopment of the site with the 8- unit condominium project, the applicant is also proposing the replacement of the existing landing and boat dock with new facilities in order to accommodate the future residents of the proposed project. Replacement of the boat dock will encompass two phases, including a drilling phase, and a concrete pouring phase. The combined noise levels at 50 feet from during the drilling phase is estimated to be 88 dB(A) and 87 dB(A) during the drilling phase and concrete pouring phases, respectively. The estimated construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project site and across the channel are summarized in Table 14. Table 14 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors Aerie PA2005 -196 tq1 Drilling Phase Concrete Pouring Phase Average Maximum Average Maximum Location Description NoiseLevell Noise Leve12 Noisel-evelc Noise Leve12 Rear Patio 101 Ba side Place 71 dB(A) @ 155' 83 dB(A) @ 90' 69 dB(A) @ 155' 82 dB(A) @ 90' Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 68 dBA @ 230' 77 dBA @ 175' 66 dBA @ 230' 76 dBA @ 175' Rear Patio 2282 Channel Rd 56 dBA @ 880' 64 dBA @ 785' 54 dBA @ 880' 63 dBA @ 785' tq1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 76 of 87 The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction of the replacement landing and dock facilities during the drilling and concrete pouring phases are identified in Table 15. As indicated in that table, the estimated increase in noise level during the drilling phase is estimated to be between 9.1 dB(A) and 20.5 dB(A) at the properties adjacent to the site. The estimated increase at locations across the channel are estimated to range from 2.2 dB(A) to 8.5 dB(A), depending on the location. Table 15 Estimated Increase in Average Noise Levels during Dock Construction Aerie PA2005 -195 Drilling Phase Concrete Pouring Phase Location Average Maximum Average Maximum Description Noisel-evel' Noise Leve42 Notsel-evei' Noise Leve12 Rear Patio 2222 Channel Rd 56 dBA @ 920' 65 dBA @ 675' 64 dBA @ 920' 64 dBA @ 675' 'Based on the average distance from all of the piles to each sensitive receptor. 2Based on the distance from the closest pile to each sensitive receptor. SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1, 2008 The estimated increase in average noise level due to construction of the replacement landing and dock facilities during the drilling and concrete pouring phases are identified in Table 15. As indicated in that table, the estimated increase in noise level during the drilling phase is estimated to be between 9.1 dB(A) and 20.5 dB(A) at the properties adjacent to the site. The estimated increase at locations across the channel are estimated to range from 2.2 dB(A) to 8.5 dB(A), depending on the location. Table 15 Estimated Increase in Average Noise Levels during Dock Construction Aerie PA2005 -195 As indicated previously for the demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of the 8- unit condominium building, the project will result in the temporary exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels identified in the area; however, construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. Although no significant impacts will occur, the applicant shall implement the measures recommended later in this section. 1Ju Estimated Range of Measured Estimated Average Estimated Average Increase Location Ambient Noise Construction Noise + Construction In Noise Level Due Description Le Level Noise Level To Construction Drilling Phase Rear Patio 101 Bayside Place 50.5 - 57.4 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 71 dB(A) 13.6- 20.5dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 68 dB(A) e8 - 69 dB(A) 9.1 -15.1 dB(A) Rear Patio 2282 Channel Rd 48.5 - 55.9 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57 - 59 dB(A) 4.0 - 8.5 dB(A) Rear Patio 2222 Channel Rd 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 56 dB(A) 57- 61.5dB(A) 2.2- 6.3dB(A) Concrete Pouring Phase Rear Patio 101 Bayside Place 50,5 -57.4 dB(A) 60 dB(A) 69 dB(A) 11.6 -18.5 dB(A) Pool Area 2495 Ocean Blvd 52.9 - 59.9 dB(A) 66 dB(A) 66 - 67 dB(A) 7.1 -13.1 dB(A) Rear Patio 2282 Channel Rd 48.5 - 55.0 d6(A) 54 dB(A) 55 - 58 dB(A) 3.0 - 6.5 dB(A) Rear Patio 2222 Channel Rd 50.7 - 59.3 dB(A) 54 dB(A) 56 - 60.5 dB(A) 1.2 - 5.3 dB(A) SOURCE: Wieland Acoustics (May 1, 2008 As indicated previously for the demolition of the existing residential structures and construction of the 8- unit condominium building, the project will result in the temporary exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed the ambient noise levels identified in the area; however, construction activities are permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Municipal Code does not identify any quantitative noise level standards for construction activities. Although no significant impacts will occur, the applicant shall implement the measures recommended later in this section. 1Ju AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 77 of 87 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. John Wayne Airport is located approximately 5 miles north of the subject property. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport Noise in the Vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wane Airport is below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or other aviation facility that generates noise in the vicinity of the subject property.. Mitigation Measures As indicated in the preceding analysis, no significant noise or vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the following measures are recommended to ensure that potential construction noise impacts are minimized. MM XI -1 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. MM XI -2 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes potential cumulative construction noise levels. MM XI -3 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, including construction of the dock, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? No Impact. The project will result in a decrease in the total number of dwelling units from 15 to eight; therefore, project implementation would not result In a substantial increase in population based on the population per household recognized by the City of Newport Beach. Further, the project site could accommodate up to 28 dwelling units based on the existing zoning. Therefore, site development would result in a decrease in the number of dwelling units that currently exist on the site and that could be constructed. All proposed utility services can be provided through connections to existing main line facilities that exist on or near the project site. With the exception of the existing 10 -foot catch basin in Camation Avenue that is inadequate to accommodate existing surface runoff, the proposed project would not require expansion of any other infrastructure facilities that could support additional growth. Vehicular access is available from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. Although project implementation would result in the alteration of the existing drivewaylourb out on Carnation Avenue to provide access to the proposed dwelling units, no significant circulation improvements are necessary. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. i9 ) AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 78 of 87 b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less than Significant Impact. The project will result in the demolition of the existing 14 -unit apartment building and the single - family residence that exist on the subject. property. Project implementation, therefore, will result in a decrease in a total of seven dwelling units based on the existing site development and up to 20 units based on the maximum development permitted by the existing zoning. The loss of seven (existing) dwelling units is not considered a significant decrease of housing units within the City of Newport Beach. With the exception of one tenant currently residing in the single - family residence (207 Carnation) and occupants of the two apartment units, the remaining units are vacant. No replacement housing is necessary. C) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated above, the subject property currently supports a 14 -unit apartment and single - family residence, which are occupied by only one tenant and the caretaker for the property. Although these residents would be displaced by the proposed project, it is anticipated that adequately replacement housing exists elsewhere in the City to accommodate their relocation. No replacement housing would be required as a result of project implementation. See response to Xlt.b. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The project will result in a decrease of seven residential dwelling units. Although the new units will be larger than those currently existing on the site, there will not be a significant increase in structures and persons requiring emergency services. The project includes all necessary fire protection devices, including fire sprinklers. The project must comply with the current Building and Fire Codes adopted by the City. A preliminary code compliance analysis has been conducted by City staff. Based on that analysis, the proposed building complies, although a final compliance determination will be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project has been designed with several features to facilitate and enhance the provision of adequate fire protection, including an emergency communication device, which will be provided to the existing concrete pad at the beach level and a new wet standpipe, which will be provided to the existing docks. In addition, an automatic and manual fire alarm system will be installed, a fire control room is provided at ground level, which will be monitored by a central station, and a Class I wet standpipe will be provided at every level at all stairs to facilitate fire protection. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the subject property. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service 06 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 79 of 87 in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Project implementation will result in a reduction in the development intensity of site development, which would result in the demolition of an existing apartment building and single - family residence and their replacement with an 8 -unit condominium structure. Redevelopment of the subject site to replace 14 apartment units and one single - family residence with eight luxury condominium homes would not require an expansion to local law enforcement resources and therefore would not result in any environmental impacts involving construction of new law enforcement facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Schools? Less than Significant Impact. The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State- mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. The existing dwelling units have been vacant for several years, except for caretakers living in the single - family home and one of the apartment units. At the present time, therefore, this property has little or no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District. When this project is completed, the development and occupancy of the eight condominiums might result in the generation of school age children. It is estimated that fewer than 20 students, distributed between various grade levels, would be generated by the proposed project New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for these low numbers of school age children. However, as indicated below, the project applicant must pay the applicable school fee to the school district, pursuant to Section 85995 of the California Government Code, in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development, including the proposed project With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. Other public facilities? No Impact. Due to the reduction in residential density, no increased demand for other public services is anticipated and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will result in a decrease of dwelling units and, as a result, a reduction in the number of residents that would be generated when compared to the 15 existing dwelling units and the 28 units that would be permitted by the Newport Beach General Plan. With a pool, private outdoor decks that may have spas and fire pits, as well as direct access to the beach area, most residents of the proposed project are expected to utilize their private recreation amenities rather than public parks within the City. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact The project includes private common amenities and private access to the bay that will help off -set the need for recreational facilities. Although the project will increase the number of occupied units on the site, the increase in residents associated with the project is minimal and would not result in the requirement to construction new or expand existing recreational amenities in the City. Further, the project's eight dwelling units represent a nearly 50 percent decrease when compared to the number of dwelling units that exist on the property. This reduction in density and resulting potential decrease in ip1 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 80 of 87 population, supports the conclusion that no new facilities would be required to accommodate future residents of the proposed project. Title 19 (Subdivisions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires the developer to pay a fee for each unit created by the proposed condominium map. This fee will be used to augment recreational facilities in the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic bad and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, there will be periods of time when a substantial volume of truck traffic would occur that could add to congestion levels on affected travel routes, particularly during the peak summer tourist season when there is more than normal traffic present. Table 16 reflects the potential peak volumes of truck trips at different construction phases required by the proposed project. Table 16 Potential Construction - Related Project Trip Generation Aerie (PA 05 -163) Type of Trip Estimated Number of Trips Excavation- trucks to haul excess materials to a Approximately 1800 truck trips, with up to 100 truck remote site tripslday, over approximately four weeks during the radin hase. Construction of shoring and walls 75 concrete mixers and pumpers, for a 14-day total time period. 500 concrete mixers and pumper trucks, with up to 15 per day, along with a number of flat bed trucks, Construction of Caissons and Concrete Work to deliver a drill rig, crane, and back hoe, plus several dump trucks. This phase would have duration of approximately six 6 months. SOURCE: Ci of N ort Beach Grading necessary to implement the proposed project will be scheduled to occur after the summer months to avoid truck traffic impacts during that already congested time period. Since that will be the heaviest period of this project's construction traffic, this control measure would avoid significant traffic congestion impacts. It is anticipated that trucks would be staged along Pacific Coast Highway south of Cameo Highlands Drive and called to the site in 20 minutes intervals. Depending upon the selected route(s), there could be some adverse impacts, for example, a convoy of trucks taking a route along narrow residential streets with numerous stop -sign controlled intersections could slow local traffic, impede turning movements at private driveways, and could result in potentially intrusive noise and bursts of exhaust emissions as trucks slow, stop and then accelerate through successive intersections. Some normally acceptable routes could be temporarily impacted by utility construction within a section of the street, thus rendering that route a poor choice for the project's extensive truck traffic. Although the ultimate destination of the export materials cannot be determined until the time of grading, the construction traffic: associated with grading and hauling export material from the site could adversely affect traffic and circulation within the residential neighborhood in the vicinity of the project resulting in congestion and delays. To ensure that this project's construction traffic does not result in adverse traffic congestion impacts, and to avoid impacts along local residential streets, especially narrower streets, MM XV -1 will be imposed, to require development and implementation of a construction traffic control plan and to 3 AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 81 of 87 designate the contents of that plan. Construction of the replacement dock will not generate additional traffic because both materials and equipment will be delivered to the site on a barge to the dock location. Trip generation factors developed for the Newport Beach Transportation Analysis Model indicate the proposed project would result in a net reduction in morning and late afternoon peak hour trips, as well as total dally trips, compared to the existing apartments and single -family home that occupy the subject property. The net changes in trip generation, which are summarized in Table 17, assume that all of the existing apartments and the single -family unit are occupied. As indicated in the table, project implementation represents a decrease of 38 trips per day, including three a.m. peak hour trips and two p.m. peak hour trips. The decrease would be even greater based on the 28 dwelling units that would be permitted by the existing land use designation. Table 17 Net Change in Traffic Generation Aerie (PA 05 -163) Land Use Dwelling Units Daily ADT AM Peak ADT PM Peak ADT Exis Jng 15 102 8 10 Prop 8 64 5 8 Total -7 -38 -3 -2 SOURCE: City of Newport Beach Although the assessment of traffic impacts considered the decrease in total dwelling units, R likely does not reflect the potential increase in traffic generated by the proposed dwelling units adjusted for possible lifestyle factors associated with extremely affluent households, which could generate a small number of additional traffic attributable to domestic employees, pool and spa maintenance workers, etc. However, even with such additional traffic, project implementation would not result in an increase in either peak hour traffic volumes or total daily traffic. Therefore, future traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in any significant traffic congestion impacts. No mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project exceed either Individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect on traffic Conditions. No significant individual or cumulative traffic impacts would occur as a result of project implementation. C) Would the project result in a change in air traffic pattern, including either an increase In traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed residential structure is 33 feet high and would not encroach into any aviation - related air space. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or Incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a relatively large number of medium and heavy trucks that could. add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through - traffic for short periods of time. The project will be constructed on an existing site and the only off -site change will be the reduction in the width AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEOATIvE DECLARATION Page 82 of 87 of the existing drive approach. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed homes would include the same kinds of automobiles and trucks associated with residential development in the project area and would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant impact The Newport Beach Fire Department has conducted a preliminary code analysis with the City's Building Department, which concluded that emergency access will be adequate. During constriction, portions of Carnation Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction activities including construction vehicles. However, the use of bagmen would be required to facilitate circulation in the area. Camation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on -street parking may occur caused by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of machinery and materials. The applicant is proposing the following construction staging and parking management strategies to minimize such impacts: Construction Staaina Plan Schedule hauling of export materials to avoid the busy summer season Keep all staging related to demolition on ste During excavation, shoring, foundation and structural phases, trucks are to be staged on Pacific Coast Highway, south of Cameo Highlands Drive. Trucks would be brought to the project site one at a time via the approved haul route An encroachment permit or temporary street closure permit will be requested to allow use of 10 feet of City right -of -way, from the property line to Ocean Boulevard, for staging of materials, temporary parking of trucks while materials are off - loaded, etc. This will achieve a total 20 feet of staging area along the Ocean Blvd. frontage, when including the 10 foot building setback area Once the parking structure is completed, it will be used for staging for the various trades to complete the remaining phases of construction Construction Parkin a Plan A portion of a nearby parking lot will be leased to provide space for Construction crew parking. Crews will be shuttled to/from the work site at the beginning and end of each work day When the parking structure Is completed and the car lifts are operational, construction crew parking will be provided on site Implementation of the construction staging and construction parking plans is considered an adequate approach in concept to avoid significant temporary parking impacts during the construction phases. Mitigation Measure XV -1 wilt be imposed to ensure that the measures identified above are property planned and implemented. The project will provide 22 resident parking spaces, 8 guest parking spaces, two golf cart spaces, bicycle and motorcycle parking, and one service parking space, for a total of 31 vehicle spaces. Additionally, two vehicular elevators will be used to accommodate residents' parking within the structure. The two on -site vehicular elevators will serve the private garages of seven of the units and overflow guest parking spaces that are located in the subterranean garage. Parking for the eighth unit and the required guest parking spaces are located at street level. The East (i.e., right side) elevator is designated for entrance and West (i.e., left side) elevator is designated for exiting. Access control panels are located adjacent to the � 6� AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITLAL STUDy AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 83 of 87 elevator (on driver's side) on each floor; residents of the units will have a remote control similar to a garage door controller that can activate the elevator through a touch of a button. Lighting signals are located on top of the elevator opening on each floor that indicate the elevator position or if it is currently in use. The elevators will be programmed for "destination dispatch" so that the elevator is automatically recalled to the street level when it is not in use. Therefore, the driver can access the elevator immediately upon entering the site, thus minimizing the potential for creating a vehicle queue. Inside the elevator, another key pad is located on the driver's side of the wall; a lighting signal indicates the designation (i.e., floor) of the elevator. Once the elevator has reached its designated level, ample turnaround space is available for the car to maneuver into the private garages. The elevators will always be used by a car pulling into and out of it in a forward direction. The interior cab size of the elevator is approximately 10'x 20' with an 8' high ceiling. It takes the elevator approximately eight seconds to travel from floor to floor and a maximum of approximately one minute round trip back to the street. Furthermore, an emergency generator will be provided so that in the event of a power outage, the generator will automatically activate to operate the elevator, allowing residents to exit the building safely. This safety feature will also send the cabs to the recall position at street level. In addition, a fire service switch will be provided that allows fire department to access the elevators in case of emergency. Programming of the elevator and access control can be customized to operate efficiently and to provide a high level of security and ease of use for the residents. Several spaces designed for golf cart sized vehicles are proposed. All of the spaces are within the three sub - basement levels of the structure with the lower levels accessed by freight elevators large enough and with sufficient capacity to accommodate vehicles and vans. The Newport Beach Zoning Code requires attached single family residential projects to provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling unit. Additionally, 0.5 space per dwelling unit is required for guests. The project would require a total of 16 spaces for residents and 3 spaces for guests for a total of 19 spaces for the proposed 8 -unit project. The project exceeds the minimum parking standard. Finally, the length of the curb cut, which provides vehicular access to the site, has been substantially reduced, which results in the creation of three additional on -street public parking spaces. The addition of these on -street parking spaces is considered a beneficial impact in this popular beach destination area, particularly during the peak summer /tourist season. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altematrve transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The proposed residential project will be constructed on a developed site containing 14 apartments and one single -family home. There are no transit facilities or service either on or along the frontage of this site (i.e., Ocean Boulevard and Carnation Avenue). This project will not necessitate the realignment of any existing streets or the construction of new public transportation facilities In the vicinity. Project implementation would not create a significant demand for public transit. No significant Impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM XV -1 Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on -street parking, and safety. • This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly AERIE (PA2005 -198) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATNE DECLARATION Page 84 of 87 restrictions, If necessary, to avoid traffic: conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on -street parking and to ensure safety. • The construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off- site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). • The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed new 8 -unit residential structure would be disposed into the existing sewer system and would not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. b) Would the project require or result 'in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could' cause significant environmental effects? No Impact Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly over existing uses due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the site when compared to the existing number of occupied dwelling units. The project will connect to an existing 12 -inch water main in Carnation Avenue. Wastewater connections will be made either in a 1 0-inch main in Carnation Avenue or an 8 -inch main in Bayside Place below the project site. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the reduction in density. C) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is currently developed with a 14- unit apartment building and single - family residence. The project will result in additional impervious service areas by the new building, walkways and other hardscape. The additional hardscape will result in a slight decrease in runoff during stone periods. However, because the existing 10' catch basin in Carnation Avenue does not have adequate capacity to accommodate existing storm flows, project - related storm flows will result in a potentially significant impact, necessitating the upsiang of the existing deficient catch basin. With the implementation of MM VIII -1, this potentially significant impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. X64 AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 85 of 87 d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact See response to XVI.b above. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly. Even though the proposed project will result in a decrease in dwelling units by a total of six, implementation of the project may result in a minor if any additional water demand associated with the increased size of the dwelling units, and the pool and spa areas. e) Would the project result In a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. See response to XVI.b above. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? No Impact. The project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production due to the decrease in dwelling units. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the site and use. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City of Newport Beach or a commercial provider licensed by the City of Newport Beach. All federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The environmental analysis, including the technical studies prepared for the project, indicates that the proposed 8-unit condominium and appurtenant improvements, including the replacement of the existing deteriorated landing and dock facilities, would not have the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts with implementation of standard City requirements and the recommended mitigation measures contained herein. Prior to the circulation of the ISIMND, the project applicant accepted and agreed to implement all prescribed mitigation measures. The location and description of the proposed project is presented below. Therefore, the following conclusions can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance as set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines: a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. There are no sensitive terrestrial plant or animal species on the project site. Replacement of the landing and dock facilities may result in potential indirect impacts to eelgrass and other marine species; however, mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. As a result, the proposed project would not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No historic structures or sites, archaeological resources or paleontological resources are present in the project area, which may be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Less than Significant Impact. Replacement of 14 older apartments and a single - family residence with eight luxury condominium residences would result in a negligible difference in long- term environmental effects associated with occupancy of these homes. Although project implementation will result In an incremental increase in quantitative impacts resulting from an increase in occupied dwelling units when compared to the existing residential development, which is only partially occupied, all of the effects related to energy consumption, traffic, water AERIE (PA2005 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 86 of 87 consumption, utility demand, solid waste disposal, use of public facilities, etc. would occur if the existing structures were to be reoccupied. With the exception of the proposed landing and dock facilities, this project would not generate new environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. All of the potential impacts associated with project implementation, including those anticipated to occur with the replacement of the landing and dock, will be reduced to a less than significant level as a result of project design and through the implementation of mitigation measures. C) Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in the preceding analysis conducted for the proposed project, project implementation would not result in significant environmental impacts, which may have adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly. Other potentially significant environmental effects (e.g., biological resources, drainage and hydrology, etc.) would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the environmental analysis. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the proposed project would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, and no additional environmental analysis is warranted. The City will consider the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures as Conditions of approval in the event that decision makers choose to approve the project. SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 2. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 3. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 4. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. Chapters 10.26 and 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. The following documents have been prepared specifically for this project, and are incorporated by reference within this ISIMND. The documents are available at the office of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 1. Conceptual Grading Plan Review Report, Neblett & Associates, August 5, 2005. 2. Phase I Environmental Assessment, P &D Consultants, May 26, 2006- 3. Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 16882, Hunsaker & Associates, March 27, 2007 (Revised December 20, 2007). 4. Conceptual Water Quality Management Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005 (Revised January 17, 2008). 5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Hunsaker & Associates, June 3, 2005 (Revised March 17, 2007). B. Biological Constraints Analysis, P &D Consultants, June 10, 2005. 7. Marine Biological Field Survey, Coastal Resources Management, April 12, 2005. 8. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Records Searches, LSA Associates, Inc., July 12, 2005. 9. Aerie Project Overview, Brion Jeannette Architecture, May 8, 2006 (Revised February 15, 2007). 10. Coastal Hazard Study, GeoSoils Inc., October, 5, 2006. 11, Air Quality Analysis, Planning Research Network, March 7, 2007 12. Bluff and Shoreline Reconnaissance in the Vicinity of 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar, Orange County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., June 11, 2007 13. Eelgrass (Zostera Marina) Impact Assessment for a Dock Renovation Project Located in Carnation Cove, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625; Coastal Resources Management, Inc., May 9, 2008 11 AERIE (PA2006 -196) INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Page 87 of 87 14. Coastal Engineering Assessment for the `Aerie° Dock Project (Letter Report); Noble Consultants, Inc., May 9, 2008 15. Evaluation of Subsurface Profile for AcousticNibration Study, Proposed Dock Replacement at Carnation Cove, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach, California; Wieland Acoustics, Inc.; May 6, 2008 16. Environmental Noise Study for the Construction of the Proposed Carnation Cove Dock Replacement Project in the City of Newport Beach; Wieland Acoustics; May 1, 2008 17, Preliminary Geologic/Geotechnical Investigation Report — Condominium Project 201 — 205 and 207 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar, California; Neblett & Associates, Inc.; March 28, 2003 18. Pre - Demolition Asbestos/Lead -Based Paint Survey, 201 -207 Carnation Avenue, Corona Del Mar, California; AEI Consultants; December 13, 2007. 19. Elevation Certification; Hunsaker & Associates; April 12, 2007. 20, 2007 CBC Seismic Design Parameters (Update Letter Report); Neblett & Associates; May 12, 2008, 21. Aerie Drainage, Tentative Tract 16882, Carnation Avenue; Hunsaker & Associates; May 12, 2008. 22. E)dsting Vegetation Map, Sheets L -1 & L -2; Robert Mitchell & Associates; April 25, 2008. 23. Aerie (PA2005 -163); Neblett & Associates; November 27, 2007. 24. Review of Architectural Plan; Neblett & Associates; November 27, 2007. 25. Review of Architectural Plan; Neblett & Associates; December 17, 2007. 26. Brion Jeannette Architecture, Aerie, 201 -207 Camation Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA; Architectural Plan Sheets T -1 to Gat; Job No. 03 -026, received March 25, 2008. E m 0 a m e CL U N V O 0 R R N m < Ca�pp 'C C Co¢z i 0 O A E �c rnm °o a a c Q c R c_ 0 g p c m c c m `o G a n O d'� 0 C dwo p C L 0 0 Q C y C C 0 N c° U cwOW w U m c V coo U o M o t t y y a a S m in U on m m W d W 0. IL R @ c o 0 � Z° 2 Eo c c o0 Vu @w Nu L°ii w O o c$ 2S c_m 5 02 02 02 02 U E2 02 E L JN 00 ON 00 3N 00 �u..i 00 ° 0 N 0 w =0 ~ p wU wU rnU L r 2 O 2 O J Q m t r L L L ° a g O m 2 U U .s 0 Sc 0 M y 0 M O d w c c : m a 3 m° c a a c W a W a m m d D LL IL LL O w � d `OMM da was mp m ° reL_ a m '°C R�p>m,L m W w 31: os Nm W3 Cra E;3m mQ mqC M _ 3o n °a m m a 2 3w o >� L'R C ' s mW e m o m o a wo n- m « E a t % _ W « ffim m %5- wE•.9 c Ew 00 m E o m 0 Z W mmc m r y m E O m m 2J o .bo yj . `o sm 0 d m 0�a m w W m 0J °E Wa m m 2w OM c m •�° w 1R _ �a 3°a y . mm 2 o oW1 0ri mW 09 y O cn_ a w„ >.�=mm. m° w, 7 �a - N y i m O cr $ 0 a y s -E w0 w T 2 O C O N w J y � E =t N.pUL m T ° Em � — 8 d c -R W C y0 N LX Z p EEt W"-- g W n C C � 6 OmCt�- m C O O L W `anJ-EL6O c('U _ W d 0 K N Em o N W m, g aw m OJ Oxn „ LLp mC y =w m ° c_p m U N>^ m c mcW a =° mEm �0w W sm- ° -Wmci a w E mwM F `aP m W 0 „o m a (En W O o 0 E ca W O W U C �p t j a ONNC m O m O LOry. �" -f D 'm - L 'GQC > jemU m N te =_E gm� -L-x0 'i m � EW y.N_ Cm'°G ,J s -16 om n - 3C 3m °Tm ymm mro A «m0 �20000 m c = E e" L° & `h 4 40 c¢ $a w �a w rn 0 a E E E a n n n M 0 a W o `�°2O m° d a n o 0 o ma pz ma m 0� m UTi� o 0 m c m c m c °10 mw °lm o c e a a a m m m a a m o o G 0 m o d 6 c 0 w Ec Ec �0 O c c c ° `0O E2 O U O U O U O '� m 2 E2 Eb o c E2 Ec a oc �— E U° U° c s c r c t c UV E U $ U $ U 'o 'o U $ c °Q o `o t r r r o' F` o b a` a` a` y c c c c O O J w O O� c E .�°.. E 2 T 0 c !, c d g m �> a m m d d z 0 LL LL LL LL G @ . wymC — O m ¢ w N ^ M T3NG T L O m Oa m T c m w C U Oa6 n n o m 2 s m U �oo 3 N�N W � O mEm°T aw� -www�rn a ON - w d ms a. = Q @w ETL iC0 '«- N m ww TV, —S_am c 0 E m 20 > En bZLLL m gr ��c`w Z a C O C C C d@ w g° EZE W os2 3@N�a6o; `a ew, > .0 o w3 W m ^c2o mo a db w £C w Ec w—U�0 0 M w w— Ec 5 r C U O w O n m r . ° 0 w O 0- N C >0 w O r T P L Q W O w ` n Tw �y_LL c• ai Q oE «w £w EL G w w�� � mw m ��— w�C �yac a 9 � G w Q w o"4 .N Z .E_ Z'!QC • mWt�° -°eEwnFL�n 0cww- 5C "!Uc w Q-- wC >dy ?�O C "O Q 0m w .2 Oa 3ym—an�i c 'n �om ' 0-0E r @m ""b '60 C@ w p Nw G QGa .'£ c M a r ._ ° 'o a m e E E s ° To o -~a ° mmc w e m - t rn a w c Ol 0— m 2 U a ° r' w aay . .N wv .-wt a S�OiO� c — a�' E 3Na mEEW =moW2 c ° •3@0 FGS " +3 m p y` T-GC>rW'i, o�wc` a 0 wa mdwwwN • cm0 >a wl oO 6 LLL aM O NNoSc ow a OW U 0> T ° o.aoc00n m _ N Lta Q M O $ p- °$ w p N =C O -c GO m�Own OcZ Qp m e E' ; C C mm wO �WE^ c mw. eu E O -G 0 t.0 m y U.y w Lw -wEC E O O t W- w �O • ao- l m c raw L w NE 'C � LL 0 CEO .5 w N aO�'m C NN c 00-__ @m _$`>•~8`@ E E0 O >2 w wE °Wom N m Uoi OQ E C N C .V m ° w aw O"E00- w m0"'o ii C- n am C ••E N � pp N° N Op �Y 'C TW.o W°0 .0 '�E'� O W ow o. w0n.W 3Epc a2mQ O 5W, w lW � wm7 3c� w�ymmE =m �rn � m o m maco c r U �N�@ Eww monEE1 Cm@ �w m w r`r Q. m U) Lt ¢ z > > E e" L° & `h 4 40 c¢ $a w �a w rn 0 a Eam �oa c¢ 04 C b ¢ w E 'c a OI EE FF EE m C pFF m m m w aw a n n ani p p U C OK O O 0 C O P O s Ol a P g O) b O m' m' co a o c E c c m R jj C C 1' O EE V d 0 m o N o E ° c -6.2 = c p 0 U C E 9 2 Uyy s m mw a •�c £ W � N rCO C - m O 0 U � N L L rn ° O o Mm .c= =o o' F o N C O L c « m O O O y C U o U a a a 3 W O c W a o 0 d a N - - - a y i C R c E 3 W o W c_W C mc « ' «G �W o �a �A rnC e ayd o0 d c$ w W - o o omO ¢ c .�' O :a .w m�a oa oa m°- Nw .G ma . W -60 y 00's � aa s a o w a w c6 2 E o._ d E 9oa p E n m a a> 0 mL VN NW c w `. m�C R o m N ym m 6 ° @ a aa o ~ N d a A O a W Q C Ld `w y6 m ° 8.S a M0 : jO m- O N O 65,.6.2 =`o s aa m ° 3 3 e �.Lu O o. E 0 a E uo�O « m �U> O m m 9 Mw 2 n.- 0a 2 om a> O d o - c m ¢ 0°80S 2 0 m =L m ' al E 0 N� � , Ea �° �m m "L U Zd W m T ' W .F m :a' d X OW a a C O " � W8 ms L'a am O E -N nomUo C O$d= > m r2 soa wm 'N O a E Na w W W Y 8 m tli m m �� �� ppy W myy N 3 d N C C O � X � O 0 ¢ 0 O �C «U e �0 j N O Y Oa p O M M M_ w� mm c oW ad -c £ C W O P L E m C E A a a d0 � c m 0 man o 3 nweEa wm a- c d m m��S _ N s L W a d oy o =a wM> . w,— `, ddmuQ aO�2 E°f EN . m a aat wonco g w-5ta ecEd 0 - aa nmH= m00 m 0-E a cL c m m= w ctl w .- m t 2 yn E w M d 3cU om O > - d E t OD w C a O m O E G m N CEyyu 9 p « : L d W , G C m d i m o =: = oE a d e�— a Y L a a L e ° mdW mC ML m 00 oam 5E ci 2 m) g o0 m0.m 3 �c�cd£�6 c aNm occ 01 T o oa W a 00 ¢ a U . E.Z ad O O d « °° W O E C N U '4O w O a L T c o W s o a -Sa =OIL m d =- ` a o E n 0 tw mam .o ... 'Na m - w C�O .:u�C aSot ._ w a �E aa nmd ny a 89 C a>m C d CC £w &vd OCZ dc 3 :2N£ Nc$mFE3.i+nmm�RQC. Q&.m�mo a"i« £ d° F °3 ¢aa G _ N N M - Z > > > > > > Eam �oa c¢ 04 C b ¢ w E 'c a OI amp Q. Q4 a c g S 'c c c •co �l�) m m O E W E E E r8= E a a °w E c c m a c c m p O s CI n O n nn n n n m M c Gm'`c a� w c o m rn- = 4 rn 5 w 5 •�c'a= Mm c c 5 c c c 'a £2� ' s v a m' ' =v m 5 m'= a a ym g m in in c = c 'a `o m m C o m o o Z a G o c W 'S 03 04 0 o c c 'S w2 CO oa m MO Grn � c'v E c c m 2 2 U $ a 2 8@ c � 2? @•3d 0 m a co E 2 > c gym~ �a U'c_o5 c U - 0 pc E M M?0 °(19 U VE 2 Q oa .i ° a0 o r a° as a` a` O O 4 ? w .2 v Z W 2 W o $g c m y o d +C : n a g c .� w m a c n c W o m �> c - = a -m C w m m a c _ a z ` E a m Z m w a W LmJmo o M r r v c t s m° r n a c = a n= m m m Co c y; 3w ow5 =tlo =5. 16 -°-o `-� GToicom p�"s a0W n�0-- SEL L •3 w 0 co '02« •n c Jc �mc-m Gci «m »m d n aaOm n 5wc« ccm a m.cm 2 �w�pywAO $`,cnc 8p .T c Er "om r 0 a �mo^°'!3a Npe Lq � 9am TW Oo o M W Zl tf M.- m m m 10O w Wn 3c W c awa W e o Ep o :e W a s ee mea 642 n= m b V � m._O j= 5 a 2a� : 2 r m 004, w m %m w ci t0 W= U >...� m a o= WS:) > E °m W 2c «mom mW a�c�c W W ac o a mm m n aw $'�. V o =W2 c�W�., oo0 E c Qmmm w U a "a oo 'a R Yoc mam °u «° c.ca r$ m a W w �'$m m nL w E W wa= 2' @" tWV Wg 0 E� £ a O da 3 a« @'3 Cp mp cLi ZmL° .py sm -cg w"m- sm�"n>aw ow LD ._L0 mr E W .2".,m �m�0 W a y W W m T m a C m L L m m"✓ ° m m= 'j W 0% w 3 a= Sc w G 3>= W E' U C 6 t �'Gp 0 O E m .Om° a 0 c w C c; J _ O ..m.. n« iW =.r �S mO��r"i+IAL 15 w° _O Q1 W Z`W C C a s O O cc m m G m tci O O.W N 2 C= mo� U }y mb i T E N- cm 5; E= p 2 c d a p+c:4 t o�p m a E w m s�wWO ��W "mmm-'C 032 a - m aia :o x -,a moO Wmw 5"0.-m W Ow:4._ W cem� r0m am - Qs a« L W wmom m » i,`m -o-'A m - mm € ma 3yW Ci. �ryw0�,1�1 oC OO Umc.°..3p 'aE wm wo 5m W'L"N rd EnF''- °am G O Z p .� G O 0 C '=La w .. @ p' '` s rn N =,2U W m m M m 021 Cc m c Y W 9 L wm W <@ m,QL G a Wth c,�.. w `o E L$ co 2 E nc = .°� mm cow omW 2c5 cs w ID mcm -d'c ,j:2 Qw wa.mwam 5p::. ao m}5 a W C C O W w w L p 3 L T - a m t0 3 c O m 3 :� T m 3 3 3 C w O y_ o V: L 7 c m= M W m IC S � C p 3 d W U .�. w w L C 'V W UO. a =L R w° ;O m p�a� O m T$ C 5 m L C3'aU�"Y1 2 O W°m r -rpp�O a a w W..= =c p O == DU if y m 2 N y ° y N E T m .. N o W w e m C N c n c O O.~ O Z N E 2 W 2> c '�°- o w U W m mm 0 w O L m m 0 Oy W 5 G a a _W E_° G W O° O oc 3 2 a 0= 0 -y w w 5 9= U W m M-2 - Q .0 m :5 Y =m W lm w� m C m O` W E O U pp V E W c tw. 2 T 6 O L0 n3 =a Wna61° D Y Q1 �. m dl 'Sw£ « �waU� X C 0� r` W ma._�'Q8�mw U m p a L C m W -.. `o rL. Q 3 6o m Fco G N C? N lh q N 2 > > = X X - X X x x amp Q. Q4 a c g S 'c c c •co �l�) G 0 .q u_ 'C m w a$ e m A H E 0 Oca c ON o m o r -gam p m — G ^ R s L �a rA= m� w mac amic o d z m U = Y p w 'a cc c °c L c M c of COS m c 8 Ec i -M8- 'me m $ 0 .900 L M22 m w, w O b c 0 o a o_ o E'6, c c ` mo ' & pwaa E m Ewa sN c ca pp� C O N am O a a A Eww�uf u`o.S c O 7E C O IE a (0) Ol�mw TY BE wpaw 2mq �c sacs w e wwa- c O L w G - pw6N w,np �w G Ec c,OY'Twis O Zia 0 G 40 0 m 0w�0- NYE Q TO w= 9 C 0 EC 0 w C 9 A g acic°- �c�ayjm '4 biz =a diw - > A c e m � a4 y`a 0 A E 0.2 {tea p d O m 0 d T 2 m O- sz,o r a A U m F - Nm nQ m�.W .. m w G m � Ym w � O' w �a m y0 `o c �� w �a a s e c A " C� € o m �s c c A 'a m 0 `o 0 c a uwcccm, � = owtmy wc oc t > m ce -c A 0 at -S q _ n£m Cc 0Z3 m ai00 =0 w o c °ma`W ' O O o w — -0 V c$ m t' c8ee o oM3 om .-w E t 0 � c a m 0.2000 o o - w E u o Ea Q 0 05 m c answ a p rSqa sm3 M,-= C w 8- S m c s U n L A Q _ c =2m m A L � mC 2 c o = -® a � c N >, c pm a 8.oaoo O 3 =0020 L O A G w MOO w G m N m E$ e W c m£ m a d °c $a 8 a o E a9 $ S a L U m Y m m�__ag}; aim m'OVea C'L °mp� mw Fa3 w0=mm Fm cm$3 MJC. 3 �w x 404 C Q $4 m qm a¢ c w .c Q C q w m 1�