Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental AnalysisEnvironmental Analysis I. AESTHETICS. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No impact. The project will not have an adverse effect on any scenic vistas as none are identified onsite or nearby. The 1.9 -acre site is located north of Big Canyon Drive in the Big Canyon Planned Community at approximately 40 feet lower in elevation than the adjacent residential property to the east. Since the project site is wedged into a canyon land form at a much lower elevation, the project site is not easily viewed from adjacent properties. City policies do not protect private views and the view from Big Canyon Drive out to the site is not designated as scenic vista. The project site consists of a graded pad surrounded by disturbed areas of vegetation primarily with native and non - native ruderal species and a steep slope to the east vegetated primarily with native scrub species. The land uses surrounding the property are single - family detached dwellings to the south and east, and single - family attached dwellings to the west. The golf course is contiguous to the site at the north with more single - family detached dwellings beyond. No impact to a scenic vista will occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No impact. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System of the California Department of Transportation, the project site is not located on or near a major state - designated scenic highway. The closest officially designated state scenic highway to the project site is State Route 1 (SR -1), also known as Pacific Coast Highway, which is located over one mile south of the project site. Moreover, the site does not contain any scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. No mitigation measures are necessary. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than significant. The existing visual character of the project site consists of a graded pad with native and non - native species as pointed out above. The character of the area surrounding the site is a suburban neighborhood with large, residential dwellings. The residential dwellings are one and two stories with well- maintained landscaping. The addition of one single - family dwelling with landscaping will have not have a significant impact on the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings as residential property is already established in the area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any structures and is not a source of light or glare. The development of one single - family dwelling will result in light and glare sources that are similar to other dwellings in the community. Therefore, no substantial impacts are anticipated. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant effects, the lead agency referred to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No impact. According to the California Resource Agency's Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map for Orange County (2006), the project site is not designated as Farmland or Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local Importance. The project site is located in a suburban area surrounded by a golf course and residential dwellings. No significant would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2006/oraO6.pd f (Map of Orange County important farmland — 2006 reference) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No impact. The project site is not currently zoned or used for agriculture purposes and does not fall under Williamson Act contract. The project site is currently zoned Planned Community (PC) with a "Golf Course" land designation within the PC. The proposed land use is residential. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/Pages/index.aspx (Williamson Act reference) C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No impact. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes; therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impacts to farmland would occur. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. III. AIR QUALITY. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than significant impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with AQMP. The proposed project would not emit either short- or long -term quantities of criteria pollutants which exceed the SCAQMD's air quality significance thresholds (See Appendix A for SCAQMD air quality significant thresholds). The SCAQMD does not consider projects which result in emissions below the SCAQMD significance thresholds to interfere with the goals established in the AQMP. Therefore, no significant impact to the AQMP will occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than significant. The proposed project includes construction of one single - family dwelling on a 1.9 -acre parcel. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities. In addition emissions would result from the long -term operation of the completed project from facility - related energy consumption and automobile traffic traveling to and from the project site. The analysis below describes the project's short-term and long -term air quality impacts. http: / /www.agmd.gov/ (Air Quality Management District reference) Short -Term Air Quality Impacts The estimated dates for construction begin in 2009 and are estimated to take approximately 15 months. The proposed project does not require demolition of any structure — only clearing and grubbing is necessary to remove vegetation on site, which would take 2 days to remove. Grading activities would take approximately 20 days to export approximately 7,500 cubic yards of soil (from previous fill projects on site) and import 5,000 cubic yards of soil back on site for re- compaction. Building the single - family dwelling would take approximately 12 months. These construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in the table below; the model run is included in Appendix B. Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Source Pollutants Ibslda CO NOx VOC SiO2 PM,o PMz.s COz Demolition 6 9 2 0 1 1 825 Site Preparation 25 55 6 1 13 5 5,904 Building Construction 6 10 2 0 1 1 917 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 55 N/A Exceeds Threshold NO NO NO NO NO NO N/A • Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. • N /A: Not Applicable • VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds (ref: URBEMIS ROG: Reactive Organic Gases) • Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCAQMD construction surveys of midsized construction sites. • Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quickly as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment loading /unloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than miles per hour. See Appendix A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCAQMD Rule 403. • CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD, OPR, or GARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant. As shown in the table above, all emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD threshold values. SCAQMD, Office of Planning and Research (OPR), or California Air Resources Board (CARB) have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for CO2 emissions. However, because the project is not a regionally significant project and the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM,o, and PM2.5), which were established to identify substantial new sources of air pollution, CO2 emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant. Long -Term Operational - Related Impacts Long -term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be associated with project - related vehicle trips and stationary- source emissions generated on -site by sources such as water heaters, gas stoves, and fuel consumed for landscaping activities. Long -term air quality impacts are typically associated with the emissions produced by project - generated vehicle trips which are estimated by the Institute of Transpiration Engineers (ITE) as ten trips per day for one single - family dwelling. However, one single - family dwelling will not exceed the threshold for SCAQMD air quality significance as pointed out on the chart below for operational emissions. Maximum Daily Operational Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs /day) CO NOx VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Demolition 1.24 0.15 0.11 0 0.19 0.04 115.14 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 55 N/A Exceeds Threshold NO NO NO NO NO NO N/A • Source: URBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. • N /A: Not Applicable • VOC: Volatile Organic Compounds (ref: URBEMIS ROG: Reactive Organic Gases) • Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCAQMD construction surveys of midsized construction sites. • CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD, OPR, or CARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant. 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than significant. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) is designated as a non - attainment area for ozone and particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) under the state and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). Air pollutant modeling for construction emissions demonstrates that project implementation would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds. Furthermore, the operational emissions which include vehicular trips will not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds as pointed out in the Operational Emissions chart above. Therefore, the project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than significant. The subject site is located in a residential and golf course community. Although sensitive receptors (i.e., surrounding residential dwellings) are located in the vicinity of the site, the greatest amount of pollutants generated by the proposed project will occur during the construction phase. The emissions will be comprised of mostly dirt and dust particles as the subject site is graded and a new home is constructed. However, such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and will be short-term. The emissions released from operations after the constructions phase is completed will predominantly be comprised by vehicle trips which will not be a significant impact as pointed out in Operational Emissions chart above. Therefore, project implementation will not adversely affect sensitive receptors and no mitigation measures are necessary. 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than significant. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. With regard to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. During the operations phase of the project, single - family dwellings do not typically generate substantial emissions or odors that affect people outside the confines of the property. By the time such emissions or odors reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Such emissions and odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impacts. Mitigation measures are not necessary as the impacts of emissions and odors are less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The analysis below, is based on results of the Biological report dated August 25, 2008, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates, included as Appendix C. 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 impeded 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? Less than significant impact with mitigation (a — f). At this time, the precise development and grading plans for the proposed residential lot are not available. However, the buildable area of the lot has been identified, as depicted on the attached Vegetation Map [Exhibit 3 of Glenn Lukos Associates' report (Appendix C)]. Therefore, this impact analysis assumes that all vegetation within the buildable area will be impacted. A summary of the vegetation impacts is given in the Table below. Vegetation Impacts Table Vegetation Association Total on Site (acres) Buildable Area (acres) Mixed Sage Scrub / Chenopod Scrub 0.29 0.008 Ruderal 0.49 0.39 Ruderal / Ornamental 0.06 0.0001 Southern Willow Scrub 0.04 0.04 Ornamental 0.82 0.11 Disturbed 0.18 0.15 Total 1.88 0.70 Impacts to ruderal, ornamental, and disturbed areas would not be considered significant as these areas have low habitat value and have no potential to support special status flora or fauna. The coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) is a federally listed threatened species. This small songbird is a year- round, obligate resident of coastal sage scrub communities in southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico. The CAGN is insectivorous, and nests and forages in moderately dense stands of sage scrub occurring on and hillsides, mesas, and in washes. The CAGN generally lives below 1,200 feet in elevation. Coastal sage scrub communities dominated by California sage brush, California buckwheat, white sage, and black sage are preferred by this species. Loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat due to expanding development have been major factors in the decline of this bird in southern California. This species typically nests in areas with less than 40 percent slope, and requires at minimum a patch of scrub of at least 0.5 acre for nesting. Given the steepness of the slope and small size of the patch from large, contiguous areas of scrub habitat, the CAGN is not likely to breed on site. It is possible, although unlikely, that a dispersing individual could briefly utilize the site for rest and forage at the beginning or end of the season. Given that the mixed sage scrub / chenopod scrub located on the hillside adjacent to the buildable area has little potential to support special status flora or fauna, including the coastal California gnatcatcher, impacts to 0.008 acre of mixed sage scrub / chenopod scrub would not be significant. Mitigation Measure. The project site has some potential to support nesting migratory birds. Impacts to such species are prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. In order to ensure that the proposed project will not impact nesting migratory birds, the following mitigation measure is recommended: If vegetation is to be removed during the nesting season, recognized from February 1 through August 31, a qualified biologist will conduct a nesting bird survey of potentially suitable nesting vegetation no more than three days prior to vegetation removal. If active nests are identified during nesting bird surveys, then the nesting vegetation will be avoided until the nesting event has completed and the juveniles can survive independently from the nest. The biologist will flag the active nesting vegetation, and will establish an adequate buffer around the nesting vegetation of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors). If active nests are identified, clearing /grading shall not occur within the buffer until the nesting event has completed. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? No impact. Section 10564.5 defines historic resources as resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically significant ", if it meets one of the following criteria: i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the patterns of California's history and culture heritage; ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Figure HR1, Historic Resources, of the Historic Resources Element of the City's General Plan update does not identify any historic resources within or adjacent to the project site. Before the development of the Big Canyon Planned Community, the land was use as a ranch owned by the Irvine Company and did not contain any significant structures. The project location is contiguous to the Big Canyon Country Club golf course; however, the subject site was never included as part of the course design or construction. The subject site is vacant and does not contain any structures. The proposed project has no impacts on historical resources; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than significant impact with mitigation. The project site has been previously graded and filled. While removing the loose soil, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological resources will be found. However, the following mitigation procedure will be followed to ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Planning Department showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented. The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an educational or research institution. • Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon Completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than significant impact with mitigation. As stated above, the project site has been previously graded and filled. While removing the loose soil, the project is unlikely to destroy any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, the following mitigation procedure will be followed to ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure The property owner /develop shall submit a letter to the Planning Department showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than significant impact. No remains are known to be present on site. The project site has been previously graded and filled. In the event that unknown remains are discovered on the subject site, the proposed project will be in compliance with the State Health and Safety Code 7050.5, as required and cited below: If human remains are encountered, the state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has mad a determination of the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. The county coroner must be notified immediately of the find. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner is required to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With permission of the owner of the land or his /her authorized representative, the descendent may inspect the site of the discovery. The descendant shall complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification of the NAHC. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? Less than significant impact. The subject site is not located in a seismic hazard or liquefaction area with the possibility for landslides or located in a fault disclosure zone according to the Seismic Hazards Map in the City of Newport Beach General Plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact. As stated previously in this document, the construction phase of the project will include grading that will leave soil exposed. The City has policies to insure Best Management Practices (BMP) be followed that minimize erosion and loss of topsoil. After the site is developed, landscaping, paving, and drainage will reduce erosion as less soil will be exposed and proper drainage will be installed. 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 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less than significant impact (c -d). The City of Newport Beach Safety Element does not identify the project site as at risk of being unstable from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. As stated above, this site has been graded and filled. Removing loose soil for a buildable pad requires a grading plan and soils report which are typically reviewed at the plan check phase of the project by the Building Department. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact. The proposed project involves the development of one single - family dwelling in Newport Beach. The Utilities Department requires that dwellings install water service and sewer service per City standards, so the project will not need a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? No impact. The proposed project will not utilize or dispose of any hazardous materials of reportable quantities in typical operations. Substances for landscaping, such as fertilizers and pesticides, will be subject to all applicable Bes Management Practices (BMP) regulations. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than significant impact. The project has a potential for on -site dirt to be released into the air during the grading process of construction. However, compliance with the existing regulations would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. To reduce impacts from potential spills of hazardous materials during construction, the project is required to comply with the requirements set fourth under the Statewide General Permit for Construction Activities, pursuant to Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Per, the requirements, BMP's would be employed to control hazardous materials use and spills. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the proposed project site. The nearest school is Our Lady Queen of Angels School, located at 750 Domingo Drive, Newport Beach, approximately one third of a mile away from the project site. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) hazardous wastes and substances list, which includes the Federal Superfund sites (National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Actions Sites. Construction of the proposed single - family dwelling site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? Less than significant impact. The project site, which is located approximately three miles south of the John Wayne Airport, is within the limits of its Airport Environs Land Use Plan ( AELUP) as established by the Orange County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The John Wayne Airport AELUP has established various zones surrounding the airport including Noise Impact Zone and Runway Protection Zone. The Noise Impact Zone establishes land uses that are "normally acceptable', "conditionally acceptable', and normally unacceptable" within each noise impact zone delineated by the respective Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour derived from studies of aircraft flight operations into and out of the John Wayne Airport. The project site does not fall within the Noise Impact Zone. Therefore, noise from airport operations would be less than significant at the project site. The Runway Protection Zone (also known as the Clear Zone) identifies areas within the direct pathway of the runways that should remain relatively clear of development. The project site does not fall within the Runway Protection Zone as the project site is located approximately three miles south of the runway. Therefore, the location of the project will not be an impact. 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? 10 No impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact will result of this project. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No impact. Access to the site will be taken from Big Canyon Drive. Although no other dwellings have direct access to Big Canyon Drive, the addition of one new driveway will not interfere with emergency response. The proposed project has been routed to City public safety departments including Fire and Police, and no issues have been identified that will impair emergency response. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No impact. The project site is not located within an area susceptible to fire as designated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Safety Element. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than significant impact. Pursuant to Section 420 of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. For Orange County, the Santa Ana Regional Control Board would be responsible for implementation of the NPDES requirements. The NPDES program regulates pollutant discharges, including, those from construction activities on sites larger than one acre. The proposed project would be subject to the NPDES program since the project would involve a site larger than one acre. 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 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than significant impact. The project will not impact groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The project includes a mass grading phase; however, the construction of one new single - family dwelling will include a drainage plan that will not interfere or deplete ground water. The single - family dwelling will be served by the local sewer and water system. It is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater. 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? Less than significant impact. The project will not result in a significant change to the drainage pattern of property as the drainage plan will be required to comply with applicable policies noted above. The proposed project would not involve the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Therefore, it's not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to 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? Less than significant impact. The project does not involve any alteration of the existing and /or planned drainage system (pattern) of the area. The development of the site will not alter the course of a stream or a river. The project does not propose any alterations to the existing or planned storm drain system in Newport Beach. Therefore, no impacts to this topical area will occur as a result of the project. 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? Less than significant impact. The City of Newport Beach is primarily built -out and contains an existing storm water drainage system. The project is consistent with the capacity of the existing storm drain system in the City of Newport Beach and will be required to install drainage systems in accordance with applicable policies. Therefore, no impacts associated with runoff will occur as a result of the proposed project. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than significant impact. See response to "a)" above. The project will comply with all requirements regarding water quality. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will substantially degrade water quality. 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? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. Failure of the nearby Big Canyon Dam is unlikely as a seismic analysis shows that it can withstand a maximum magnitude earthquake (M =7) on the Newport- Inglewood fault. This earthquake is anticipated to produce very strong ground motions, with a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.91g, in the area of the reservoir. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No impact. The project site is not located in the immediate vicinity of a reservoir, harbor, lake, or storage tank capable of creating a seiche. The closest body of water is located approximately one mile west of the project site (Upper Newport Bay). Due to the distance and the relatively small surface area of the Upper Newport Bay as well as the difference in elevation between the Bay and project site, inundation of the project site by a seiche or tsunami is highly unlikely. The 12 project site is located approximately three miles north of the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, inundation of the project site by tsunami is also unlikely. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a) Physically divide an established community? No impact. The project site is located in a residential and golf course community. The addition of one parcel for the use of a single family home will not divide the community. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to 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 impact (b & c). The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains objectives, policies, and distributions of land use for development in the City. Since the project site is designated within the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Parks and Recreational (PR), a General Plan Amendment is required to change the land use to Single -Unit Residential Detached (RS -D). Most planned communities have home owners associations (HOA) that serve as a governing body to their community and own the common land. The General Plan policy (below) insures that open space and recreational facilities that are owned by the HOA be preserved. The policy is intended to preserve open space and recreational facilities of the community living in the private residential developments. It specifically states that facilities to be preserved are integrated into and owned by private residential developments (typically by an HOA). However, this is not applicable for the Big Canyon Planned Community as the private residential development (or HOA) does not own or govern the golf course. The golf course is owned by the Big Canyon Country Club. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with this land use policy. Land Use Policy LU 6.29 (Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities): "Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land use. " C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No impact. As pointed out earlier in Section IV of this document (Biology Resources), the project site is not designated as a habitat conservation area that supports flora or fauna. Moreover, the project site is not being persevered as the City has used the site in the past to deposit soil after a previous construction project in the area. X. MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No impact. The City of Newport Beach's General Plan does not identify any known minerals on the project site (vacant) or surrounding areas (golf course and residential dwellings). The project will not result in the loss of known mineral resource that would be of state, regional, or local value. Therefore, no mineral resource impacts are expected to occur an no mitigation measures are required. 13 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No impact. The project site is not delineated as a locally - important resource recovery site in the City's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts in relation to locally important mineral resources will result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. XI. NOISE. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than significant impact. The proposed project includes the construction of one single - family dwelling. Project - generated noise during the construction phase of the project would be from project - generated traffic and on -site operations. Once the construction phase of the project is complete, the project will not generate noise beyond the typical use of a single - family house. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant impact. The project will be constructed using typical construction techniques, and vibration intensive activities such as pile- driving or sheet piles are not permitted in the City per Building Department policies. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not cause excessive ground borne noise or vibration. Post - construction on -site activities would be limited to suburban land uses that do not generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise. Furthermore, the Building Bepartment requires the contactor to notify the adjacent property owners by certified mail 10 days prior to starting shoring or excavation work. Therefore, vibration or noise levels will 'not be a significant impact. C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant. As noted in response Xl.a above, the proposed would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at residential uses in the vicinity of the project due to stationary- source or mobile- sources noise generated by the one single - family dwelling. Impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than significant impact d). Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site's access roadways. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on -site construction operations. The local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of on -site construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in phases, each of which have a mix of different types of equipment and, consequently, different noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. 14 Construction of the project is estimated to take approximately 15 months and noise generated by construction activities will cease once construction is completed. Noise related impacts are typical to the construction of a single - family dwelling and the City of Newport Beach limits the hours of construction to weekdays 7:00 AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, excluding Sundays and federal holidays. Impacts are less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. The project site located approximately three miles from John Wayne Airport. The project site is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL Noise Contour of the John Wayne AELUP as established by the Orange County ALUC. No impact. No mitigation required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No impact. There are no private airstrips within at least five miles of the project site. No impact. No mitigation required. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. 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? Less than significant impact (a — c). The introduction of one dwelling unit will not induce substantial population growth as the State Department of Finance reports the average household size in Newport Beach is 2.97. Affordable housing will be addressed by the payment of an in -lieu fee. 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? o Schools? o Other public facilities? Less than significant impact. Police and Fire Departments report that the project will not result in a substantial increase in demand for public safety services. The proposed project will be 15 assessed fees for the school district, parks and sanitation to off -set any impacts to these public facilities. EIPmN*41 N CF_\IPL a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? opportunities? Less than significant impact (a & b). The 1.9 -acre site will have a large, relatively level building pad that will provide adequate open space for recreational activities. In addition, the Big Canyon Planned Community has four acres of open turf. The City of Newport Beach requires a park fee for new dwelling units, which the City uses for purchasing new park land and upgrading existing facilities. Therefore, the project will not have adverse effect on recreation facilities. XV. TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFIC 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 trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than significant impact with Mitigation (a -d). The City of Newport Beach's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to any traffic load and capacity, levels of service, or result in an increase in traffic levels that will result in a safety risk on the existing roads. Mitigation Measure. The Traffic Engineer will require during the plan check review phase that the proposed project to be designed to accommodate vehicular turnaround on -site. Backing out on to Big Canyon Drive is prohibited. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No impact. Police and Fire Departments concluded that the proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. At the time of plan check for building permits, the Plan Check Engineer in the Building Department will check for Building Code compliance and emergency ingress and egress from inside the dwelling unit to a safe outdoor location. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No impact. The proposed single - family will be required to provide adequate parking on -site per the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Planning Department will plan check the parking proposed as part of the plan check process. 16 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project does not propose to alter any existing bus turnouts or established alternative transportation programs within the City. The City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance would not apply to this project since it is residential. No impact. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetland), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Less than significant impact (a -h). The proposed project has been reviewed by the City of Newport Beach's Utilities Department. They provided comments back stating the dwelling will need water and sewer services installed per City standard. Therefore, no mitigations are necessary. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or prehistory? 17 Less than significant impact with mitigation. The subject site is currently undeveloped and was used as a dumping site for unused soil from nearby construction projects. The project does have the possibility to reduce the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher; however, with the mitigation stated above in the Biological Resources section, the project will have less than a significant impact on the environment. Although the subject site has been disturbed by adding soil from nearby projects and the potential for discovery of examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory is minimal, the potential for subsurface discovery remains and has been mitigated to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary. 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.) Less than significant impact. No cumulative impacts are anticipated with this or other projects. All project impacts are less that significant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. No other projects have been proposed in the vicinity of the project site that would result in significant impacts. C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant impact. The Initial Study reviewed the proposed project's potential impacts. As discussed in the respective sections of this document, implantation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant impacts. However, where impacts were to be potentially significant, mitigation has been provided that will reduce the impact to less than significant. Therefore, the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No further mitigation measures are necessary. M